The nonsense of best tank in world

His father – the T34/76, had the heaviest punch among competitors (when entering service), do not underestimate the old man

 

The 76 was great for its time, but the T-34/85 was easily the best tank of the war. The only Tank that could have beaten it out would have been if the Centurion had actually made it into combat.

 

Can you check the specs for T44
Up hull – 90mm/60 deg
Lower hull – 90mm/45 deg
Gun – same 85mm
Side hull – 75mm/0deg
Front turret – 120mm
Power - 15.6 hp per ton
It is lighter than t34/85 by 100kg, and better in rough terrain
The difference – Christy suspension was replaced by torsion.

See, it beats T34/85 and Centurion 1 in almost all aspects and is lighter by 100kg and 8 tons respectfully. Production started in 1944, but it was released into production on a condition that T44 production would not hamper production of T34/85. T 44 never saw combat but it is superior to both.
Centurion mk2 is way more advanced, but production of mk2 began after the war it is 45tons (it is not a medium tank by ww2 standards), it should be compared to T55.

T43/85 is the best tank of the war, but it is comparable to Sherman, to T4, others. On operational level it does not really matter if you have 100 units of T34/85, or 100 Fireflies, or 100 T4s. Generally speaking T34/85 gives you 10% superiority in logistics, costs, maintenance, speed, range (10% is a lot, no doubt).

But the T34/76, was one head above competitors (in its days ), it was a space ship compared to fishing boats.


Finally we can argue about armor history, not politics

 

Well, it is not. When it was introduced it is "armor" was already non-existent against AT weapons fielded. Although you can say that about any medium tank in the end of the war. The only aspect it was significantly better than it's competitors is the price.

I'd pick IS-2 1944 or Pershing. At least they could withstand some hits.

 

Ah yes, the T-34. Entered mass production in June 1941, just in time for the Invasion. And for the next 2 years the production was limited. It was not until T34-85 (1943) that the T-34 really got the reputation it became known for.

So yes, in a war that "officially" ran from 1939-1945, 1939-1943 is indeed "most of the war".

I did say "most of the war", did I not? Not "in the war" or "at the start of the war", or anything else. So yes, I still stand by what I said, and I was not ignoring the T-34 at all. I simply recognize that it did not start out as the great game changer when it first hit the battlefield, but took quite a bit of refinement and the ability to really mass produce the improved models that it became what most people think of.

 

But remember what the main German anti-tank weapon was.

And no, it was not another tank. Tanks were not made to go against tanks. The main weapon Germany used was the famed and feared 88mm FLAK gun. And the main reason why you need a heavy tank is in the hopes it is immune to almost all aimed direct fire weapons. If your heavy tank can not do that, it is useless.

And the T-44 could not withstand the impact of the "German 88" any more than the T-34 could. So the 44 was dumped, and the resources instead used to make even more 34s.

 

To be fair the weak results of the T34's in 1941 and 42 had more to do with the lack of radios ( reduced command and control) and incompetent Soviet leadership than any design limitations of the tank. It really had it all for the time. Sloped armor, a good gun, excellent cross country mobility, a diesel engine! Ease of manufacture has to be mentioned as well.

 

Actually the Sherman E8, the last model was a very good tank. In head to head contests vs the T34-85 during Korea it performed quite well. The British Firefly version of the Sherman was really very good and corrected many of the problems with the earlier Shermans. The long delayed Pershing was excellent. Perhaps the biggest issues were the crews and doctrine used in the West during WW2. US Ordnance under pressure from industrialists did not upgrade the Sherman despite warning from the Brits to do so. Israeli's also used upgraded Shermans in their early wars with good effect. The German tanks are a mixed bag and had their strong points and also very weak points. The real reason they did so well was the quality of their crews.

 

I too was a tanker/heavy equipment operator back in the day 65-68, I was a driver and we used mostly M-48s and APC's 113's, every so often we got to use the M-88 retriever when some knuckle head got some tank stuck in the river. . I still suffer from ;loss of hearing in my left ear. I'll admit I'm glad I had the job it was fun. Beat the heck out of a being a desk jockey. lol

 

The T34-76 had a two man cramped turret. In addition, the gun and ammo while quite good had poor optics which greatly affected accuracy. The cast armor on paper was excellent, but there were a lot of soft spots because of poor hardening processes during manufacture. The Russians never quite solved this problem.

 

For sure the tank had deficiencies. Optics were a major concern, but even worse the russian crews were simply not trained in long range gunnery. Further, shooting while moving was encouraged for soviet tankers in a tank with none of the stabilization systems we have today. Technical limitations of the tank were far less an issue than the quality of training and leadership of Red Army tank forces. Not to mention it took until ~44 for the soviets to start employing the combined armed tactics the Germans has literally been killing them with even with inferior equipment.

 

Which essentially proves my point about crew training and doctrine. German gun crews would have done well with any tank of their choosing.

 

Israel's and Leopard 2 are world's two best tanks....

