|
Military experts debate as to best tanks of the War were. Here it is sometimes lost on proponents of various tanks that you can not just compare the characteristics of each tank and simulate a one-on-one tank battle. The performance of tanks depends in large measure on the battle tactics of the commanders and the terrain. The French Char B1 was actually better than anything that the Germans possessed at the time, yet French armor failed to blunt the German Ardennes offensive, leading to the catastrophic fall of France (1940). The light, under powered Mark (Mk) IIs and new IIIs proved very effective with the proper battle plans including powerful antitank guns. The early German victories were primarily due to the fact that the Germans invented modern warfare--Bilizkrieg The victories were not due, to the technical supperiority of their tanks. The Soviet T-34 tank was surely one of the most effective tanks of the War, but Red Army battle tactics did not make the best use of the T-34, especially at first. The T-34 stunned the German tankers which NAZI racial doctrine had led to believe that the Soviets could never produce such excellent tanks. The resulting 'advanced' German tanks (the Panther Mk V and the Tiger Mk VI and VII) were all designed to deal with the challenge of the T-34 medium and the IS heavy tanks. After Kursk (1943), the Germans had to use their tanks for defensive purposes more then attack. The were heavily armored and slow. The Mk IV was at first designed as infantry support vehicle with that extremely short barrel but was changed to a long barrel 75 for more anti-tank use. Many believe that the Mk V Panther was the best tank of the War and one-on-one they are probably correct, but the Germans after 1941 were rarely able to fight tank battles one-on-one. The German Tigers were more powerful, but they were also slow, maneuvered poorly, and consumed huge quantities of fuel the Germans did not have. The Panther on the other hand, incorporated many of the T-34 innovations like sloping armor. The German tanks tended to be complicated, difficult to build on an assembly line in large numbers. They also tended to be more difficult to maintain in the field. The British were at a disadvantage in North Africa, having to fight the campaign with inferior tanks. The British Churchill and other models had weak guns, although the British kept improving it and by the end of he war was a potent weapon. In North Africa, however they were saved by American Grants and Shermans. The American M-4 Sherman was deficient in firing power and armor, but was easy to build, simple to maintain, fast and highly maneuverable. It was built in staggering numbers and became the backbone of the American armored divisions after being put into service in North Africa (1942). Many American crews called it a 'death trap'. Gen. Patton saw it as a 'war winner'. There is no doubt that the Sherman could not prevail in a one-on-one engagement with a Panther. German Panzer crews called it 'the Zippo' because it burned so readily. Of course the Germans who derided the Sherman usually found themselves retreating as the Shermans moved forward. The Shermans are often derided as Zippos, but they numerous, fast, easy to maintain and often more survivable than the German tanks. The combination of a simple sound design, supporting air power, innovative tactics, crew training, and mass production allowed the American armored division to lead the way in the drive toward the Rhine from Normandy. [Zaloga] Many experts believe that the T-34 was the most effective combination of the standard armor features: gun, speed, and armor. To tyhisnwe woukd add numbers. There is little doubt that when it first appeared in 1941, it was the best tank in the world. It shocked the Germans when they first encountered it. The Panther was the German response. German The Panther was also an extremely effective tank, more than the equal of the T-34. The primary problem for the Germans was not only could they not build enough of them, but that they were gas guzzlers and difficult to maintain. The Germans might have done better with the lethal and easier to produce Stug IIIs. The Panthers and Tigers were not suited for mass production. Nor was the British Firefly, although highly effective. Actually the Germans had the industrial capacity to produce far more tanks than they did, but a series of design choices and prevailing industrial approaches meant that the Germans were badly out produced not only by the Americans, but also by the Soviets who had more limited industrial potential. Ironically, the Germans awardered Henry Ford the Grand Cross of the Golden Eagle, but ignored everything Ford stood for except anti-semitism, a choice that did not play out well on the battlefield. The Americans and Soviets built their T-34s in numbers the Germans could only dream about. The T-34 was much easier to build and maintain in the field. And although the T-34 had lost its technological edge by 1943, by that time the Soviet tankers had begun to develop better tactics and began to receive support from a revived Red Air Force. Thanks to the Allied Strategic Bombing Campaign, even when iron ore was being delivered, the needed metals to produce alloys were not. German steel quality declined in became increasingly brittle, too brittle to sustain damage. Hitler committed his heavy tanks in the last significant German offensive of the war. One third of Germany's total production of Tigers were committed to the second German Ardennes offensive. Hitler reasoned that if he could win with Mk IIs and IIIs in the Ardennes, he could crush the Allies with Tigers. But the Tigers were a disaster, no only could they not transverse the narrow lanes, use the existing bridges, or go off road, but many of the the gas guzzling behemoths had to be abandoned when they ran out of gas. The Shermans on the other hand not only could do all of that and rarely ran out of gas, but were numerous enough to provide Allied soldiers armor protection hast the German soldier rarely got.
Military experts debate as to best tanks of the War were. Here it is sometimes lost on proponents of various tanks that you can not just compare the characteristics of each tank and simulate a one-on-one tank battle. Many experts believe that the Soviet T-34 was the most effective combination of the standard armor features: gun, speed, and armor. To this we would add numbers. The American Sherman was not the best tank od the War, but the numbers produced made in a war winning weapon in the West. .
The performance of tanks depends in large measure on the battle tactics of the commanders.
