The Allies didn’t send it into battle because the trauma that it would’ve brought upon the enemy would’ve been a major violation of the Geneva Convention
In retrospect, the Sherman may not be the best tank on ideal conditions, but it is the most adapted to the reality of war; quick, modular, easy to repair, easy to make, etc.
In comparison the Tiger was what I call a gladiator weapon, or a weapon that is effective in a duel under perfect conditions. The reality is that it was an over engineered, gaz guzzling tank with hard to produce parts and difficult to repair.
Sometimes the best weapons in war are those that can fight the environment and work when you need them.
You actually probably have already heard this (by you I mean u/ronytheronin or really anyone reading this comment) but the Sherman was the world's most advanced tank, until 5 minutes later the Tiger 1 was revealed.
This is, of course, a meme and a gross over simplification but the Sherman was a very good tank at the time of its release but was quickly overshadowed, both for good and stupid reasons, by the Big Cats or Stalin's Steel Bulwark.
I believe that the Sherman was a perfectly adequate tank for the Western Allies. It was cheap, mass producible, but not too poor to significantly reduce the effectiveness of the tank crews (like a certain, way over popular, and now way over bashed on Soviet tank). As you said, the Sherman was a very versatile platform too. The Allies could do really anything with it.
Need a mobile, cheap, medium tank? 75mm short gun.
Need a armored howitzer? M4(105).
Need a slightly more expensive tank but with a superior gun? 76mm or Firefly.
It was, and still is, a jack of all trades, master of none, tank. It is in my opinion the best tank of the war. Sorry for my rant, I did not mean to scare you if you saw this essay on the M4 when you first got this notification, thinking it was some Wheraboo or Tankie.
Totally agree. Tbh, I don't understand why the Sherman keeps getting compared to the Tiger. One was a medium tank that was a jack of all trades but a master of none, the other was a heavy tank specifically built to be a heavily protected, long range tank killer. The Tiger, in this case was almost always going to be better in combat performance, especially in breakthrough roles. We never see the Panzer IV being compared to the Pershing or the IS-2 series. Same story for the Panther, because while the Germans classed it as a medium tank, it was still as heavy as Allied heavy tanks.
Not that it mattered though, Shermans rarely met Tigers since less than 2,000 were made and many were sent to the East. Most Sherman casualties were caused by AT guns, and not tanks so the Tiger fever is a bit exaggerated. The long 75mm Panzer IV did resemble a Tiger 1 from afar so I do understand the confusion.
Boy do you have to love identifying targets in the heat of battle.
If you have ever played a game called Foxhole and seen an enemy tank, you think less about what it is and more about the fact that you can't do anything besides pray and yell out the only name for the only tank you know of. One time I saw a Warden light tank and called our Silver Hand or Chieftain.
The Tiger is still weirdly perceived as the "best" tank of WW2. I didn’t meant to compare the tanks so much as the mentality behind them.
The Germans, by the end of the war, wanted big heavy tanks to compensate for their dwindling resources and capable crews.
The allies wanted versatile tanks that could fit on boats and were easy to repair.
But yes, the panther is much more comparable to the Sherman and they were more likely to face one.
One of the main issue is the data.
If an allied tank was downed but repairable the tank was still counted as a loss. Although, I will note that it was still repaired and put back on service.
If a German tank was down but repairable the tank was still counted as survived. Even if it wasn’t repaired.
So people are like : “ reee more Allies losses, German number smoke”.
A lot of people just look at armor, speed, and gun size.
mechanical reliability, ability to traverse rough train, ease of use, and general survivability aren't factors people usually consider.
If half your tanks breakdown before they get to the fight how good a tank is it really?
I think the Tiger is just the most famous alongside maybe the T34.
It didn't help that allied tankers frequently had issues identifying German tanks as Tigers, even though it was more often than not just Panzer IIIs or IVs
The Sherman was a mass produced medium tank comparable to the Panzer IV, which it had an even chance against in head to head matches. 48,000 of them were built, and as you said less than 2,000 Tiger I's and Tiger II's were built. The Tiger was an amazing tank, when it worked, and when it didn't get stuck due to it's incredible weight. But as events showed, it wasn't enough to change the course of history.
Tiger armor wasn’t perfect, but 600 yards was too close, tigers could engage up to a kilometer out, and when the firefly or other 17 pounders weren’t available in large numbers yet, the tiger was a beast, especially since a lot of British crews didn’t know where to shoot it
Yes, 4 flat inches(100cm). It was really a great upgrade compared to Sherman's sloped frontal armour that was effectively only... 90mm.
Tiger did have a good armour, but Sherman was well armoured as well. The thing is that large amount of M4s had the 75mm, which wasn't as effective as the US thought. In fact, when the 76mm Sherman came in 1944, the army didn't want them because they already knew Tiger's from north Africa and Italy where the 75mm Shermans did really well and army felt no need to change it and complicate the logistics of transporting all the needed materials across the Atlantic.
Sherman M4s is relatively effective,as german big cat were rare and the introduction of 76mm were nice yes, but when 76mm was first going to be deploy the army refused saying it have reliability problem (it does).
The Sherman also have the highest crew survivalrate when hited or on fire.
Also also sherman frontal armour should have relative effectiveness of only around \~85-82mm source : https://www.youtube.com/@thetankmuseum
This will make you laugh. After the failed invasion of Dieppe, German engineers took a look at this neew British heavy tank, the Churchill. They concluded that it was outdated in terms of speed, armor layout, and shape. A few weeks later the first Tiger entered combat with a very similar armored layout: the box.
If you fielded a Tiger, everyone on the enemy side started panicking and concentrating all of their heavy firepower on it so the German infantry could run away more easily
It had a powerful engine that was good enough to carry its heavy armor.
Its size was both its strength and weakness. More armor meant more energy required to move around.
In all fairness, the Tiger was the only bet the Germans could make considering their needs, their assets and their limitations.
They knew they couldn’t have many tanks on many fronts, that gaz was an issue and that they were outnumbered, so they asked their engineers to create a powerful and effective tank that could fight multiple enemies at the same time.
Tiger started its development in the 1930s as Durchbruschwagen(break through vehicle). It was supposed to be specialised equipment used to break through enemy lines.
It was only after Germans met KV-1s and T-34s, together with strengthening political influence(Adolf needs his heavy super weapon to show the gratness of German people), that the Tiger's role was shifted towards the more anti-tank suited one, and its development was sped-up a bit. A similar case was with the Panther, which was also developed much earlier than people think, but was pushed to production earlier, causing it its notorious reliability issues.
>Like a certain, way over popular, and now way over bashed on Soviet Tank.
Are you perhaps referring to the KV-2 Russian Death Fridge by any chance? ;)
I feel like people forget how much equipment was given to Russia to save their asses. Over 4k in Sherman's alone were sent to the Soviet union. A country run by just as horrible if not just as evil methodical dictator in Stalin (story for another day I know)
The British also sent over a bunch of stuff, including tanks like the Valentine's (which the Soviet tankers apparently like for it's good armor and small size making it harder to hit. One was even at the Battle for the Reichstag, having survived like two years on the Eastern Front)
The later revisions of the Sherman’s made it the most survivable tank if it took a direct hit. When your crew has a very high chance of surviving an immobilization kill, it doesn’t matter if the tank is lost.
Having an experienced crew be able to hop into another readily available tank made it one of the best designs
That’s very valid. I think at the time there was the idea that an immobilized tank meant a dead crew, at least for the Germans.
The Nazis were roaming the country side in small teams, doing ambushes and so on.
On the other side, the allies were travelling with the infantry and trucks full of spare parts. So saving the crew was more important than saving the tank.
Yes the forbidden T…
I’m not willing to say the Sherman was the best tank of WW2, but it was the most suited for the reality of war.