 

In 1941 I would agree. In 1944, not so much when their qualitative edge was all but gone. That doesn't change the fact that the T-34 was the best tank on the field from a technical standpoint.

 

That's disputable, especially since in the end the Russians were willing to give up 6 to 1 in armor casualties at the end of the war. It was 10 to 1 earlier. All of the tanks had their pluses and minuses. Crew competence was the real factor in WW2.

 

Are you seriously making assertions about armored warfare based on your experience in video games?

- - - Updated - - -

I can't argue with the ratio's, but that had a lot to with the fact that the soviets were on the offensive. The weapons of the period also much favored the defense, as engagement ranges were closer due to limitations of long range gunnery.

 

Of course..
Even the military uses "video games" (simulators) like these to train up their boys..





PS- Here's me leading my squad in Armed Assault III, I tell them-
"Stick with me if you want to live....Fight with your brain first and your weapons second....Never fear to use insanely overwhelming firepower, let the fear be your enemies....I'll kick out any man who returns to base after the battle with tank shells still aboard"..

 

Once again, a strike against the T34, not very good optics along with poor crew training at long range shooting. The T 34-76's had poor welding and many of them leaked like hell, enough to damage ammo and electrical systems. Also the radios if they existed at all were poor. Ultimately the Americans supplied them with US radios which helped tremendously. The fact is that there was really no perfect tank for WW2. The vaunted Panther for instance had really weak armor on the sides. It's gun, while perhaps the best anti tank gun of the war, had such a small explosive charge that it could not support infantry well, hence the advent of the STG as an infantry support vehicle.
There are some instances of German crews using T34's but I can't find the exact references. That should be an interesting account.

 

If you had ever served, you'd know that simulators like the ones you posted are rarely used, and their training value is limited. Getting out into the field and actually doing, while pretenders play video games, is what hones the skills.

Oh my god. You really do think playing your silly little video game qualifies as anything close to military experience. Thanks. I don't have to take you serious now.

 

The optics on the T34 were sufficient for the average engagement ranges that tank warfare took place in the 40's. This wasn't the yom kippur war, where engagement ranged were 1000+ meters away. Every single tank leaked at the time, and while the T34 surely had deficiencies, there was nothing even close to it when it appeared. As far as radios go, their quality wasn't the issue as much as their absence from all but command tanks. Handling large armored formations simply wasn't feasible without the means to coordinate.

The Stug assault guns were around before the panther was even developed, so i'm not sure what you're getting at there. Also, the Germans could barely find enough replacement parts for their own tanks, much less parts for T34's they may have captured.

I think we're going in a circle here. You're asserting that crew skill is what made the difference, and i'll gladly acknowledge that. However, if you were somehow able to put identically skilled crews against eachother, one in a t34, the other in a PZIII, the T34 should win 9 out of 10 times. The technical superiority of the T34 made up to some degree the poor training of soviet crews, who's horrendous losses in 1941-42 would have been even worse in an inferior tank.

 

The STG's and earlier SP weapons were an expedient solution to the problems with the Mk III and it's 50mm gun. They became more important as the war went on.
The terrain would also determine the outcome. Then there are the other tangibles. Turret traverse in the early T34's was horrible and a German MK 3 or 4 or Sherman could get off anywhere from 3 to 6 shots to every one a Russian could put out. BTW the steppes are pretty wide open.

 

I seriously thought about joining the Brit Army in my teens and sent off for a glossy recruiting brochure full of pictures of pretty tanks and things, but abandoned the idea because I knew I'd never be able to take orders I didn't agree with, or fight wars I didn't believe in.
Got a shock a couple of weeks later when a 'Sergeant Butterfield' came knocking my door on a courtesy follow-up visit in full dress uniform, stripes and all! I didn't answer the door and dived behind the settee til he'd gone.
Later I tore out the recruiting application form from the back of the brochure and filled it in with the name and address of a kid down the road who nobody liked, and sent that in..

 

And both were logistics hogs, mechanically unreliable, and couldn't traverse most bridges without becoming impromptu submarines.

 

Nah, that is not true. They both were pretty close to the weight of a Panther and had enough killing power to deal with 99% of German armor.
Don't know about logistical issues of Pershing but IS-2 used:
-122 mm shot, common with soviet A-19 field gun;
-a variant of V-2 engine, which were used in both T-34 and KV series tanks;
-same trosion bar suspension with same roadwheels KV tanks were using.

Overall it wasn't a maintance bitсh. If Pershing had any troubles I suspect they were mostly connected to the low number of these tanks introduced before the war ended.

Although, for all it matters, they were lightyears ahead in maintance of their Panther and Tiger counterparts with their full retard chassis and idiotic transmission.

12 seconds for full traverse of T-34's turret. 15 for Sherman. I suggest you too look up what the word "horrible" means. You are clearly using it wrong.

A suggestion that Eastern Europe is a steppe, is, well, wrong.