The effectiveness of the various tanks, depended in parr in the Terrsin
The French Char B1 was actually better than anything that the Germans possessed at the time, yet French armor failed to blunt the German Ardennes offensive, leading to the catastrophic fall of France (1940). The light, under powered Mark (Mk) IIs and new IIIs proved very effective with the proper battle plans including powerful antitank guns. The early German victories were primarily due to the fact that the Germans invented modern warfare--Bilizkrieg The victories were not due, to the technical supperiority of their tanks. The Soviet T-34 tank was surely one of the most effective tanks of the War, but Red Army battle tactics did not make the best use of the T-34, especially at first. The T-34 stunned the German tankers which NAZI racial doctrine had led to believe that the Soviets could never produce such excellent tanks. The resulting 'advanced' German tanks (the Panther Mk V and the Tiger Mk VI and VII) were all designed to deal with the challenge of the T-34 medium and the IS heavy tanks. After Kursk (1943), the Germans had to use their tanks for defensive purposes more then attack. The were heavily armored and slow. The Mk IV was at first designed as infantry support vehicle with that extremely short barrel but was changed to a long barrel 75 for more anti-tank use. Many believe that the Mk V Panther was the best tank of the War and one-on-one they are probably correct, but the Germans after 1941 were rarely able to fight tank battles one-on-one. The German Tigers were more powerful, but they were also slow, maneuvered poorly, and consumed huge quantities of fuel the Germans did not have. The Panther on the other hand, incorporated many of the T-34 innovations like sloping armor. The German tanks tended to be complicated, difficult to build on an assembly line in large numbers. They also tended to be more difficult to maintain in the field. The British were at a disadvantage in North Africa, having to fight the campaign with inferior tanks. The British Churchill and other models had weak guns, although the British kept improving it and by the end of he war was a potent weapon. In North Africa, however they were saved by American Grants and Shermans. The American M-4 Sherman was deficient in firing power and armor, but was easy to build, simple to maintain, fast and highly maneuverable. It was built in staggering numbers and became the backbone of the American armored divisions after being put into service in North Africa (1942). Many American crews called it a 'death trap'. Gen. Patton saw it as a 'war winner'. There is no doubt that the Sherman could not prevail in a one-on-one engagement with a Panther. German Panzer crews called it 'the Zippo' because it burned so readily. Of course the Germans who derided the Sherman usually found themselves retreating as the Shermans moved forward. The Shermans are often derided as Zippos, but they numerous, fast, easy to maintain and often more survivable than the German tanks. The combination of a simple sound design, supporting air power, innovative tactics, crew training, and mass production allowed the American armored division to lead the way in the drive toward the Rhine from Normandy. [Zaloga] There is little doubt that when it first appeared in 1941, it was the best tank in the world. It shocked the Germans when they first encountered it. The Panther was the German response. German The Panther was also an extremely effective tank, more than the equal of the T-34. The primary problem for the Germans was not only could they not build enough of them, but that they were gas guzzlers and difficult to maintain. The Germans might have done better with the lethal and easier to produce Stug IIIs. The Panthers and Tigers were not suited for mass production. Nor was the British Firefly, although highly effective. Actually the Germans had the industrial capacity to produce far more tanks than they did, but a series of design choices and prevailing industrial approaches meant that the Germans were badly out produced not only by the Americans, but also by the Soviets who had more limited industrial potential. Ironically, the Germans awardered Henry Ford the Grand Cross of the Golden Eagle, but ignored everything Ford stood for except anti-semitism, a choice that did not play out well on the battlefield. The Americans and Soviets built their T-34s in numbers the Germans could only dream about. The T-34 was much easier to build and maintain in the field. And although the T-34 had lost its technological edge by 1943, by that time the Soviet tankers had begun to develop better tactics and began to receive support from a revived Red Air Force. Thanks to the Allied Strategic Bombing Campaign, even when iron ore was being delivered, the needed metals to produce alloys were not. German steel quality declined in became increasingly brittle, too brittle to sustain damage. Hitler committed his heavy tanks in the last significant German offensive of the war. One third of Germany's total production of Tigers were committed to the second German Ardennes offensive. Hitler reasoned that if he could win with Mk IIs and IIIs in the Ardennes, he could crush the Allies with Tigers. But the Tigers were a disaster, no only could they not transverse the narrow lanes, use the existing bridges, or go off road, but many of the the gas guzzling behemoths had to be abandoned when they ran out of gas. The Shermans on the other hand not only could do all of that and rarely ran out of gas, but were numerous enough to provide Allied soldiers armor protection hast the German soldier rarely got.
.
Zaloga, Steven. Armored Thunderboldt: The U.S. Army Sherman in World War II, 360p.
Navigate the CIH World War II Section:
[Return to Main World War II tank page]
[Return to Main World War II land technology/tactics weapons page]
[Return to Main World War II land technology/tactics page]
[Return to Main World War II technology/tactics page]
[Return to Main World War II page]
[About Us]
[Introduction]
[Biographies]
[Chronology]
[Climatology]
[Clothing]
[Disease and Health]
[Economics]
[Freedom]
[Geography]
[History]
[Human Nature]
[Ideology]
[Law]
[Nationalism]
[Presidents]
[Religion]
[Royalty]
[Science]
[Social Class]
[Bibliographies]
[Contributions]
[FAQs]
[Glossaries]
[Images]
[Links]
[Registration]
[Tools]
[Children in History Home]
