Were Soviet Tanks Ever Better Than Western Tanks?

[Zardnaar]

It was a decent medium tank for a moment. However, toward the end of the war it was completely inadequate and in desperate need of being replaced. I still stand by my previous state, under-armoured, under-gunned overrated terrible tank.

Had better armor than PzIV and T-34. Late war Sherman's had the 76mm and wet ammo racks.

Notice after the war the allies didn't use much in the way of tank tech from the Germans? They already had developed better tanks. Pershing had a 90mm Germans couldn't get an 88mm into a Panther or PZIV.

 

[Strong Reaction]

Better armor ? How did you quantify that other than just claim it? At best the armor of the T 34, Pz IV and M4 are roughly the equivalent. At the height of it service 42-45 (the Panther came out in 1943) It, the M4 was obsolete, undergunned, underarmored, had a high profile (large target easy to hit) and the side of the Sherman is not sloped armor its flat as f*ck and is as previously stated apparently not well loved by the men who used them:

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/4c/b5/26/4cb526c4c39c2276b057234cae7ee809.jpg

There is irony in the picture above, the Sherman pictured looks like it is a Firefly ,an M4 with a 17 pound gun. Had the American added a effective main gun to the M4 like the British did I would not be making the argument against it.

You claim the Allies did not use much of the German tank tech post war I don't believe without some proof. Its true the Germans did not get an 88mm into a Panther or Pz IV, apparently they didn't need to (see below)

Aside from that the 7.5 cm KwK 42 on a Panther was plenty powerful enough to penetrate any armor the allies could field Pershing included. Pershing front armor 102mm
https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/us/m26_pershing.php

"The 7.5 cm KwK 42 had an extremely high muzzle velocity, which allowed for exceptional accuracy and penetration of armour plate, The 7.5 cm KwK 42 was even more powerful than the main armament of the infamous Tiger tank 8.8 cm KwK 36. However due to the increased muzzle velocity, a new armour piercing shell was designed. The main ammunition round used was the Panzergranate 39/42 which could penetrate up to 138 mm of armour plate at a range of 100 metres and 124 mm at a range of 500 metres" https://www.wehrmacht-history.com/heer/panzer-armaments/7-5-cm-kwk-42.html

 

[Strong Reaction]

i don't know if there is a time period which answers the question in real history, but i have heard of a few in war thunder

though generally speaking, military hardware is purpose-built for a job. so how much something is "better" vs not can be measured by comparing vehicles directly, but also by how closely they met their objective for their cost

That is an astute observation.Inserting that thinking into the conversion about the Sherman, it did eventually get the job done. However, the price paid in men and material was steep.

 

[Zardnaar]

Better armor ? How did you quantify that other than just claim it? At best the armor of the T 34, Pz IV and M4 are roughly the equivalent. At the height of it service 42-45 (the Panther came out in 1943) It, the M4 was obsolete, undergunned, underarmored, had a high profile (large target easy to hit) and the side of the Sherman is not sloped armor its flat as f*ck and is as previously stated apparently not well loved by the men who used them:

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/4c/b5/26/4cb526c4c39c2276b057234cae7ee809.jpg

There is irony in the picture above, the Sherman pictured looks like it is a Firefly ,an M4 with a 17 pound gun. Had the American added a effective main gun to the M4 like the British did I would not be making the argument against it.

You claim the Allies did not use much of the German tank tech post war I don't believe without some proof. Its true the Germans did not get an 88mm into a Panther or Pz IV, apparently they didn't need to (see below)

Aside from that the 7.5 cm KwK 42 on a Panther was plenty powerful enough to penetrate any armor the allies could field Pershing included. Pershing front armor 102mm
https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/us/m26_pershing.php

"The 7.5 cm KwK 42 had an extremely high muzzle velocity, which allowed for exceptional accuracy and penetration of armour plate, The 7.5 cm KwK 42 was even more powerful than the main armament of the infamous Tiger tank 8.8 cm KwK 36. However due to the increased muzzle velocity, a new armour piercing shell was designed. The main ammunition round used was the Panzergranate 39/42 which could penetrate up to 138 mm of armour plate at a range of 100 metres and 124 mm at a range of 500 metres" https://www.wehrmacht-history.com/heer/panzer-armaments/7-5-cm-kwk-42.html

German tank tech was terrible. They had good guns and optics.

