Were Soviet Tanks Ever Better Than Western Tanks?

[Zardnaar]

As the title says.

On paper Soviets tanks have always looked great through to when the west developed things such as the Leopard 2/Challenger/Abrams.

However on the field of battle they gave generally always had horrific losses from WW2 through to the Gulf War.

Pretty much every single Soviet tank has had massive problems that you can't really fix.

1. Cramped/bad ergonomics.
The T-34 had very sloped armor while the T55, T62, 64, 72 and 80 are all kinda small. This means it's often difficult and uncomfortable for the crews to operate in combat conditions. The T-34 for example had a fairly low rate of fire relative to German tanks in the war.

2. Ammo Storage
Late model Sherman's had wet ammo racks and room to store the ammo somewhat safely. Soviet tanks have a tendency to detonate killing the crew and writing the tank off from WW2 through to the Gulf Wars.

3. Sights and targeting.
It's no big secret the Germans had better sights than the Soviets in WW2. This has continued through to Gulf War 1 with laser rangefinders. Can't see something can't hit it.

A common excuse is the Soviets often didn't export their best stuff but the guns were usually the same, the differences were in equipment and shells.

However on an actual battlefield the western tanks were not always the best models either. For example Israeli Super Sherman's with a short 105mm gave a good account of themselves vs T-55 and 62s. In Korea WW2 Sherman's achieved a 2-1 kill ratio vs similar WW2 armor. In Gulf War 1 the US marines using M60's armed with L7 105mm wrecked Iraqi T-72s that were theoretically more modern than the T-60s.

The Soviet Medium tanks /MBTs also had reasonably thin armor hence the detonation problems. Nato tanks in battlefield condition s penetrated the turrets.

They did have heavy tanks in the late 1940s to the early 50s. IS 1/2 seemed ok but the IS3,4,7,8 were all fatally flawed being relegated to defense duties. A few IS3s did see combat post WW2 but underperformed even with upgrades.

So fairly doom and gloom perhaps.

However there was a very narrow window where the T-55 was the best tank in the world. The L7 gun didn't turn up until 1959 or so iirc. The T-64 also wasn't exported but spent most of the 1960s having problems ironed out.

So mid 50s to late 60s was about the best window available for the Soviet tanks where they had a comparative superiority. The T-55 was good vs anything the west had until they upgunned to the L7.

Sure the Soviet tanks never really got used in their intended role. But consider the humble Sherman. It served in the desert, western and eastern fronts, the pacific and Korea. Upgunned Super Sherman's served decades after the end of WW2 and knocked out T-55s used by the Arab countries.

If you were a tanker IRL would you really want to drive a Soviet tank into battle?

 

[Sarin]

Comparing them 1 on 1 is fundamentally flawed. Soviet designs emphasized ease of production by unskilled labour and little use of strategic resources like wolfram, titanium, aluminium and high quality steel alloys, at expense of things like crew survivability and comfort. In their eyes, it doesn't help the enemy if they destroy 3 Soviet tanks for every one of theirs if Soviets can produce 5 tanks for every enemy one. It served them well in WWII, and remained a viable strategy throughout Cold war. If you look at the numbers, Soviet Union and its satellites consistently fielded much larger armoured regiments than US and their allies throughout the war.

But that's also the reason why I wouldn't want to use one. The odds of being one of the unlucky ones would be much higher.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Soviet export models had inferior ammunition and older features to them were facing the state of the art allied tanks. I dont think the Iraq tanks were capable of penerating the fronts of any of the western tanks unless at close range.
Plus the allies exploited the inferior night optics and their more advanced optics to full effect with a night attack.

T-34 designer died in a desperate attempt to prove hes prototype to Stalin. Many of the advances and fixes were also held back by Stalin, in order to keep the production numbers high, Ivan paid a high price in deaths
Eventually the design problems and flaws would be solved and become a very good medium tank.

It did perform well in Korean war when it faced off Sherman, Then the US brought up Pershings and that was the end of all of them. Once all the T-34s were destroyed the US went back to the Sherman

 

[amadeus]

Mark Felton’s history of a T-54 taken during the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. Great YouTube channel with top-notch content.

If we’re measuring superiority by individual crew safety and comfort, I’d go for the Western/NATO armies. In terms of total battle efficacy, it depends.

 

[Zardnaar]

Mark Felton’s history of a T-54 taken during the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. Great YouTube channel with top-notch content.

If we’re measuring superiority by individual crew safety and comfort, I’d go for the Western/NATO armies. In terms of total battle efficacy, it depends.

Just watched that and posted this lol.