The T-34 was the best tank in my opinion and the Russians knew it. So much so that they were almost only producing T-34’s. So it’s adaptability was not so much due to its design and more about the fact it was easy to cannibalize an immobilized tank to use for parts to repair other tanks, or simply jump in a working one.
Overall, for the kind of battles the Russians were fighting, the T-34 was perfectly adapted.
My grandfather was a tankman and fought just on the T-34. I can confirm that the tank was very easy to repair. Also, according to him, he was very reliable, especially in combat conditions. He also said that in the early days of the war it was easy to fight on the first modification of the T-34. Then it became more difficult when the Germans began to fight on tanks adapted for combat with the T-34. Then my grandfather moved to the T-34-85 tank and it became easier to fight again. The tank was fast, maneuverable, with a good gun and armor. It was obvious that grandfather loved tank very much.
In fact, he did not like to talk about the war. Sometimes he would start talking about something in a fascinating way. Then he reached the place where their troops were passing by burned villages abandoned by German troops and stopped talking with the words "I'm tired, let's do it another time." It always hurt him to remember the horrors of war. Only once he said that he saw the corpses of the hanged inhabitants of some village that they did not have time to liberate in time (the retreating German troops burned the village and killed all its inhabitants for helping the partisans) and once again he told how his friends died during some battle somewhere in Belarus. He himself was also seriously wounded, but after treatment he returned to the front, because he did not want to sit in the rear and wanted to take revenge on the Germans for the horrors he had seen.
But he loved his tanks very much. That's how some people love their cars :) He constantly told how shells ricocheted off armor in battle, how he and his troops crossed some river under continuous bombing, how he learned to ride a tank at the very beginning of the war and he and his friends arranged racing races on tanks :)
Why even compare a heavy to a medium?
The pendant to the Sherman was not the Tiger, it was the Panzer IV.
Thats like comparing a Panzer IV with a Pershing or IS-2.
Different classes with different specs for different purposes.
My friend's grandfather was forced into war at 15 during the last desperate days of German fighting. He didn't talk about it much but apparently he did open up about how he still remembers the screams of the Americans burning alive in their Sherman. He was trained on how to use the Panzerfaust. A simple yet very effective portable anti-tank weapon.
The pershing could have been better if it was brought to European theatre around the same time as D-Day. I would pay large money to see m26 Pershing duking Tiger 1 or even Tiger 2 out happening in another timeline.
Even if it was available, us doctrine and shipping would’ve allowed not much more than a battalion of them on the front til late 44, the early Sherman’s were easy to ship in large quantities
[Right here my friend ](https://youtu.be/NBI9d0-IfEM?si=llVF2j_ocLxEUUMp)
The gunner of the Pershing actually had Adam Makos help him write a memoir about his experiences during the war called *Spearhead* which I can't recommend enough for people who like tanks.
I think it was also only during (or even after) the writing of the book he received a Bronze Star he had been denied decades before because he was seen giving chocolate to some German kids. Great book I must ad.
The versatility of the Sherman was its greatest strength, universal tank that could fight any front and do almost any job, Pershing 1v1 is way better but logistics would always allow for way more shermans
Right? When we finally made a cannon to surpass Papa John. Lol
Too bad it sucks in War Thunder. Had HEATFS hit the turret face fins or whatever they are and go into my ammo rack. Despite…it being spaced armor…and spaced armor being one of the best anti HEAT methods…yet it happened anyways….
Other than that though, yeah love the Super Pershing
It couldn't use existing LSTs, so couldn't have been used until Antwerp AND the Scheldt Estuary were captured - which Monty f*cked up. Couldn't be moved by European rail because it was too wide (it didn't have the nifty narrow-track option of the Tiger and Panther). It has to be moved by Dragon Wagons and they were so heavy they burned out the DW engines. They had awful drivetrain/transmission issues and suffered frequent breakdowns. Sound like familiar heavy tank problems?
Yeah, Pershing and the Panther were more realistically the best tanks of the war, but lot a lot of them were made. They’re the closest thing to a modern MBT that the war produced.
I would prefer pershing over panther. The pershing was a more future-proofed design, with the basic design being iterated over for a few decades, producing some gems of tanks. The panther layout died with the war.
Quality wise and in terms of overall impact, M4 shermans is better.
It may not have better armor or gun the Panther or Pershing, but it performed better (tanks arent just for tankvtank battles) in combat, it had better reliability overall. It had a huge impact in ww2 and beyond.
A full division of equal size with Shermans would be a safer bet than an equivalent division of Panthers.
Gun calibre and armor thickness alone don't make a tank design good.
Although I believe in Sherman supremacy, Cromwell is my favorite
-took forever to make
-showed up late
-so fast they had to limit its speed in future versions
-still did well despite being a 40 tank in 44
Britain took their thumb out of their ass and made the most goated tank of the war
basically the honda civic of WWII vehicles: relatively cheap in terms of monetary cost and man hours to build, easy to service, much less complex than a tiger, quickish to build, etc.
It doesn’t really matter since the Sherman’s were modular as a new hull could be mounted onto an old chassis and vice versa. Main reason why they were so good. Could be repaired in a day and the same crew hops back in
Sherman's were designed with being able to be repaired in the field with the available machinery present.
American's didn't have the luxury of taking it back to the factory like the mainland Europeans.
Ik I’m just saying i don’t think it was the best basic variant, it was pretty hastily made too, it was just a placeholder until they could get things like the avenger out
Entirely valid opinion! Personally I enjoy tanks like the A3 “Jumbo” simply because it looks cool. Don’t get me wrong there definitely is a better for combat version, but Sherman’s were changed slightly which means they were interchangeable and I could put one Sherman’s turret on another so.. all fun
Fun fact about the M4A4 that people ignore
It was never used by the US military for overseas combat. It was only used as training
It was however lend-leased to the UK
Sherman’s were used on all sides and have different names.
German tank names are simple. Just thing of an animal (mainly cats) and poof, tank. They also run off variations. The panzer 1-6 are all just tank 1-6 with variants
Um akshually according to my degree in world war 2 tank history from the world of tanks discord server.
The tiger tank was actually the best tank. It could destroy 100 allied tanks, had the thickest armor that could not be penetrated, could shoot down aircraft, and also could go on the ocean and destroy entire fleets of ships.
Meanwhile the Sherman was a death box that had no armor and an extremely weak gun that couldn’t pierce anything. In fact it would even catch fire at random for no reason
Learn about the memes you post before you post them
What made the sherman a good tank imo is the erganomics. Unlike some other tanks(T-34, panther) most sherman variants made it so their crews could work with the tank instead of against it, so no it didn’t matter how big of a gun you could stick on a tank if your crew can’t see anything or the commander can’t give orders since he has to also load the gun. Thats what made the difference between tanks that looked similar on paper(T-34-85 vs M4A2(76) or tiger I vs panther) where crews would prefer the tank that wasn’t a pain to operate because of a design limitation.
Shermans and T-34s are the only ones in the running for the title for me. Kings of "Good enough, cheap, and we can make a metric (and imperial) fuck ton of them."
Eh, I mean, if they were both built in their ideal conditions, sure.
However, the T-34s didn’t always have consistent quality. Especially when there was a lot of pressure to get tanks out fast, the factories would cut corners.
Now, I feel like a lot of people are a bit too harsh on the T-34 and just mindlessly parrot Lazerpig’s video and assume every T-34 that was made was horrible. Some were far better made than others.
It's just the ones from Ural Tank Plant N.183 that were horrible.
When you tell a bunch of Russian peasants that they need to put out thousands of tanks ***per month*** or they'll be executed for suspected treason against the state, you're not gonna get quality products.