I think the Panthers only influence on western tank design was the cupola.

The front of the Sherman was thicker. Sloped sides leads to a very cramped tank the "boxy" Sherman and PZIV were better designs than the T-34. Sherman was the safest one. Soft stats matter eg optics, ergonomics or even ventilation.

Panther was to unreliable with up to 33% crapping out due to various problems.

End war the allies had the Centurion almost ready and the Pershing to Patton lineage. Heavy tanks were on the way out, they had a PzIV equivalent, Panther was a PoS it's main asset (the gun) they had equivalents of.

Had a better anti tank gun but that's not the main job of a tank. Chewing up infantry is. Most of the time the Sherman did exactly that.

 

[Sarin]

One thing that wasn't mentioned here I think is the capacity for modernization and upgrades. Good tank designs can have incredibly long service life. The war in Ukraine is currently being fought with modernized 50-60 year old designs, even Abrams and Leopard 2 platforms are entering their fifth decade of service. In Normandy, Shermans were still quite new design, compared to Pz.IV and T-34 which reached their design limitations already. Full potential of Sherman was not realized during war, but some post-war foreign variants were quite capable of challenging the first generation MBTs.

 

[GinandTonic]

So how do people think the c.200 lost tanks is reflecting on Russian armour.

 

[Zardnaar]

So how do people think the c.200 lost tanks is reflecting on Russian armour.

I thought they were bad when I created this thread. They blamed inferior Iraqi export models but the problems are systematic to the basic design. Small tank, big gun and autoloaders. All the strapped on ERA and shiny paint doesn't fix those problems.

 

[Sarin]

So how do people think the c.200 lost tanks is reflecting on Russian armour.

They're not designed for this kind of warfare. I wrote before, I have doubts about the viability of the concept of tank on modern battlefield.

 

[Zardnaar]

They're not designed for this kind of warfare. I wrote before, I have doubts about the viability of the concept of tank on modern battlefield.

Well you need combined arms. Infantry and air support.

Russian co-ordination seems lacking there.

 

[emzie]

Yeah, explain that to the servicemen fighting and dying over there. That's just awful. Its not like America did not have the means or ingenuity to produce a better tank.

Americans did produce a heavy tank, the M26 Pershing, which was probably the "best" tank of the war. They chose not to deploy it in large numbers, I think for good reason. All the statistics about gun size, armour thickness, and even kill ratios can be heavily misleading. Compare the pinnacle of German development, the Tiger II to the Sherman. If they're facing each other in the open, the Tiger II wins, yes. Tanks on the Western front rarely charged across open fields like at Kursk, though. Instead, Shermans were used to advance into German defenses, which meant the Germans got to place and conceal their tanks in optimal positions in advance. A concealed Tiger II on the flanks of a column of Shermans is gonna have a good day, yeah. But when you look at German counter-offensives, like the Battle of the Bulge, Shermans were the tanks in pre-picked, concealed positions, and they devastated German armour. On the Western front, you can't just consider kill ratios without considering who was attacking and who was defending, because the defending tanks had a huge advantage.

Compare the cost of German and American armour, too. Not just to build, but the cost to deploy and maintain as well. Tigers were notoriously hard to maintain and repair. Tiger IIs could destroy themselves within a few miles of driving. Americans didn't need Shermans to take out a Tiger II if the German tank tore its transmission apart before it even ran out of gas! Needless to say, a tank without a transmission is not a good tank. Late war German armour were amazing prototypes that went on to be developed by both sides after the war, but they were too expensive and too unreliable for combat in '44 and '45.