 

[Zardnaar]

Comparing them 1 on 1 is fundamentally flawed. Soviet designs emphasized ease of production by unskilled labour and little use of strategic resources like wolfram, titanium, aluminium and high quality steel alloys, at expense of things like crew survivability and comfort. In their eyes, it doesn't help the enemy if they destroy 3 Soviet tanks for every one of theirs if Soviets can produce 5 tanks for every enemy one. It served them well in WWII, and remained a viable strategy throughout Cold war. If you look at the numbers, Soviet Union and its satellites consistently fielded much larger armoured regiments than US and their allies throughout the war.

But that's also the reason why I wouldn't want to use one. The odds of being one of the unlucky ones would be much higher.

Going by the encounter byers they did have I think the destroyed more than 5-1.

Israelis ripped them a new one as well.

 

[Lexicus]

The T-34 and KV-1 were so markedly superior to the tanks the Germans were fielding in 1941 that they were responsible, in large measure, for the design of both the Tiger and the Panther. The T-34/85 was one of the most successful tank models of the war. Western Allied tanks (with a few exceptions) sent by lend-lease were considered so inferior to Soviet designs that they did not see much frontline combat.

 

[Zardnaar]

The T-34 and KV-1 were so markedly superior to the tanks the Germans were fielding in 1941 that they were responsible, in large measure, for the design of both the Tiger and the Panther. The T-34/85 was one of the most successful tank models of the war. Western Allied tanks (with a few exceptions) sent by lend-lease were considered so inferior to Soviet designs that they did not see much frontline combat.

Sherman's saw use in guards units.

British tanks not very popular though.

1941 T-34 looked good on paper but was effectively blind lacking a cupola and radios in most tanks.

They had a periscope with bad visibility.

There a case of a KV1 being shot something like 27 times.

The German guns couldn't penetrate it. However the KV couldn't return fire because it was essentially blind.

Once the Germans upgunned the T-34 armor wasn't that good (sherman had thicker armor) and still had problems.

It's one reason why they list so many of them. Sherman armor was sloped at the front but the box shape is a lot more comfortable/safer for the crew.

Similar idea with the Stug and Panzer IV. In combat conditions they could get off several shots to the T-34.

 

[red_elk]

The 6th Panzer Division's vanguard entered directly into the well-prepared Soviet ambush. The gunner in Kolobanov's KV-1, Andrej Usov, knocked out the leading German tank with its first shot. The German column assumed that the tank had hit an anti-tank mine and, failing to realize that they were being ambushed, stopped. This gave to Usov the opportunity to destroy the second tank. The Germans realized they were under attack but were unable to locate the origin of the shots. While the German tanks fired blindly, Kolobanov's tank knocked out the trailing German tank, boxing in the entire column.
Although the Germans now knew where they were being attacked from, they could not spot Lieutenant Kolobanov's tank, and now attempted to engage an unseen enemy. The German tanks got bogged down when they moved off the road onto the surrounding soft ground making them easy targets. Twenty-two German tanks and two towed artillery pieces were knocked out by Kolobanov's tank before it ran out of ammunition.[1] Kolobanov ordered in another KV-1, and 21 more German tanks were destroyed before the half-hour battle ended. A total of 43 German tanks had been destroyed by the five Soviet KV-1s (two more remained in reserve).

For their actions, Lieutenant Kolobanov was awarded the Order of the Red Banner and Andrej Usov was awarded the Order of Lenin.

The Soviet victory was the result of a well-planned ambush on advantageous ground and superiority of weapons. Most of the German tanks in this battle were light tanks armed with only 37 mm guns. The German tank guns had neither the range nor the power of the 76 mm main gun of a KV-1. After the battle, the crew of No. 864 counted a total of 156 hits on their tank, none of which had penetrated the armor. The narrower tracks of the German tanks caused them to become trapped in the swampy ground.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinoviy_Kolobanov

 

[Commodore]

The T-34 and KV-1 were so markedly superior to the tanks the Germans were fielding in 1941 that they were responsible, in large measure, for the design of both the Tiger and the Panther. The T-34/85 was one of the most successful tank models of the war. Western Allied tanks (with a few exceptions) sent by lend-lease were considered so inferior to Soviet designs that they did not see much frontline combat.

This is all true, but let's not forget that Russian tank-building knowledge largely came from Germany. Before Hitler rose to power, the Germans were secretly building and testing tanks in the Soviet Union. In exchange for the use of their land for testing, the Germans agreed to share their techniques with Soviet engineers which jumpstarted the Soviet tank industry.

