Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'College Football Soundoff' started by Red Burns Brighter, Aug 10, 2018.
I say yes. Most notable the Sherman M4A3E8 or Easy 8.
I think pretty much every single type of German Panzer was superior in almost every way except cost and number available
That would be the T34. Best overall tank of the war. Many future tanks were designed based off of the T34.
Nah. They broke down at a higher rate and required more service than typical armor. Also, Hitler had a weird boner about making things huge, and the later designs taxed the crap out of German suspension/engine/powertrain designs, not to mention that moving those things over ancient cart bridges, narrow Euro roads, and soft ground often bogged them down.
The Germans called the Sherman “the Tommy Cooker”... Pretty telling
Not even close. T34 was the best. The Sherman was successful because it was available in huge numbers, but it lacked sufficient armor, the gun was undersized on the early models, and a single hit from any of the German tanks would take it out.
Also nicknamed the Ronson....
T34 with angled armor which basically revolutionalized how tanks are still being built. It allowed more armor with more weight left for weapon platforms
Panther had best gun and better armor.
The Sherman was built to outmaneuver rather than take German tanks on head to head. T34 was an all around badass.
despite mechanical reliability problems the Tiger was the best tank. However the Germans were only able to produce 1,300. Germany never had more than 300 Tigers operational in field at any time. With that said the most significant to the outcome of the war was the T-34.
No, it was great in numbers, plus being maintance friendly made it great as well. By 1944 the Sherman 75mm and later 76mm was inadequate compared to the tanks it was facing. Overall I would rank the Russian T-34 as a better tank and even the German panzer 4. The victors write history and the Sherman tank has benefited from this greatly..!
In the winter of 44 the British placed a 90mm on the Sherman with great results. Perhaps if the Sherman had been given a 90mm from the outset it could have held its own going tank on tank with the Germans, but still lacking slopped armor and having a very high silhouette the Sherman was nothing more than a mass produced tank.
The German "Panther" tank was probably the best medium tank of the war.
Yeah, I looked it up.
Agree with this.
Tank for tank it was nowhere close to being the best, outclassed by most German and Russian tanks. The great thing about them though was the massive numbers that were produced as well as their reliability of not breaking down, and their ease of maintenance when problems did arise. Shermans couldn't penetrate Panthers or Tigers from the front or side at any type of range and they weren't closing to a range they could without being obliterated by the German's superior guns. There were certainly two different schools of thought between German and allied tanks. German tanks were brilliantly engineered yet expensive and slow to produce while allied tanks were rather basic and simple yet cheap and quick to produce.
Quantity had a quality all its own.
It is the philosophy on how they where produced and used.
I once had a convo with a school buddy who was a tanker in the US Army. I admit, while I have read hundreds of books on WWII, very few of them were armor and Army-centric.
What he told me was that the Russians, Americans and British did was design tanks suited for the battlefields they'd mostly fight on - but the Germans didn't have that "luxury". The Allies could out-produce no matter what (so they went with simpler designs, easy to produce massively) but could also design tanks more to their own theaters whereas the Germans were fighting on 3 different fronts yett couldn't afford the diversity each theater demanded. So they decided bigger and higher design quality was better because they'd always be at a numerical disadvantage no matter what terrain they'd be on.
I took that to mean that you put a Sherman on the plains of Russia, or a T-34 in the hedgerows, or give the Panther and Tiger numerically even match-ups against whomever...each tanks' success rates would have been a lot different than what they wound up being versus where and how they ultimately wound up being used in.
I dunno if my friend was correct...but it makes sense.
Also to consider...just think if the German tanks had massive air cover behind them all the way through (or had arrived much earlier and in numbers)...or Shermans and T-34's with practically zero air cover.
This is true and the fact that the USSR won the war due to producing 10-1 T-34s overwhelmed the Germans. However, the question of best medium tank between Sherman, T-34 and Panther or any other WWII medium tank has the edge going to the Panther. Panthers killed 4 or 5 T-34s before being knocked out.
T34 and it’s not close. Their speed and sheer numbers make it so. Their Christie suspension system is an American invention that was turned down by the US Army and sold to the Russians and is similar to what you find on modern tanks today. It revolutionized the speed of armor.
You’re actually very much wrong.
Armor, no way,
The 3” gun even with tungsten core rounds, could not penetrate the frontal hull armor of a Panther.
Treads, the panther had wider treads and hence a lower ground weight than the Sherman.
This graphic is not entirely correct. The frontal armor of the Panther was sloped at 60 degrees. Makining it more effective than the frontal armor of a Tiger 1 tank
I think not
Shermans are complete and utter cheap garbage compared to the Tiger. It would often take dozens of Shermans to take down a single Tiger tank. Shermans were not even able to pierce it's armor.
The Tiger is the deadliest tank ever made. Just listen to any allied tank Crew from WW2 on youtube.
That is the biggest lie in WWII history. If you did research you’d know.
A Sherman M4 with a 76mm cannon could and did penetrate many Panther tanks.
Their is a lot of misinformation about the Sherman tank. When America entired WWII the Sherman dominated its African campaign. The Panzer tanks where no match for the Original Sherman M4. Unlike popular opinion after the book “Death Trap” one of the most popular tank books of WWII history. People now think the Sherman M4 was a POS that was useless and inferior to every tank on the battlefield but America produced so many of them that it was able to overcome its horrible engineering and beat its opponents by overwhelming numbers.