An additional note, as many others in this thread have said, Shermans had excellent crew protection for the time. A destroyed Sherman doesn't mean a dead crew. Merely comparing the loss of equipment without considering loss of life (and of experience) misses a crucial part of what made the Sherman so good. There's a line I've heard since I was a kid; attributed to a German, it's something to the effect of, "It took 10 Shermans to take out a Tiger but there was always an 11th...." Even when that was true, many of those tank crews survives. So not only was there an 11th Sherman, but there were multiple tank crews that knew how to operate one.

 

[Zardnaar]

Americans did produce a heavy tank, the M26 Pershing, which was probably the "best" tank of the war. They chose not to deploy it in large numbers, I think for good reason. All the statistics about gun size, armour thickness, and even kill ratios can be heavily misleading. Compare the pinnacle of German development, the Tiger II to the Sherman. If they're facing each other in the open, the Tiger II wins, yes. Tanks on the Western front rarely charged across open fields like at Kursk, though. Instead, Shermans were used to advance into German defenses, which meant the Germans got to place and conceal their tanks in optimal positions in advance. A concealed Tiger II on the flanks of a column of Shermans is gonna have a good day, yeah. But when you look at German counter-offensives, like the Battle of the Bulge, Shermans were the tanks in pre-picked, concealed positions, and they devastated German armour. On the Western front, you can't just consider kill ratios without considering who was attacking and who was defending, because the defending tanks had a huge advantage.

Compare the cost of German and American armour, too. Not just to build, but the cost to deploy and maintain as well. Tigers were notoriously hard to maintain and repair. Tiger IIs could destroy themselves within a few miles of driving. Americans didn't need Shermans to take out a Tiger II if the German tank tore its transmission apart before it even ran out of gas! Needless to say, a tank without a transmission is not a good tank. Late war German armour were amazing prototypes that went on to be developed by both sides after the war, but they were too expensive and too unreliable for combat in '44 and '45.

An additional note, as many others in this thread have said, Shermans had excellent crew protection for the time. A destroyed Sherman doesn't mean a dead crew. Merely comparing the loss of equipment without considering loss of life (and of experience) misses a crucial part of what made the Sherman so good. There's a line I've heard since I was a kid; attributed to a German, it's something to the effect of, "It took 10 Shermans to take out a Tiger but there was always an 11th...." Even when that was true, many of those tank crews survives. So not only was there an 11th Sherman, but there were multiple tank crews that knew how to operate one.

Sherman's very rarely encountered tigers. Tiger fear was very real though.

Deep dive into the numbers Sherman's didn't burn or blow up any worse than a T-34 or PanzerIV and we're better in some ways than both. If the Sherman's a bad tank because it's a medium vs heavies it didn't do any worse than any other 1940's tank.

Tiger wasn't to bad more or less paid for itself in resources TigerII was junk and the Panthers had huge problems mechanically.

Sherman outperformed the Pershing in Korea with it's kill ratio vs T-34's.

German tanks have a lot of myth and legends the allied tank crew bought into. Tiger fear.

Had they had to drive those tanks themselves they would have similar results in PzIV and Panther wouldn't be fit for purpose on the offensive. Germans had to use rail and minimise the amount of driving in said panthers both for fuel rewaond and mechanical reasons.

Reliability Sherman beat everything apart from maybe PanzerIV, Stug and anything based off PzIII/IV or Czech chasis.

They had Panthers post war french used them. They could have produced more. They didn't and used Sherman's instead French replaced then within 5-6 years due to reliability issues.

The guns on the German tanks were excellent though.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Another edge to the Shermans was in the number of variants and modifications, some of them on-the-fly and in the field. There were Shermans with mine-flails, bulldozers, flamethrowers, rocket launchers, and howitzers. Some had elongated hulls, or larger turrets, or steel plates for extra armor. Some had flotation devices for amphibious landings. The British put 17lber guns on them and used them as tank-killers. UK Gen. Percy Hobart had some Shermans among "Hobart's Funnies." The chassis, with a different turret, was used for the M10 Wolverine, among others. There were even fake, inflatable Shermans designed to fool German reconnaissance.