Also the Christie Suspension that Soviet/Russian tank builders are so fond of using was developed by an American engineer.

So while Soviet tanks in WWII were superior, one could argue that it was because they were just building on knowledge they had gained from the West. During the Cold War, when they really didn't have access to Western knowledge anymore, their tank designs slowly degraded and became decidedly inferior to Western designs. I think a large contributing factor to this was the Soviet Union falling into the classic trap of assuming the next major war will be fought like the last one. They were preparing for another WWII style war with massive tank formations pushing forward and clashing with each other and built their tanks accordingly. They invested little into the idea of "force multipliers" and the "less is more" high-tech style of warfare the West was moving towards.

 

[Zardnaar]

1941 is still a good window where you could argue Soviet designs were better.

Very narrow window

 

[Zardnaar]

This is all true, but let's not forget that Russian tank-building knowledge largely came from Germany. Before Hitler rose to power, the Germans were secretly building and testing tanks in the Soviet Union. In exchange for the use of their land for testing, the Germans agreed to share their techniques with Soviet engineers which jumpstarted the Soviet tank industry.

Also the Christie Suspension that Soviet tank builders are so fond of using was developed by an American engineer.

So while Soviet tanks in WWII were superior, one could argue that it was because they were just building on knowledge they had gained from the West. During the Cold War, when they really didn't have access to Western knowledge anymore, their tank designs slowly degraded and became decidedly inferior to Western designs. I think a large contributing factor to this was the Soviet Union falling into the classic trap of assuming the next major war will be fought like the last one. They were preparing for another WWII style war with massive tank formations pushing forward and clashing with each other and built their tanks accordingly. They invested little into the idea of "force multipliers" and the "less is more" high-tech style of warfare the West was moving towards.

The big problems I see with this approach.

USA ended up with a bigger population. Losing lots of men not such a great idea.

In wars they did fight the western tanks killed them I'm a high ratio. And their tanks could also be mass produced.

Soviets tanks designed for derp rush to France. Not much fun depression or elevation. Big problem when they got used defensively.

Israelis often didn't have the best tanks vs Soviet armor and still did good with 20 ponder centurions, super sherman's etc against contemporary tanks.

On the defensive though but kinda what they were designed for.

 

[EgonSpengler]

iirc, the Israelis were ahead of the curve in providing for the protection and survivability of their crews, although I don't remember any details of the Merkava's design without Googling it. I do wonder if any of their engineers were Russian, though, or if the Israeli tanks borrowed or developed any Russian design principles.

I had to skim the article about Kolobanov to refresh my memory, but two things leap to mind: First, that tank and TD development during the war was very rapid and there was a lot of punch-and-counterpunch in the designs, a lot of adapting to overcome enemy designs. I don't know if any war has ever had such rapid design evolution. In 1941, the Germans would've been using a lot of Pz IIIs and IVs with 50mm guns, so I think this battle by Kolobanov was likely in one of the periods when the German tanks weren't up to getting through the Soviet armor in a slugfest. Second, this battle was a slugfest. Kolobanov ambushed and trapped a German column from concealment, disabling the lead tank and the trailing tank. The Germans were designed to break through, encircle, flank and hit soft targets, but they were pinned and unable to use their superior mobility. Meanwhile, the KV-1 was practically a mobile bunker. The Wiki notes that the Germans couldn't even locate the enemy tanks, so I'd guess the Russians were probably firing from a "hull-down" position, from behind vegetation, using either a concealed forward observer or a periscope. That's not tank design, so much as a murderous ambush.

Of course good tactics is always about maximizing your own strengths and avoiding the enemy's, so any time a KV-1 commander could get Pz IIIs and Pz IVs into a "bar-brawl", the KV-1 would always be the superior design. That's what happened in France in 1940. The French tanks weren't bad designs, for what they were, but the Germans out-played them. Likewise the British at El Alamein (at least, I think it was El Alamein); the German tank commander didn't think the Brits could get behind him, because he had a steep cliff there, but the Brits had some Churchills, with those enormous, exposed treads that stick out ahead of the hull, a relic of the days when tanks were expected to haul themselves across WW1-style battlefields that looked like the surface of the Moon, climbing out of trenches and meter-deep craters at the walking speed of a riflemen, while under fire (I imagine the Churchill's engine and suspension produced some serious torque, as well, more like a tractor than a race car).

 

[Lexicus]

Sherman's saw use in guards units.

Not until late 1944, though, by which time it didn't really matter.