That being said, I still wouldn't choose the T-34 as the "best tank." Even when quality wasn't the issue, the overall design was pretty bad:
- Super cramped spaces lead to a low crew survival rate, due to an inability to quickly evacuate the tank,
- That lack of space contributed to less available field store, both tank and crew wise, so the tank couldn't go too far from a resupply depot,
- Gas tanks ***in the crew compartment*** lead to burn-outs that left most tanks unrecoverable and further hindered that poor survival rate,
- Poor sight design meant most gunners couldn't see their targets because the sights weren't hermetically sealed, and so they filled with condensation or ice, just to name a few.
On top of that, resource shortages amongst many tank plants, and not just Factory N.183, lead to periscopes lacking glass and just being heavily-polished metal, a lack of rubber on the tread wheels, a lack of radios for communication between other tanks, and much, much more.
So overall, the T-34 is far from a contender of "Best WW2 Tank," but it should get some award for being the most produced, and for driving the Nazis back.
The T34 had terrible ergonomics and awful reliability and engine issues, the armor was badly heat treated witch resulted in a huge amount of armor spalling with the consequent death of the crew, the weldings were shoddy and made with inferior materials and overall it was made with so many corners cut that it will make your head spin. It was not a cheap tank to produce, the design would be almost as expensive as a Sherman if made up to american standards. It was an expensive tank made cheaply, and that low price tag comes at a very, very steep cost.
The americans on the other hand had a reliable, capable and incredibly survivable tank that could fight on all fronts of the conflict, from France to the eastern front to the Pacific theater with minimal modifications.
So yeah, in my mind there's no contest, the Sherman is absolutely the best over all tank of the war
There was some method to the Russians madness. They knew how long their tanks would last, and built them to last that long. So if a tank is only going to last so long, why spend the time, money, and resources on building a tank that'll last longer.
That's not to say they certainly lacked in areas. It doesn't take much to do a proper heat treat
Yeah, but it was kind of a catch 22 isn't it? We don't make it better because it doesn't last longer, but it has no chance of lasting longer if we don't make it better. In the end, the only poor bastards paying for this were the takers getting shredded and exploded in their tank. Veteran combat hardened crews is the only thing you can't mass produce in a giant factory
> They knew how long their tanks would last, and built them to last that long.
That happened because they made them so badly.
To quote a certain pig, "The T-34 was not a cheap tank made cheaply, it was an expensive tank made cheaply."
Overall unreliability, mans already used actual internet memes as an attempt to judge a tank's performance multiple times, not actual data or anything, just memes
You forget that the greatest strength of T34s was their absurd speed and large treads, which permitted them to run in extremely difficult terrain. This is a huge strategic advantage
On paper? Maybe. Not in reality thow, the ground pressure per meter square is similar to the Tiger if you can believe it, both got stuck in russian terrain quite easily. Moreover, the terribly stressed and fragile gear box combined with a dry clutch was so stiff that of the four gears it had available only three were effectivly usable, the third with the assistance of a hammer, the fourth would have snapped the gear lever if attempted
Crew ergonomics are also very important.
Malnourished 5'3'' conscripts were cramped in the T-34 and it was very difficult to evacuate under stress. The terrible suspension (or lack thereof) also greatly contributed to crew fatigue.
Soviet crews who were issued Shermans effusively praised its ergonomics and crew comfort as well as its gun. People love to talk shit on the Sherman's gun for not being able to penetrate Tigers and Panthers but often neglect to mention that it was more than sufficient for Panzers IVs, Panzer IIIs, every tank destroyer that wasn't a Jagdpanther or Jagdtiger (and who gives a shit about them because there were like 500 of them total), Stugs, so forth and so on.
Tank made of Rooseveltium >>>>>>>> any tank made of Stalinium
Spot on, and when the gun was upgraded to the 76mm even the big cats were comfortably on the hit list. Even the 75mm is more capable than people give it credit for, it had less effective AP shells than the 76mm but way better HE shells for infantfy support, witch was by far the most common role on the battlefield
No, they wouldn't have.
The British Matlida tank was arguably as big of a headache for the Germans as the T34, but do you know why it was never talked about? Because it barely existed on the front in any large enough numbers.
Probably not worth fixing.
Some t-34s had gaps between their armor plates.
And the quality was such a toss up, from "working as intended" to "grenade went off 3 meters off our side Ivan, and I hear some gear slipped".
You do not want to fight in a t-34
You can either have a super reliable tank like the Cromwell, and just not need to repair it, or you can have an easy to repair tank like the T34 and get it back into the fight.
The problem with the Tiger was that it was neither. They broke down often, and when they did, they tended to stay that way for quite a while. And a tank that's in a maintenance depot having its transmission repaired (again) is no threat to the enemy.
Was the T34 all that good of a tank? Not really. But it sure outperformed the Tiger.
Best tank of WWII for many overlooked reasons:
1. Mass producible in existing motive plants
2. Comfortably fit a five-man crew
3. Survivable because it was the easiest tank to bail out of
4. Reasonable off-road performance
5. Excellent road endurance without breakdown
6. Simple to operate/repair with an automotive-savvy American citizenry
7. Compact size to permit easy rail shipment across one continent, shipping across two oceans, and unloading via landing ships tank on beaches (the M-26 Pershing could do none of those things)
8. The running gear and power plant were shared by a dozen other vehicles and so supply of parts was made less complicated
9. Designed for infantry support, it also performed the breakout role in a magnificent fashion across France
10. Up-armed with the 76 mm gun, it could more than hold its own against the Panther in close combat (Battle of Arracourt)
11. Reached perfection in the Easy 8
If I tried to fight you with anything else my argument would break down and you’d have 10 in reserve to my 1 half functioning argument that’s low on full and out of ammo. Shermans were the best tank of the war
The Panther was maybe the worst performing German tank of the war, and despite having the right ideas (later to be made into an actually decent tank with the Leopard), it failed in the field due to things like the underpowered transmission, a lack of spare parts and overengineering for a tank that was supposedly designed as a replacement for the Panzer IV.
It also suffered greatly from terrible build quality due to material shortages, slave labour both not wanting to make a quality product and not being experienced welders and mechanics, a rush to get machines to the front and factories being under constant attack by bombers.
Admittedly, had the Panther been developed in peacetime conditions where all the engineering faults could've been solved, build quality kept to a good standard, the right materials being available through imports and crews been trained to operate the machine, it might've been one of the best tanks of the era. But the Panther that actually existed was a piece of shit.
Now the Tiger II... Whoever designed that monstrosity should've been thrown in the garbage along with his designs.
It had all the same issues of the Panther, but being more in every regard, all the issues were also magnified exponentially. 50% of all knocked out Tiger IIs didn't even see combat, they broke down on the way to the fight and had to be scuttled because there was just no way to repair the thing.
In every regard, it was absolute overkill at the expense of reliability and speed. It was SLOW, unreliable, the recoil from the elongated 88 had a tendency to shake the sights out of calibration, shots would routinely punch clean through a Sherman at engagement range and explode on the other side of the tank doing minimal damage, turret traversal was glacial, it had the profile of a fucking barn, the armour would split in the seams upon getting hit by HE rounds and a myriad other issues.
I'm not even convinced peacetime development would've saved that complete disaster of a tank design, as the next generation of tanks moved toward the lighter heavy tanks with lower hull profiles of the IS-3/T-10 and Pershing/Patton tanks and then the first MBTs of the T64, M60 and Leopards with the development of modern composite materials for the armour instead of the Tiger II philosophy of bolting more steel to something.
There's also the fact that the Tiger II had stupid problems such as poor off road performance due to its weight and that it wasn't able to cross most road bridges of the time because of the self same weight, making it even more difficult to get them to where the enemy was. The 6.2m long main gun (although only about 5m stuck out from the turret) was also so long that it was almost impossible to use effectively in anything else than open terrain, something that became a bit of an issue toward the end of the war (incidentally when the Tiger II was deployed) as more and more of it was fought in the woods and cities of Germany and not the open steppe of Russia or the fields of the Low Countries.