 

[Strong Reaction]

Americans did produce a heavy tank, the M26 Pershing, which was probably the "best" tank of the war. All the statistics about gun size, armour thickness, and even kill ratios can be heavily misleading. Shermans were used to advance into German defenses, which meant the Germans got to place and conceal their tanks in optimal positions in advance. On the Western front, you can't just consider kill ratios without considering who was attacking and who was defending, because the defending tanks had a huge advantage.

Compare the cost of German and American armour, too. Not just to build, but the cost to deploy and maintain as well. Tigers were notoriously hard to maintain and repair. Tiger IIs could destroy themselves within a few miles of driving. Americans didn't need Shermans to take out a Tiger II if the German tank tore its transmission apart before it even ran out of gas! Needless to say, a tank without a transmission is not a good tank. Late war German armour were amazing prototypes that went on to be developed by both sides after the war, but they were too expensive and too unreliable for combat in '44 and '45.

An additional note, as many others in this thread have said, Shermans had excellent crew protection for the time. A destroyed Sherman doesn't mean a dead crew. Merely comparing the loss of equipment without considering loss of life (and of experience) misses a crucial part of what made the Sherman so good. There's a line I've heard since I was a kid; attributed to a German, it's something to the effect of, "It took 10 Shermans to take out a Tiger but there was always an 11th...." Even when that was true, many of those tank crews survives. So not only was there an 11th Sherman, but there were multiple tank crews that knew how to operate one.

The Pershing came out literally at the end of the war according to this article (https://www.thoughtco.com/world-war-ii-m26-pershing-2361329) 20 saw combat. Id say its influence was nil. I don't think you can say it was the best tank of the war, based on what? You can't base it on it combat record. Also it wasn't even a true heavy tank. Its design began as a medium and they just changed its class.

"The Pershing was originally designed as a medium tank, but at the end of 1944 it was reclassified as heavy to boost the confidence of the crews."
https://www.realhistoryonline.com/articles/m26-pershing-tank/

I disagree mostly with the comment about stats. Its true they don't tell the whole story but stats give you a solid baseline to start from. I agree the onus of advance was on the Allies and that weighs considerably in losses taken. As far as maintenance goes with German armor there were many versions each improving on the other for Panthers and Tigers. To say they all were so prone to breakdown and they were useless is not accurate. They were effective. Also as far as over all effectiveness of German armor in the west you must consider complete Allied air superiority. It is undeniable this had a mortal effect on the German war machine as a whole, especially armor.

It seems the basic arguments I've seen on this thread defending the M4 is comparable to the American WWII Grand Narrative, which is sort of the national propaganda that elevates American achievements in the war and diminishes its shortfalls. The claims are for the M4 reliability, comfort, false claim of armor superiority and they did not encounter German heavy tanks enough for there shortcomings to make a difference. All the while the claims ignore the shortcomings insufficient armor, lack of a serviceable gun and a tank doctrine that was mortally flawed, tanks don't engage tank, tank destroyers do and the fact that:

"Panthers, with which the allies first met at Anzio , began to be produced in large quantities. Tanks of this type made up half of the German tank power in Normandy"
"It soon became clear that the doctrine of using tank destroyers was wrong, and that the Sherman tanks could not fight the Panthers on equal terms."
https://www.realhistoryonline.com/articles/m26-pershing-tank/

I stated in previous posts why the M4 is under armored and still hold the opinion. As far as tank losses and crew losses as I just stated I gave evidence of this earlier, US 3rd Armored Div. a loss rate of 580% I mean how those losses equate to good crew protection is beyond me. I looked for a source of crew losses but I'd have to dig deep into the weeds to find that. Suffice to say this is true for all armor losses of all nationalities, some crew members survive.

 

[Zardnaar]

The Pershing came out literally at the end of the war according to this article (https://www.thoughtco.com/world-war-ii-m26-pershing-2361329) 20 saw combat. Id say its influence was nil. I don't think you can say it was the best tank of the war, based on what? You can't base it on it combat record. Also it wasn't even a true heavy tank. Its design began as a medium and they just changed its class.