1941 T-34 looked good on paper but was effectively blind lacking a cupola and radios in most tanks.

This came from the general shortage of advanced electronics in the Soviet Union at that time; it is not a deficiency of the tank per se. The T-34 was in fact so good that the Nazis considered making an exact copy. Most of the features of the T-34 were incorporated into later German tanks. One key point was the wide tracks dispersing the vehicle's weight and allowing it to move on almost any ground - German firsthound accounts from the early days of Barbarossa are full of terror at the T-34s ability to travel across swamp and mud faster than the Germans could even traverse their turrets!

Once the Germans upgunned the T-34 armor wasn't that good (sherman had thicker armor) and still had problems.

Sherman was still more vulnerable than T-34 due to its higher profile and higher center of gravity. The box shape came from the side armor being straight rather than sloped, making it more vulnerable to penetration.

In the later stages of the war both Allied and Soviet tanks were far more commonly facing handheld anti-tank rockets than German tanks which were (relatively) few in number and not adequately fueled or maintained. Both Sherman and T-34 armor was insufficient to defeat those rocket warheads and improvisations had to be made (e.g. stacking the Sherman's front armor with sandbags or installing spaced armor plates). However I have read (in a pro-American propaganda book about the Korean War, no less) that American Bazookas were unable to penetrate the T-34's front armor in Korea.

This is all true, but let's not forget that Russian tank-building knowledge largely came from Germany. Before Hitler rose to power, the Germans were secretly building and testing tanks in the Soviet Union. In exchange for the use of their land for testing, the Germans agreed to share their techniques with Soviet engineers which jumpstarted the Soviet tank industry.

While it is true the Soviets received technical assistance from Germany it is quite a stretch to say that Soviet tank-building knowledge "largely came from Germany." The Germans were not even aware of the existence of the KV and T-34 tanks until after their invasion of the Soviet Union. Nasty surprise to watch their anti-tank rounds bouncing off.

So while Soviet tanks in WWII were superior, one could argue that it was because they were just building on knowledge they had gained from the West. During the Cold War, when they really didn't have access to Western knowledge anymore, their tank designs slowly degraded and became decidedly inferior to Western designs. I think a large contributing factor to this was the Soviet Union falling into the classic trap of assuming the next major war will be fought like the last one. They were preparing for another WWII style war with massive tank formations pushing forward and clashing with each other and built their tanks accordingly. They invested little into the idea of "force multipliers" and the "less is more" high-tech style of warfare the West was moving towards.

This is all true, of course.
And one-for-one comparisons of tanks are a bit pointless in any case. The German tanks were most inferior to the Soviet tanks in 1941-42 and those years also saw the greatest German advances in the entire war, because German tactics were able to overcome the technical disparities. It doesn't matter how thick the frontal armor of a T-34 is when you can lure it into an ambush to be destroyed by an 88mm armor-piercing round at point-blank range, or drop an armor-piercing Stuka bomb on the weak top armor.

Similarly, in the first Gulf War the great majority of Iraqi tanks were not destroyed by Allied tanks but by helicopters and other aircraft. Same on the Western Front of WW2 - German tanks were superior to the Sherman in straight-up combat, but it didn't matter when any open movement by the German armor would summon hundreds of Allied aircraft to destroy them.

 

[Zardnaar]

Not until late 1944, though, by which time it didn't really matter.



This came from the general shortage of advanced electronics in the Soviet Union at that time; it is not a deficiency of the tank per se. The T-34 was in fact so good that the Nazis considered making an exact copy. Most of the

features of the T-34 were incorporated into later German tanks.



Sherman was still more vulnerable than T-34 due to its higher profile and higher center of gravity. The box shape came from the side armor being straight rather than sloped, making it more vulnerable to penetration by armor-piercing rounds.

In the later stages of the war both Allied and Soviet tanks were far more commonly facing handheld anti-tank rockets than German tanks which were (relatively) few in number and not adequately fueled or maintained. Both Sherman and T-34 armor was insufficient to defeat those rocket warheads and improvisations had to be made (e.g. stacking the Sherman's front armor with sandbags or installing spaced armor plates). However I have read (in a pro-American propaganda book about the Korean War, no less) that American Bazookas were unable to penetrate the T-34's front armor in Korea.



While it is true the Soviets received technical assistance from Germany it is quite a stretch to say that Soviet tank-building knowledge "largely came from Germany." The Germans were not even aware of the existence of the KV and T-34 tanks until after their invasion of the Soviet Union. Nasty surprise to watch their anti-tank rounds bouncing off.