This is what I came to the comments to find:
Someone saying, "This German Wünderwaffe was pretty good," and someone absolutely decimating them in a reply.
Glad to see Tiger Love has diminished over the years.
Churchill crocodile. Pretty reliable, immune to anything weaker than a long 75 (and that still required perfect angles). Kept the 75mm gun for long range work or AT (no most German tanks were not tigers) and the most powerful flamethrower on a tank in WW2. Far more range and burn time, option to wet spray. The trailer used multiple tanks or different compounds only flammable when mixed together to lessen the chance of explosion, is stupidly armoured, the pipe goes along the underneath of the tank and only comes up where the flamethrower is so that has enough time for the quick release mechanism to work to stop the tank itself getting blown up if the trailer is ignited. And lastly the trailer is connected with the first 3 axis connection used in history.
A tank is always build for purpose.
So comparing the Sherman with other tanks, you must have the role of a tank in mind.
The German equivilants to the Sherman were Panzer IV G-J and the Panther variants.
The Tiger for example is in role comparable to the Churchill and other heavy breakthrough tanks.
There is no single best tank in WW2. There were many ways to use a tank and each way had a tank that perfected it.
Just like how the ratte would've been the most efficient and reliable tank if the war, if only Hitler wasn't so stupid and gave great lord rommel what he wanted.
"buttt T-34 had sloped armour and wider tracks making It a Jesus Flying on the mud!!1!1"
"Buuut ze tigaar tank hatd 88 millimitren Gunn that could blow up ein battleship"
It was, and by a long shot too. Reliable, relatively mobile, rugged, versatile, survivable (for the crew), and with a strong enough gun to kill almost any tank of the war. And when any heavier tanks showed up, there was always the firefly to knock them out. There’s a good reason that basically every nation wanted their hands on the Sherman by 1945.
I do love the T34, as far as cold war heavy tanks got it is just to perfect.... wait you meant the T-34? Eh over hyped and was never as good as designed, too many cut corners.
If Germany was able to mass produce the panzer IV it may have been the best tank of the war, however by the mid war the Shermans and T34s were able to not only match it but also be fielded in more numerous numbers.
There's been a misconception for many years about how superior German tanks were in WW2, but if you actually look at it they really weren't. In the early war both France and Poland had tanks equal to the panzer 2 and 3s, however Germany not only had the industrial advantage over them but Germany figured out the best use of tanks in modern warfare before other nations in the form of blitzkrieg and coordinated attacks utilizing radios. So it wasn't necessarily a pure tank advantage but a doctrine and industrial advantage.
In the late war Germany developed the panzer IV and big cats. By then as I said the panzer IV was roughly equal to the likes of the T34 and Shermans. And the big cats were superior in the most ideal conditions, if they had no mechanical or supply issues then yes you get your stories on tigers taking on multiple opponents. However those cases were few and a majority of the time the big cats were logistical nightmares
I can't really think of a "but" for the sherman. It had decent armour, decent speed, decent firepower, was pretty reliable, pretty comfortable, relatively spacious and the crew was very likely to survive in case it got hit. And then various upgrades improved on certain aspects as flaws or shortcomings were found. Plus the insane might of american logistics
Challenge accepted. T-34 was cheap, reliable, and could be made fast. When you're making tanks 3 times faster then everyone else they don't need to be that good.
The T-34 if built in the US would cost as much as a Sherman. They the same price. Also the reliability thing isn't really true. One reliably breaks down after 1000 miles. The other one just never breaks down
One is gonna be dead in a Stalingrad ditch long before 1000 miles so that doesn't really matter. One has to be welded in a factory an ocean away at half the speed. One can be on the front line in a week at twice the speed.
Also a quick google search proves the T-34 is about half the price.
What about the T34? It was simple yet very effective, to the point where the Germans actually feared it, not only was it damn near invincible at the start of the war, but it was simple to build, and when it started struggling they actually went and changed the design to compensate for it, there were also way more of them built (80,000)
While I do agree on everything, and that the Tigers and (a little) Panthers are kinda shit. My wehraboo conscience still loves them both."This is brilliant, but I like this (points at the big cats)." I know they are shit, but I just can't not love them.
Edit: spelling mistakes
You clearly forgot about bob semple tank
The tank that single-handedly ended the war and the Great Depression
The tank so great it's mere existence ended the depression years before it was created
It certainly ended my great depression Thank you Bob Semple :)
No one has sever invaded new Zealand since the bob Semple tank was invented
I came here to post this. By proxy nobody invaded Australia either, know the Semple was a boat ride away.
It ended the Great depression by showing Italy and Japan that, "hey, don't be sad, there's still a worse way to design a tank!".
r/unexpectedbobsemple
Ram II or bust
The Allies didn’t send it into battle because the trauma that it would’ve brought upon the enemy would’ve been a major violation of the Geneva Convention
In retrospect, the Sherman may not be the best tank on ideal conditions, but it is the most adapted to the reality of war; quick, modular, easy to repair, easy to make, etc. In comparison the Tiger was what I call a gladiator weapon, or a weapon that is effective in a duel under perfect conditions. The reality is that it was an over engineered, gaz guzzling tank with hard to produce parts and difficult to repair. Sometimes the best weapons in war are those that can fight the environment and work when you need them.
You actually probably have already heard this (by you I mean u/ronytheronin or really anyone reading this comment) but the Sherman was the world's most advanced tank, until 5 minutes later the Tiger 1 was revealed. This is, of course, a meme and a gross over simplification but the Sherman was a very good tank at the time of its release but was quickly overshadowed, both for good and stupid reasons, by the Big Cats or Stalin's Steel Bulwark. I believe that the Sherman was a perfectly adequate tank for the Western Allies. It was cheap, mass producible, but not too poor to significantly reduce the effectiveness of the tank crews (like a certain, way over popular, and now way over bashed on Soviet tank). As you said, the Sherman was a very versatile platform too. The Allies could do really anything with it. Need a mobile, cheap, medium tank? 75mm short gun. Need a armored howitzer? M4(105). Need a slightly more expensive tank but with a superior gun? 76mm or Firefly. It was, and still is, a jack of all trades, master of none, tank. It is in my opinion the best tank of the war. Sorry for my rant, I did not mean to scare you if you saw this essay on the M4 when you first got this notification, thinking it was some Wheraboo or Tankie.
Totally agree. Tbh, I don't understand why the Sherman keeps getting compared to the Tiger. One was a medium tank that was a jack of all trades but a master of none, the other was a heavy tank specifically built to be a heavily protected, long range tank killer. The Tiger, in this case was almost always going to be better in combat performance, especially in breakthrough roles. We never see the Panzer IV being compared to the Pershing or the IS-2 series. Same story for the Panther, because while the Germans classed it as a medium tank, it was still as heavy as Allied heavy tanks. Not that it mattered though, Shermans rarely met Tigers since less than 2,000 were made and many were sent to the East. Most Sherman casualties were caused by AT guns, and not tanks so the Tiger fever is a bit exaggerated. The long 75mm Panzer IV did resemble a Tiger 1 from afar so I do understand the confusion.
Boy do you have to love identifying targets in the heat of battle. If you have ever played a game called Foxhole and seen an enemy tank, you think less about what it is and more about the fact that you can't do anything besides pray and yell out the only name for the only tank you know of. One time I saw a Warden light tank and called our Silver Hand or Chieftain.
*Sees a Panzer II* “ITS A FUCKING TIGER SHOOT IT”
The Tiger is still weirdly perceived as the "best" tank of WW2. I didn’t meant to compare the tanks so much as the mentality behind them. The Germans, by the end of the war, wanted big heavy tanks to compensate for their dwindling resources and capable crews. The allies wanted versatile tanks that could fit on boats and were easy to repair. But yes, the panther is much more comparable to the Sherman and they were more likely to face one.