This is simply not true. A Sherman M4 is the only tank of WWII to fight in every campaign. From Africa, to the doors of Russia, to Germany, to Japan. Literally everywhere. And it always performed at a high and effective level.
Contrary to popular belief, the Sherman was not “out armored”. It’s True however that later on it could no longer penetrate the front of new model Tigers or Panthers with just a 75Mm low velocity cannon at medium to long ranges. But that was all changed when we put in the newly developed 76mm high velocity cannon.
When you hear someone say a single Tiger tank averaged a dozen Sherman kills for every Tiger Loss...... not true. Not even close to true and in reality many times a Sherman squadron would take out a panzer squadron that included some Tigers with minimal casualties.
The Sherman M4A3E8 was just as Armored as the tiger in the front. The Tiger I average thickness in the front of the hull was 4 inches. The average thickness of a Sherman M4A3E8 was 3.6 inches because it’s armor was sloped. The Sherman Easy 8 was also able to kill tigers from range over 800 meters which was the average engagement of long distance tank battles during WWII.
And in WWII America had the least armor casualties of WWII at 1,470. Much lower then the British. Much lower then the Germans and much lower then the Russians. How could this be if the Sherman was hot garbage like so claim? Doesn’t make any sense.
Not to mention the Sherman M4 was by far and away the most reliable tank of WWII.
The Sherman M4 had good armor and safety capabilities. And has decent firepower. Sherman also was used in the Korean War where it preformed surprisingly well once again.
The Tiger was over engineered just like most things German. The M1A2 is the best tank the world has ever seen even with it’s German gun.
And a final out drive that absolutely sucked... It is very likely more broke down and were destroyed by their crews than were lost as a result of enemy action...
T34/85.... Diesel rules!
True the Tiger and Panther had thicker armor with better firepower. But neither was in production when the Sherman was being developed. Keep in mind that the mainstay of German armor from November 1942 to May 1945 were variants of the Mark III and Mark IV which the Sherman was comparable against. In the end the Germans had the advantage of being on the defensive which gave the panzer crews the advantage of being able to fire first.
You are all over the board with this post. First of all, German Panzers were varying sizes and times of manufacturer. A Panzer 1 is a small tank and a Panzer V (Panther) is a medium tank. Any Sherman is a medium tank. A Tiger is a Heavy tank.
The Panther tank (Panzer 5) was made in response to the upgraded T-34s. It was superior to them and any other Medium tank in the war. The tiger tank is a heavy tank and therefore better armor and bigger gun. The USSR built some heavy tanks too, but I don't feel like looking them up.
The Sherman was built and always stayed a medium tank. The "Easy 8" was an upgrade in gun and armor, but could not compare to a Tiger and was also inferior to a Panther.
But the Easy 8 did compare to the Tiger and Panther. The Sherman M4A3E8 was more then adequate to stand against the Panzers (All of them). And the Tiger I. Maybe not the Tiger II. But everything else it would have faced during WWII the Sherman Easy 8 could take out every other Tank from the front hull at long distance ranges (meaning around 800 meters). The Sherman (all Sherman tanks), had the best outcome of all armored military’s during WWII. The US military had only 1,470 armored deaths. Far less then Britain, Russia and Germany. The US also gave thousands of Sherman tanks to Britain and Russia (because Russia armor took a beating after Kursk. The Casualties for those 2 countries with the Sherman was less then the tanks they mainly used. Meaning you were safer in a Sherman. Found this video and he hits on many of these arguments.
Yeah but in terms of deadliest tanks ever, the Panzer IV has destroyed more enemy tanks than any other.
Really the Abrams was probably used against other tanks only during Desert Storm against ancient soviet tanks and unskilled crews. Might be a better tank compared to its competition, i'm not sure, but there's not much evidence to pull from unlike the Panzer
Russia does still use some tanks of that era. Why people still fear Russia and that outdated military is beyond me.
Yes and no.... Most of the tests indicating the 75mm and even 76mm M4 rounds penetrating, or even sufficiently "Spalling" the armor on impact, were performed at ranges in the area of 350 yards there are some out there with penetration at 650 yards though... Most tank battles in the west were engaged on the average of 600 yards....
The practice of "Hull Downing" armor exaggerated a lot of kill ratios in many of the battles. It would probably have been a bad idea for the M4 to tackle the Panzer V or VI out in the open at 1,000m. As for the Panzer III and IV in wide use by the Germans early on the M4 was as good and probably better. One thing that stood against the M4 was its tall profile that made it more visible and subject to rolling over.
The Russians thought quite highly of the M4 especially the ones with the 76mm and diesel power plant... They prized the reliability and ease of maintenance for the M4 and copied the optics as best they could. (Not because the Soviet optics were lacking. They were not. Soviet optics might have been the best in the War, but the M4s optics were real close and MUCH easier to produce!) Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery... The Soviets only saw about 4,000 which was probably about one month of the Soviet production of the T34s...
Agreed, people WAY overhype russia's military capability.
Their economy is worse than individual US States. They can't fund any kind of real military. It's still better than lots of countries, but their gear is garbage compared to ours and western europes
And often "Hull Down"..... A sizable advantage....
They seem to have their way with most of Europe when there is a tiff over there...
Yeah historically they have been a tough out due to having a large population and a willingness to throw all of them into a meat grinder.
Modern Russia has a small, declining population and a military straight out of 1985