This is all true, of course.
And one-for-one comparisons of tanks are a bit pointless in any case. The German tanks were most inferior to the Soviet tanks in 1941-42 and those years also saw the greatest German advances in the entire war, because German tactics were able to overcome the technical disparities. It doesn't matter how thick the frontal armor of a T-34 is when you can lure it into an ambush to be destroyed by an 88mm armor-piercing round at point-blank range, or drop an armor-piercing Stuka bomb on the weak top armor.

Similarly, in the first Gulf War the great majority of Iraqi tanks were not destroyed by Allied tanks but by helicopters and other aircraft. Same on the Western Front of WW2 - German tanks were superior to the Sherman in straight-up combat, but it didn't matter when any open movement by the German armor would summon hundreds of Allied aircraft to destroy them.

It's a bit if a myth the German tanks getting smashed by air craft.

They did smash up trucks, soft targets and supplies.

The CAS craft did cause crews to abandon the tanks.

Sherman was good vs m/ost things the Germans had except the big cats.

They only encountered tigers a handful of times though, 3 iirc and one of them I think they caught the tiger on the train.

Tiger fear was more real than the tigers. Most if the time they didn't encounter enemy tanks.

In a cases I think anti tank guns were more dangerous than opposing tanks.

 

[Lexicus]

1941 is still a good window where you could argue Soviet designs were better.

Very narrow window

Tiger tanks (earliest design which can really be said to be equal or superior to T-34, and was still inferior in some respects e.g. the tank's enormous weight) didn't see service on the eastern Front in large numbers until 1943. Ditto the Panther which at first suffered from such poor mechanical reliability that in its first introduction (at Kursk) it was considered almost a liability to the Germans.

In 1941 and even into 42 the Germans were still fielding significant numbers of Panzer IIs.

 

[EgonSpengler]

While it is true the Soviets received technical assistance from Germany it is quite a stretch to say that Soviet tank-building knowledge "largely came from Germany." The Germans were not even aware of the existence of the KV and T-34 tanks until after their invasion of the Soviet Union. Nasty surprise to watch their anti-tank rounds bouncing off.

If I remember correctly, the "VK" series of tanks that one can drive in World of Tanks were German prototypes that deliberately incorporated some of the design features they saw in the T-34.

This is the VK 30.02, as recreated in World of Tanks, and you can see the sloped front and side hull plates and the turret with the narrow front and the angled sides. Historically, I think the tank was a Daimler-Benz design using a Krupp turret, and was intended to replace the Pz III & Pz IV as a 30-ton breakthrough tank, but it never went into production. Wikipedia says that the Germans were also looking at a version of Krupp's angled turret for the Tiger tanks.

Spoiler :

EDIT: Recalling World of Tanks, I remember that the Soviet heavy tanks had a low-slung design, giving them a low silhouette but making their guns unable to depress very far. German and American tanks in that game are much more effective at using "hull-down" positions on the reverse side of a hill or at the top of a cliff, but they're harder to hide behind terrain because they're taller.

EDIT 2: I meant the IS series, not the KV series, which had the silhouette of a barn.

 

[Lexicus]

The Tiger II had two turret variations, one designed by Porsche and one designed by Henschel. IIRC the Porsche design was more curved, the Henschel design was more angular.

 

[Commodore]

In wars they did fight the western tanks killed them I'm a high ratio. And their tanks could also be mass produced

The only major post-WWII tank battle between Soviet and Western tanks that comes to mind is one of the last battles of the Gulf War between US M1s and Iraqi T-80s. The M1s didn't suffer a single loss to enemy fire and the Iraqi T-80s were annihilated. Of course that victory is caveated by the fact that the battle took place at night and the US tank crews were equipped with night vision while the Iraqi crews were not. So the Iraqi crews could only shoot at where they saw muzzle flashes, and since the Abrams is very good at shooting while on the move, they'd be gone by the time the Iraqis shot back.

While it is true the Soviets received technical assistance from Germany it is quite a stretch to say that Soviet tank-building knowledge "largely came from Germany." The Germans were not even aware of the existence of the KV and T-34 tanks until after their invasion of the Soviet Union. Nasty surprise to watch their anti-tank rounds bouncing off

Of course. What I meant was the Soviet Union took the concepts they learned from Germany and improved upon them. They also got to see German tank designs in action and get an in-depth look into what they were capable of and what directions the Germans were going before they even had to fight them. And all because Germany wanted to violate the Treaty of Versailles in secret.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I was also thinking that the Jagdpanzer IV's design was inspired by the SU-85, but skimming Wikipedia, it looks like they were developed at the same time, more or less, so I doubt they would've influenced each other. I guess by that time both sides saw the value of a low-slung, casemate TD with a sloped forward plate.