"The Pershing was originally designed as a medium tank, but at the end of 1944 it was reclassified as heavy to boost the confidence of the crews."
https://www.realhistoryonline.com/articles/m26-pershing-tank/

I disagree mostly with the comment about stats. Its true they don't tell the whole story but stats give you a solid baseline to start from. I agree the onus of advance was on the Allies and that weighs considerably in losses taken. As far as maintenance goes with German armor there were many versions each improving on the other for Panthers and Tigers. To say they all were so prone to breakdown and they were useless is not accurate. They were effective. Also as far as over all effectiveness of German armor in the west you must consider complete Allied air superiority. It is undeniable this had a mortal effect on the German war machine as a whole, especially armor.

It seems the basic arguments I've seen on this thread defending the M4 is comparable to the American WWII Grand Narrative, which is sort of the national propaganda that elevates American achievements in the war and diminishes its shortfalls. The claims are for the M4 reliability, comfort, false claim of armor superiority and they did not encounter German heavy tanks enough for there shortcomings to make a difference. All the while the claims ignore the shortcomings insufficient armor, lack of a serviceable gun and a tank doctrine that was mortally flawed, tanks don't engage tank, tank destroyers do and the fact that:

"Panthers, with which the allies first met at Anzio , began to be produced in large quantities. Tanks of this type made up half of the German tank power in Normandy"
"It soon became clear that the doctrine of using tank destroyers was wrong, and that the Sherman tanks could not fight the Panthers on equal terms."
https://www.realhistoryonline.com/articles/m26-pershing-tank/

I stated in previous posts why the M4 is under armored and still hold the opinion. As far as tank losses and crew losses as I just stated I gave evidence of this earlier, US 3rd Armored Div. a loss rate of 580% I mean how those losses equate to good crew protection is beyond me. I looked for a source of crew losses but I'd have to dig deep into the weeds to find that. Suffice to say this is true for all armor losses of all nationalities, some crew members survive.

Sherman gave a good performance in Korea 2-1 kill ratio vs T-34.

Pershing is more influential in it's design pedigree. M26, 48, 60 if the panther was so good why not use design influence from it?

Allied weren't shy about borrowing ideas from German rockets, u boats, jets etc why not tanks? The reason was they had already surpassed the German tanks and heavies were on the way out post war.

Upgunned super Sherman's in Israel fought off "superior" Soviet designs.

If German tanks were so good why didn't the Soviets copy them? They were more than happy to copy German technology but there's a clear progression through T-34, 44, 54/55, 62,,64, 72, 80, 90.

Allied lack of heavy tank is also down to shipping the damned things. Germans and Soviets had rail America had to use boats.

Each nation designed tanks according to their needs and resources available. Each nation more or less succeeded with it's main models and made a few turkeys.

 

[Strong Reaction]

Sherman gave a good performance in Korea 2-1 kill ratio vs T-34.

Just on this point, I am guessing the Shermans in Korea were not using the original 75mm main gun and also I expect there was a considerable difference in tank crew experience for the North Koreans. I mean good Gods, did they even have radios in those t-34s? That must weigh heavily into that kill ratio. While the American had just finished a war, had may veteran crews and experience from the previous war to draw on. Also, my comments about the Sherman are mainly aimed at its performance in WWII and it contemporaries of the era not beyond that.

Oh, also a thought on Sherman longevity: After WWII American military doctrine was heavily influenced by the introduction of nuclear weapons. The focus on armor, infantry tactics conventional war was largely abandoned. I believe they saw the error in this during/after Vietnam. Hence the lack of armor improvement during that time span and the extension of use of the Sherman and Pershing.

 

[Zardnaar]

Just on this point, I am guessing the Shermans in Korea were not using the original 75mm main gun and also I expect there was a considerable difference in tank crew experience for the North Koreans. While the American had just finished a war, had may veteran crews and experience from the previous war to draw on. Also, my comments about the Sherman are mainly aimed at its performance in WWII and it contemporaries of the era not beyond that.

They were the easy8 models with the 76mm and wet ammo racks.

Short 75 was better vs infantry (which what it was designed to do).

It was facing T34/85 so I figured it was a fair comparison both being 1944 designs.