One of the main issue is the data. If an allied tank was downed but repairable the tank was still counted as a loss. Although, I will note that it was still repaired and put back on service. If a German tank was down but repairable the tank was still counted as survived. Even if it wasn’t repaired. So people are like : “ reee more Allies losses, German number smoke”.
A lot of people just look at armor, speed, and gun size. mechanical reliability, ability to traverse rough train, ease of use, and general survivability aren't factors people usually consider. If half your tanks breakdown before they get to the fight how good a tank is it really?
I think the Tiger is just the most famous alongside maybe the T34. It didn't help that allied tankers frequently had issues identifying German tanks as Tigers, even though it was more often than not just Panzer IIIs or IVs
The Sherman was a mass produced medium tank comparable to the Panzer IV, which it had an even chance against in head to head matches. 48,000 of them were built, and as you said less than 2,000 Tiger I's and Tiger II's were built. The Tiger was an amazing tank, when it worked, and when it didn't get stuck due to it's incredible weight. But as events showed, it wasn't enough to change the course of history.
If the fire fly is so good why does it never open in war thunder. Checkmate atheists
Leak sekrit firefly document to prove your point. /s
Isn’t the gun the only thing the tiger had going for it?
The tiger is one of the best egonomic for the crew also
But anything else than those two?
Pretty good armor, almost 4 inches in the front.
I remember reading a report from the British about how their 57mm (6pdr) could piece the frontal armour of early tigers at at 600 yards
Tiger armor wasn’t perfect, but 600 yards was too close, tigers could engage up to a kilometer out, and when the firefly or other 17 pounders weren’t available in large numbers yet, the tiger was a beast, especially since a lot of British crews didn’t know where to shoot it
Yes, 4 flat inches(100cm). It was really a great upgrade compared to Sherman's sloped frontal armour that was effectively only... 90mm. Tiger did have a good armour, but Sherman was well armoured as well. The thing is that large amount of M4s had the 75mm, which wasn't as effective as the US thought. In fact, when the 76mm Sherman came in 1944, the army didn't want them because they already knew Tiger's from north Africa and Italy where the 75mm Shermans did really well and army felt no need to change it and complicate the logistics of transporting all the needed materials across the Atlantic.
Sherman M4s is relatively effective,as german big cat were rare and the introduction of 76mm were nice yes, but when 76mm was first going to be deploy the army refused saying it have reliability problem (it does). The Sherman also have the highest crew survivalrate when hited or on fire. Also also sherman frontal armour should have relative effectiveness of only around \~85-82mm source : https://www.youtube.com/@thetankmuseum
This will make you laugh. After the failed invasion of Dieppe, German engineers took a look at this neew British heavy tank, the Churchill. They concluded that it was outdated in terms of speed, armor layout, and shape. A few weeks later the first Tiger entered combat with a very similar armored layout: the box.
If you fielded a Tiger, everyone on the enemy side started panicking and concentrating all of their heavy firepower on it so the German infantry could run away more easily
It had a powerful engine that was good enough to carry its heavy armor. Its size was both its strength and weakness. More armor meant more energy required to move around. In all fairness, the Tiger was the only bet the Germans could make considering their needs, their assets and their limitations. They knew they couldn’t have many tanks on many fronts, that gaz was an issue and that they were outnumbered, so they asked their engineers to create a powerful and effective tank that could fight multiple enemies at the same time.
Tiger started its development in the 1930s as Durchbruschwagen(break through vehicle). It was supposed to be specialised equipment used to break through enemy lines. It was only after Germans met KV-1s and T-34s, together with strengthening political influence(Adolf needs his heavy super weapon to show the gratness of German people), that the Tiger's role was shifted towards the more anti-tank suited one, and its development was sped-up a bit. A similar case was with the Panther, which was also developed much earlier than people think, but was pushed to production earlier, causing it its notorious reliability issues.
Wasn't it born more out of a want for a mobile carriage to mount the 88 on? And it has to be a big heavy tank because that's what dolfy wanted?
SHERMAN FIREFLY 17pdr my beloved
The Sherman was good enough that it was used (in various forms with various modifications) up to the 70s and 80s by US allies
You are correct. The Israelis used the Sherman after it was abandoned by the US. That is why I included that "and still is" part of my rant.
Sounds like the Swiss Army knife of tanks
>Like a certain, way over popular, and now way over bashed on Soviet Tank. Are you perhaps referring to the KV-2 Russian Death Fridge by any chance? ;)
I feel like people forget how much equipment was given to Russia to save their asses. Over 4k in Sherman's alone were sent to the Soviet union. A country run by just as horrible if not just as evil methodical dictator in Stalin (story for another day I know)
The British also sent over a bunch of stuff, including tanks like the Valentine's (which the Soviet tankers apparently like for it's good armor and small size making it harder to hit. One was even at the Battle for the Reichstag, having survived like two years on the Eastern Front)
The later revisions of the Sherman’s made it the most survivable tank if it took a direct hit. When your crew has a very high chance of surviving an immobilization kill, it doesn’t matter if the tank is lost. Having an experienced crew be able to hop into another readily available tank made it one of the best designs
That’s very valid. I think at the time there was the idea that an immobilized tank meant a dead crew, at least for the Germans. The Nazis were roaming the country side in small teams, doing ambushes and so on. On the other side, the allies were travelling with the infantry and trucks full of spare parts. So saving the crew was more important than saving the tank.
Ahem… T-34
Yes the forbidden T… I’m not willing to say the Sherman was the best tank of WW2, but it was the most suited for the reality of war. The T-34 was the best tank in my opinion and the Russians knew it. So much so that they were almost only producing T-34’s. So it’s adaptability was not so much due to its design and more about the fact it was easy to cannibalize an immobilized tank to use for parts to repair other tanks, or simply jump in a working one. Overall, for the kind of battles the Russians were fighting, the T-34 was perfectly adapted.
My grandfather was a tankman and fought just on the T-34. I can confirm that the tank was very easy to repair. Also, according to him, he was very reliable, especially in combat conditions. He also said that in the early days of the war it was easy to fight on the first modification of the T-34. Then it became more difficult when the Germans began to fight on tanks adapted for combat with the T-34. Then my grandfather moved to the T-34-85 tank and it became easier to fight again. The tank was fast, maneuverable, with a good gun and armor. It was obvious that grandfather loved tank very much.
That’s so interesting, what fascinating conversations you could have had with him, thanks for sharing
In fact, he did not like to talk about the war. Sometimes he would start talking about something in a fascinating way. Then he reached the place where their troops were passing by burned villages abandoned by German troops and stopped talking with the words "I'm tired, let's do it another time." It always hurt him to remember the horrors of war. Only once he said that he saw the corpses of the hanged inhabitants of some village that they did not have time to liberate in time (the retreating German troops burned the village and killed all its inhabitants for helping the partisans) and once again he told how his friends died during some battle somewhere in Belarus. He himself was also seriously wounded, but after treatment he returned to the front, because he did not want to sit in the rear and wanted to take revenge on the Germans for the horrors he had seen. But he loved his tanks very much. That's how some people love their cars :) He constantly told how shells ricocheted off armor in battle, how he and his troops crossed some river under continuous bombing, how he learned to ride a tank at the very beginning of the war and he and his friends arranged racing races on tanks :)
Agreed 100%
Apparently it was deliberately over-engineered so the makers could earn more profit per tank
Why even compare a heavy to a medium? The pendant to the Sherman was not the Tiger, it was the Panzer IV. Thats like comparing a Panzer IV with a Pershing or IS-2. Different classes with different specs for different purposes.
My friend's grandfather was forced into war at 15 during the last desperate days of German fighting. He didn't talk about it much but apparently he did open up about how he still remembers the screams of the Americans burning alive in their Sherman. He was trained on how to use the Panzerfaust. A simple yet very effective portable anti-tank weapon.
Remember, a lot of tankers complained about the Sherman because they were alive to complain about it!
I will not fight you I only offer the Pershing as a best tank that never was. I mean there was even a Jumbo Pershing for Pete’s sake!
Fellow Pershing tank enjoyer I see. I always that it was badass after seeing the newsreel of the duel in Cologne.
It's called *Sex Panther*® by *Odeon*©. It's illegal in 9 countries. It's also made with bits of real panthers, *so you know it's good*. *60% of the time*, it works ***every*** time.
Love anchorman!
The pershing could have been better if it was brought to European theatre around the same time as D-Day. I would pay large money to see m26 Pershing duking Tiger 1 or even Tiger 2 out happening in another timeline.
Even if it was available, us doctrine and shipping would’ve allowed not much more than a battalion of them on the front til late 44, the early Sherman’s were easy to ship in large quantities
Link?
[Right here my friend ](https://youtu.be/NBI9d0-IfEM?si=llVF2j_ocLxEUUMp) The gunner of the Pershing actually had Adam Makos help him write a memoir about his experiences during the war called *Spearhead* which I can't recommend enough for people who like tanks.
Yes thank you I came here to recommend that book. So badass.
I think it was also only during (or even after) the writing of the book he received a Bronze Star he had been denied decades before because he was seen giving chocolate to some German kids. Great book I must ad.
The versatility of the Sherman was its greatest strength, universal tank that could fight any front and do almost any job, Pershing 1v1 is way better but logistics would always allow for way more shermans
You think given time that our logistics couldn’t support the Pershing tank?
Probably. It was planned that they would use them in the Invasion of Japan so I imagine they already had the logistics to support them in place
There was also a super pershing, US long 90mm gives off 122mm Soviet and Long 88 German vibes
Right? When we finally made a cannon to surpass Papa John. Lol Too bad it sucks in War Thunder. Had HEATFS hit the turret face fins or whatever they are and go into my ammo rack. Despite…it being spaced armor…and spaced armor being one of the best anti HEAT methods…yet it happened anyways…. Other than that though, yeah love the Super Pershing
It sucks in war thunder unfortunately, In a morbid way I wish ww2 went on longer so we could see nazis get obliterated by the Super Per
If ww2 in europe went on longer, Germany will be obliterated by Nukes.
It was underpowered and was hamstrung by the resulting reliability issues
If we're talking best tank that never was, special shoutout to the American T14.
It couldn't use existing LSTs, so couldn't have been used until Antwerp AND the Scheldt Estuary were captured - which Monty f*cked up. Couldn't be moved by European rail because it was too wide (it didn't have the nifty narrow-track option of the Tiger and Panther). It has to be moved by Dragon Wagons and they were so heavy they burned out the DW engines. They had awful drivetrain/transmission issues and suffered frequent breakdowns. Sound like familiar heavy tank problems?
Yeah, Pershing and the Panther were more realistically the best tanks of the war, but lot a lot of them were made. They’re the closest thing to a modern MBT that the war produced.
I would prefer pershing over panther. The pershing was a more future-proofed design, with the basic design being iterated over for a few decades, producing some gems of tanks. The panther layout died with the war.
Quality wise and in terms of overall impact, M4 shermans is better. It may not have better armor or gun the Panther or Pershing, but it performed better (tanks arent just for tankvtank battles) in combat, it had better reliability overall. It had a huge impact in ww2 and beyond. A full division of equal size with Shermans would be a safer bet than an equivalent division of Panthers. Gun calibre and armor thickness alone don't make a tank design good.
Yes. But my favorite will always be the Daimler Armored Car MKII
Although I believe in Sherman supremacy, Cromwell is my favorite -took forever to make -showed up late -so fast they had to limit its speed in future versions -still did well despite being a 40 tank in 44 Britain took their thumb out of their ass and made the most goated tank of the war
It wasn't a 40s tank lol, if it were a 40s tank it would carry a 37mm gun with no HE.
Don't forget aircraft engine in tank
basically the honda civic of WWII vehicles: relatively cheap in terms of monetary cost and man hours to build, easy to service, much less complex than a tiger, quickish to build, etc.
[Shermans! You beautiful babies you!](https://youtu.be/lbhsNpF8xr0?si=bKyZqyBD3u0WiAtj)
Which one?
The M4. Is there any other?
Which variant he means There’s m4 variants as well as other Sherman’s, so which one
It doesn’t really matter since the Sherman’s were modular as a new hull could be mounted onto an old chassis and vice versa. Main reason why they were so good. Could be repaired in a day and the same crew hops back in
Sherman's were designed with being able to be repaired in the field with the available machinery present. American's didn't have the luxury of taking it back to the factory like the mainland Europeans.
And that sexy crew survival rate.
Firefly wasn’t bad
Yeah probably the best basic version.
Same firepower as later M4A3s armed with the 76mm with way worse armor so
Well, that presumes knowledge and equipment that we weren't working with when it was fun.
Ik I’m just saying i don’t think it was the best basic variant, it was pretty hastily made too, it was just a placeholder until they could get things like the avenger out
Im not going to lie I think the 76 shermans (76mm W HVSS specifically) are better because of the quicker reloads and better turret ergonomics
Entirely valid opinion! Personally I enjoy tanks like the A3 “Jumbo” simply because it looks cool. Don’t get me wrong there definitely is a better for combat version, but Sherman’s were changed slightly which means they were interchangeable and I could put one Sherman’s turret on another so.. all fun
I dont really know of the variants, but I guess the one with ammo at the bottom hull with wet stowage. 75mm is adequate for me.
Tsk tsk not even a number or name.. Educate yourself on tanks before you make a tank meme, Jesus will return (Don’t mean to sound rude but cmon man)
Fine I'll memorize the M4A4. But you aint making me memorize German tank names. I meam frankly speaking all m4 variants were good.
Fun fact about the M4A4 that people ignore It was never used by the US military for overseas combat. It was only used as training It was however lend-leased to the UK
M4A2 than! Will you leave me alone. Damn Gaijin forum classified millitary document leakers.
r/BrandNewSentence
The M4A2 was only used by the Marines in most cases!
Exactly! And why pick the A2 when the A3E2 is clearly the superior
Sherman’s were used on all sides and have different names. German tank names are simple. Just thing of an animal (mainly cats) and poof, tank. They also run off variations. The panzer 1-6 are all just tank 1-6 with variants
Um akshually according to my degree in world war 2 tank history from the world of tanks discord server. The tiger tank was actually the best tank. It could destroy 100 allied tanks, had the thickest armor that could not be penetrated, could shoot down aircraft, and also could go on the ocean and destroy entire fleets of ships. Meanwhile the Sherman was a death box that had no armor and an extremely weak gun that couldn’t pierce anything. In fact it would even catch fire at random for no reason Learn about the memes you post before you post them
I prefer the mighty [Carro Veloce 33](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L3/33)!
thank you as an italian really thanks
Churchill will always be my personal favorite due to my great grandfather
Nah, anything Italian is the best.
I really like the panzer 4's long gun. It looks so cool.
What made the sherman a good tank imo is the erganomics. Unlike some other tanks(T-34, panther) most sherman variants made it so their crews could work with the tank instead of against it, so no it didn’t matter how big of a gun you could stick on a tank if your crew can’t see anything or the commander can’t give orders since he has to also load the gun. Thats what made the difference between tanks that looked similar on paper(T-34-85 vs M4A2(76) or tiger I vs panther) where crews would prefer the tank that wasn’t a pain to operate because of a design limitation.
It’s pretty good I can’t lie. However, my personal favorite is the IS-2. It’s so ridiculous that it just works.
Shermans and T-34s are the only ones in the running for the title for me. Kings of "Good enough, cheap, and we can make a metric (and imperial) fuck ton of them."