It's like they designed Sherman's for different jobs. Side armor on a panther was only 40mm so even a normal Sherman could penetrate that. Side armor on a T-34 wasn't that hard to penetrate either just made the crews job harder.

 

[Strong Reaction]

I saw this video years ago it seems relevant to the thread. It is filmed during the Iraq Iran war and shows an Iraqi tank getting hit by RPG fire and the crew escaping. Its grainy as hell and the camera work leaves something to be desired.

 

[Zardnaar]

I saw this video years ago it seems relevant to the thread. It is filmed during the Iraq Iran war and shows an Iraqi tank getting hit by RPG fire and the crew escaping. Its grainy as hell and the camera work leaves something to be desired.

Things have come a long way since then.

There were narrow windows Soviet tanks were theoretically better (mid to late 50's and 70's).

 

[E.man]

They're not designed for this kind of warfare. I wrote before, I have doubts about the viability of the concept of tank on modern battlefield.

Maybe their time is up.

They were introduced in WW1 to cross no-man's land and knock out opposing trench strong points.
With effective single soldier anti tank weapons tanks are vulnerable to infantry; & drones.
So how is the infantry suppressed to allow tank use and is it worth it?
Drones appear to be undetectable by ground based air defence so is there even a defence at all?

Armour just isn't needed to knock out armour now either.

 

[emzie]

The Pershing came out literally at the end of the war according to this article (https://www.thoughtco.com/world-war-ii-m26-pershing-2361329) 20 saw combat. Id say its influence was nil. I don't think you can say it was the best tank of the war, based on what? You can't base it on it combat record. Also it wasn't even a true heavy tank. Its design began as a medium and they just changed its class.

"The Pershing was originally designed as a medium tank, but at the end of 1944 it was reclassified as heavy to boost the confidence of the crews."
https://www.realhistoryonline.com/articles/m26-pershing-tank/

I disagree mostly with the comment about stats. Its true they don't tell the whole story but stats give you a solid baseline to start from. I agree the onus of advance was on the Allies and that weighs considerably in losses taken. As far as maintenance goes with German armor there were many versions each improving on the other for Panthers and Tigers. To say they all were so prone to breakdown and they were useless is not accurate. They were effective. Also as far as over all effectiveness of German armor in the west you must consider complete Allied air superiority. It is undeniable this had a mortal effect on the German war machine as a whole, especially armor.

It seems the basic arguments I've seen on this thread defending the M4 is comparable to the American WWII Grand Narrative, which is sort of the national propaganda that elevates American achievements in the war and diminishes its shortfalls. The claims are for the M4 reliability, comfort, false claim of armor superiority and they did not encounter German heavy tanks enough for there shortcomings to make a difference. All the while the claims ignore the shortcomings insufficient armor, lack of a serviceable gun and a tank doctrine that was mortally flawed, tanks don't engage tank, tank destroyers do and the fact that:

"Panthers, with which the allies first met at Anzio , began to be produced in large quantities. Tanks of this type made up half of the German tank power in Normandy"
"It soon became clear that the doctrine of using tank destroyers was wrong, and that the Sherman tanks could not fight the Panthers on equal terms."
https://www.realhistoryonline.com/articles/m26-pershing-tank/

I stated in previous posts why the M4 is under armored and still hold the opinion. As far as tank losses and crew losses as I just stated I gave evidence of this earlier, US 3rd Armored Div. a loss rate of 580% I mean how those losses equate to good crew protection is beyond me. I looked for a source of crew losses but I'd have to dig deep into the weeds to find that. Suffice to say this is true for all armor losses of all nationalities, some crew members survive.

Your point about the M26 is well taken: when I called it the "best" I was reducing it to its stats on paper which was a mistake on my part. I don't really disagree with with you're saying, instead I think we're viewing combat from different levels: tactical operations vs theatre-wide strategy. If I had to personally go into combat in a WWII-era tank, the Sherman's qualities on the theatre scale would mean very little to me. My thoughts on this could perhaps be reframed as such: the Germans would have been better served with building 4-5 Panzer IVs for every Tiger they built.