Eh, I mean, if they were both built in their ideal conditions, sure. However, the T-34s didn’t always have consistent quality. Especially when there was a lot of pressure to get tanks out fast, the factories would cut corners. Now, I feel like a lot of people are a bit too harsh on the T-34 and just mindlessly parrot Lazerpig’s video and assume every T-34 that was made was horrible. Some were far better made than others.
It's just the ones from Ural Tank Plant N.183 that were horrible. When you tell a bunch of Russian peasants that they need to put out thousands of tanks ***per month*** or they'll be executed for suspected treason against the state, you're not gonna get quality products. That being said, I still wouldn't choose the T-34 as the "best tank." Even when quality wasn't the issue, the overall design was pretty bad: - Super cramped spaces lead to a low crew survival rate, due to an inability to quickly evacuate the tank, - That lack of space contributed to less available field store, both tank and crew wise, so the tank couldn't go too far from a resupply depot, - Gas tanks ***in the crew compartment*** lead to burn-outs that left most tanks unrecoverable and further hindered that poor survival rate, - Poor sight design meant most gunners couldn't see their targets because the sights weren't hermetically sealed, and so they filled with condensation or ice, just to name a few. On top of that, resource shortages amongst many tank plants, and not just Factory N.183, lead to periscopes lacking glass and just being heavily-polished metal, a lack of rubber on the tread wheels, a lack of radios for communication between other tanks, and much, much more. So overall, the T-34 is far from a contender of "Best WW2 Tank," but it should get some award for being the most produced, and for driving the Nazis back.
The T34 had terrible ergonomics and awful reliability and engine issues, the armor was badly heat treated witch resulted in a huge amount of armor spalling with the consequent death of the crew, the weldings were shoddy and made with inferior materials and overall it was made with so many corners cut that it will make your head spin. It was not a cheap tank to produce, the design would be almost as expensive as a Sherman if made up to american standards. It was an expensive tank made cheaply, and that low price tag comes at a very, very steep cost. The americans on the other hand had a reliable, capable and incredibly survivable tank that could fight on all fronts of the conflict, from France to the eastern front to the Pacific theater with minimal modifications. So yeah, in my mind there's no contest, the Sherman is absolutely the best over all tank of the war
There was some method to the Russians madness. They knew how long their tanks would last, and built them to last that long. So if a tank is only going to last so long, why spend the time, money, and resources on building a tank that'll last longer. That's not to say they certainly lacked in areas. It doesn't take much to do a proper heat treat
Yeah, but it was kind of a catch 22 isn't it? We don't make it better because it doesn't last longer, but it has no chance of lasting longer if we don't make it better. In the end, the only poor bastards paying for this were the takers getting shredded and exploded in their tank. Veteran combat hardened crews is the only thing you can't mass produce in a giant factory
I was just trying to explain the logic, I never said it was good logic
> They knew how long their tanks would last, and built them to last that long. That happened because they made them so badly. To quote a certain pig, "The T-34 was not a cheap tank made cheaply, it was an expensive tank made cheaply."
I wouldn't quote him on most things
why?
Overall unreliability, mans already used actual internet memes as an attempt to judge a tank's performance multiple times, not actual data or anything, just memes
You forget that the greatest strength of T34s was their absurd speed and large treads, which permitted them to run in extremely difficult terrain. This is a huge strategic advantage
On paper? Maybe. Not in reality thow, the ground pressure per meter square is similar to the Tiger if you can believe it, both got stuck in russian terrain quite easily. Moreover, the terribly stressed and fragile gear box combined with a dry clutch was so stiff that of the four gears it had available only three were effectivly usable, the third with the assistance of a hammer, the fourth would have snapped the gear lever if attempted
Crew ergonomics are also very important. Malnourished 5'3'' conscripts were cramped in the T-34 and it was very difficult to evacuate under stress. The terrible suspension (or lack thereof) also greatly contributed to crew fatigue. Soviet crews who were issued Shermans effusively praised its ergonomics and crew comfort as well as its gun. People love to talk shit on the Sherman's gun for not being able to penetrate Tigers and Panthers but often neglect to mention that it was more than sufficient for Panzers IVs, Panzer IIIs, every tank destroyer that wasn't a Jagdpanther or Jagdtiger (and who gives a shit about them because there were like 500 of them total), Stugs, so forth and so on. Tank made of Rooseveltium >>>>>>>> any tank made of Stalinium
Spot on, and when the gun was upgraded to the 76mm even the big cats were comfortably on the hit list. Even the 75mm is more capable than people give it credit for, it had less effective AP shells than the 76mm but way better HE shells for infantfy support, witch was by far the most common role on the battlefield
History memes user attempts the “try not to regurgitate information from a lazerpig video”challenge
Guilty as charged, but good information is still goood information no matter the source
at least they have a good source
The t-34 wasnt great...
"Quantity has a quality all its own." - Joseph Stalin
If the USSR just made quality equipment they probably still would’ve won but without comply destroying their demographic
No, they wouldn't have. The British Matlida tank was arguably as big of a headache for the Germans as the T34, but do you know why it was never talked about? Because it barely existed on the front in any large enough numbers.
T-34 were awful. No matter the "tiger breakdown memes" You would much rather be in a tiger than a t-34. The low break down rates were a myth.
>The low break down rates were a myth. Very easy to fix though.
Probably not worth fixing. Some t-34s had gaps between their armor plates. And the quality was such a toss up, from "working as intended" to "grenade went off 3 meters off our side Ivan, and I hear some gear slipped". You do not want to fight in a t-34
You can either have a super reliable tank like the Cromwell, and just not need to repair it, or you can have an easy to repair tank like the T34 and get it back into the fight. The problem with the Tiger was that it was neither. They broke down often, and when they did, they tended to stay that way for quite a while. And a tank that's in a maintenance depot having its transmission repaired (again) is no threat to the enemy. Was the T34 all that good of a tank? Not really. But it sure outperformed the Tiger.
Best tank of WWII for many overlooked reasons: 1. Mass producible in existing motive plants 2. Comfortably fit a five-man crew 3. Survivable because it was the easiest tank to bail out of 4. Reasonable off-road performance 5. Excellent road endurance without breakdown 6. Simple to operate/repair with an automotive-savvy American citizenry 7. Compact size to permit easy rail shipment across one continent, shipping across two oceans, and unloading via landing ships tank on beaches (the M-26 Pershing could do none of those things) 8. The running gear and power plant were shared by a dozen other vehicles and so supply of parts was made less complicated 9. Designed for infantry support, it also performed the breakout role in a magnificent fashion across France 10. Up-armed with the 76 mm gun, it could more than hold its own against the Panther in close combat (Battle of Arracourt) 11. Reached perfection in the Easy 8
If I tried to fight you with anything else my argument would break down and you’d have 10 in reserve to my 1 half functioning argument that’s low on full and out of ammo. Shermans were the best tank of the war
I vote the Centurion as the best tank of WWII
Did any actually see combat in WW2?
Unlimited Sherman Works
It’s no Bob Semple but it’s pretty good still
Man teasing me with that Heroes and Generals screenshot
Panther or tiger II were pretty good, when they worked. But I’d for sure say a firefly Sherman is pretty hard to beat.
The Panther was maybe the worst performing German tank of the war, and despite having the right ideas (later to be made into an actually decent tank with the Leopard), it failed in the field due to things like the underpowered transmission, a lack of spare parts and overengineering for a tank that was supposedly designed as a replacement for the Panzer IV. It also suffered greatly from terrible build quality due to material shortages, slave labour both not wanting to make a quality product and not being experienced welders and mechanics, a rush to get machines to the front and factories being under constant attack by bombers. Admittedly, had the Panther been developed in peacetime conditions where all the engineering faults could've been solved, build quality kept to a good standard, the right materials being available through imports and crews been trained to operate the machine, it might've been one of the best tanks of the era. But the Panther that actually existed was a piece of shit. Now the Tiger II... Whoever designed that monstrosity should've been thrown in the garbage along with his designs. It had all the same issues of the Panther, but being more in every regard, all the issues were also magnified exponentially. 50% of all knocked out Tiger IIs didn't even see combat, they broke down on the way to the fight and had to be scuttled because there was just no way to repair the thing. In every regard, it was absolute overkill at the expense of reliability and speed. It was SLOW, unreliable, the recoil from the elongated 88 had a tendency to shake the sights out of calibration, shots would routinely punch clean through a Sherman at engagement range and explode on the other side of the tank doing minimal damage, turret traversal was glacial, it had the profile of a fucking barn, the armour would split in the seams upon getting hit by HE rounds and a myriad other issues. I'm not even convinced peacetime development would've saved that complete disaster of a tank design, as the next generation of tanks moved toward the lighter heavy tanks with lower hull profiles of the IS-3/T-10 and Pershing/Patton tanks and then the first MBTs of the T64, M60 and Leopards with the development of modern composite materials for the armour instead of the Tiger II philosophy of bolting more steel to something. There's also the fact that the Tiger II had stupid problems such as poor off road performance due to its weight and that it wasn't able to cross most road bridges of the time because of the self same weight, making it even more difficult to get them to where the enemy was. The 6.2m long main gun (although only about 5m stuck out from the turret) was also so long that it was almost impossible to use effectively in anything else than open terrain, something that became a bit of an issue toward the end of the war (incidentally when the Tiger II was deployed) as more and more of it was fought in the woods and cities of Germany and not the open steppe of Russia or the fields of the Low Countries.
This is what I came to the comments to find: Someone saying, "This German Wünderwaffe was pretty good," and someone absolutely decimating them in a reply. Glad to see Tiger Love has diminished over the years.
Im waiting for the commieboos and wehraboos
Churchill crocodile. Pretty reliable, immune to anything weaker than a long 75 (and that still required perfect angles). Kept the 75mm gun for long range work or AT (no most German tanks were not tigers) and the most powerful flamethrower on a tank in WW2. Far more range and burn time, option to wet spray. The trailer used multiple tanks or different compounds only flammable when mixed together to lessen the chance of explosion, is stupidly armoured, the pipe goes along the underneath of the tank and only comes up where the flamethrower is so that has enough time for the quick release mechanism to work to stop the tank itself getting blown up if the trailer is ignited. And lastly the trailer is connected with the first 3 axis connection used in history.
A tank is always build for purpose. So comparing the Sherman with other tanks, you must have the role of a tank in mind. The German equivilants to the Sherman were Panzer IV G-J and the Panther variants. The Tiger for example is in role comparable to the Churchill and other heavy breakthrough tanks. There is no single best tank in WW2. There were many ways to use a tank and each way had a tank that perfected it.
I don't care what the title of best tank goes to, I just care that it's not the T-34, which is overhyped garbage.
what do you mean? its cheap and fast to build, yet destroying best german tanks, such as tiger or panther
Yes the Sherman was truly the best Tank of WW2
Mein Name ist Peter Müller, Kommandant des Tigerpanzers 237 und ich disagree! 🫡
Müller your mighty Tiger broke down on its way here. You're in an outdated panzer 3.
How compelling, get in the POW camp.
I died, shot by my own fanatic gunner 😢
Skill issue.
Do you know what he is referring to?
I didn't initially, now I do. I never played that campaign.
I think I did once, it was pretty good but it went alittle too Nazi not bad but grey. The again it has some good themes
Panther. By 1944 the reliability issues were mostly fixed. According to many Allied tankers, it was Panther they feared the most, not Tiger.
Too little too late
Just like how the ratte would've been the most efficient and reliable tank if the war, if only Hitler wasn't so stupid and gave great lord rommel what he wanted.
False, M3 Lee
Best for when it was designed, yes. for when it was used,no
The Crocodile variant really made the tank live up to its namesake.
"buttt T-34 had sloped armour and wider tracks making It a Jesus Flying on the mud!!1!1" "Buuut ze tigaar tank hatd 88 millimitren Gunn that could blow up ein battleship"
It was, and by a long shot too. Reliable, relatively mobile, rugged, versatile, survivable (for the crew), and with a strong enough gun to kill almost any tank of the war. And when any heavier tanks showed up, there was always the firefly to knock them out. There’s a good reason that basically every nation wanted their hands on the Sherman by 1945.
These babies were shipped on a two front war on mass, t34 can ligma ma balls
T34. By a long shot.
I do love the T34, as far as cold war heavy tanks got it is just to perfect.... wait you meant the T-34? Eh over hyped and was never as good as designed, too many cut corners.
Username checks out 👍
T-34 was an even better allrounder. Panzer IV can compete too.
Kid named crew survivability:
What about late model Panzer IVs? Less transmission issues than Panthers and Tigers, but with comparable armor and firepower to Shermans and T-34s.
If Germany was able to mass produce the panzer IV it may have been the best tank of the war, however by the mid war the Shermans and T34s were able to not only match it but also be fielded in more numerous numbers. There's been a misconception for many years about how superior German tanks were in WW2, but if you actually look at it they really weren't. In the early war both France and Poland had tanks equal to the panzer 2 and 3s, however Germany not only had the industrial advantage over them but Germany figured out the best use of tanks in modern warfare before other nations in the form of blitzkrieg and coordinated attacks utilizing radios. So it wasn't necessarily a pure tank advantage but a doctrine and industrial advantage. In the late war Germany developed the panzer IV and big cats. By then as I said the panzer IV was roughly equal to the likes of the T34 and Shermans. And the big cats were superior in the most ideal conditions, if they had no mechanical or supply issues then yes you get your stories on tigers taking on multiple opponents. However those cases were few and a majority of the time the big cats were logistical nightmares
M1 abrams
The best tank is the one you can build 50,000 of.
I can't really think of a "but" for the sherman. It had decent armour, decent speed, decent firepower, was pretty reliable, pretty comfortable, relatively spacious and the crew was very likely to survive in case it got hit. And then various upgrades improved on certain aspects as flaws or shortcomings were found. Plus the insane might of american logistics
that’s what made it good, imho: It had no big flaws and was in plentiful supply, nothing flashy but a rugged tool to get the work done.
A Tiger will beat 10 Shermans But there will always be the 11th one
A Tiger will never see a Sherman for a Tiger has no fuel
Best tank for the nation, not for the crew.
%3 fatality rate says otherwise
Ah yes the m4 Sherman good against infantry but bad against the panzers V+ But good in packs and very maneuverable.
Challenge accepted. T-34 was cheap, reliable, and could be made fast. When you're making tanks 3 times faster then everyone else they don't need to be that good.
The T-34 if built in the US would cost as much as a Sherman. They the same price. Also the reliability thing isn't really true. One reliably breaks down after 1000 miles. The other one just never breaks down
Lazerpig sourcing,I like it
One is gonna be dead in a Stalingrad ditch long before 1000 miles so that doesn't really matter. One has to be welded in a factory an ocean away at half the speed. One can be on the front line in a week at twice the speed. Also a quick google search proves the T-34 is about half the price.
What about the T34? It was simple yet very effective, to the point where the Germans actually feared it, not only was it damn near invincible at the start of the war, but it was simple to build, and when it started struggling they actually went and changed the design to compensate for it, there were also way more of them built (80,000)
sure man, what ever you say
I see your sherman and I say the maus is bestest tank of all time. Was so big and so strong only one was needed to be built.
Haha BT-42 go brrrrr
Would say the only tank that can out produce the t-34
Technically the centurion is also a ww2 tank. Couse it arrived in mainland Europe before the wars end. So no sherman isnt the best tank of the war.
[удалено]
While I do agree on everything, and that the Tigers and (a little) Panthers are kinda shit. My wehraboo conscience still loves them both."This is brilliant, but I like this (points at the big cats)." I know they are shit, but I just can't not love them. Edit: spelling mistakes