tanks during the second world war

conservativecave.com ^ | June 2, 2009 | franksolich

[franksolich]

at first which are various quotes from a book, concerning tanks; that part not copied-and-pasted to here

Okay, a whole lot of questions, from a professional civilian.

(a) What were the significant differences between a Sherman tank and a Soviet T-34; one has the impression they were very much alike?

(b) A by-then-antique British Centurion tank has been the only tank I myself have ever seen up close, and operating (although not in combat, of course); how did that tank compare with the Shermans and T-34s?

(c) One gets the impression the Allies did in fact have some heavy tanks, comparable with the German Panthers and Tigers, but not a whole lot of them; some, but not many. What were such equivalent tanks? Did they demand a vastly different training and skill to use, as compared with Shermans, or only a little bit different?

(d) Why did tank tracks, formidable-looking things, last only 2,500 miles, or in the case of German tanks, 500 miles? To this professional civilian, such tracks look virtually indestructible, good for a trip to the moon and back.

(e) If the Soviet-made T-34 was the "best" tank of the war, why wasn't it adapted by the Allies, too--and remember, apparently the T-34 was American-designed in the first place.

(f) What is the current equivalent of the now-obsolete (one assumes now-obsolete) Sherman tank--light-weight, fast moving, smaller, but not so well armored as heavy tanks?

There's probably more questions, but after a recent excursion to Skins's island, the brain is rather sluggish.

[franksolich]

I hope this is of interest; remember, these are questions from a professional civilian who knows as much about military armaments as he does about nuclear physics.

[Cyber Liberty]

I dunno. If you was askin’ ‘bout Nucler Physics, I could find someone to help...

[GonzoGOP]

(a) What were the significant differences between a Sherman tank and a Soviet T-34; one has the impression they were very much alike?

Big one is that the T-34, especially the T-34-85 had a much better gun, more steeply sloped armor, and had a diesel engine. The Sherman used 100+ octane aviation gas and would bust into fire if hit. And the Sherman's original 75mm was a joke. It couldn't penetrate the German armor, except from directly behind. With the British 76.1 it got a decent gun, but the Sherman Firefly as they were called was always in short supply. Even then it was still thin skinned and burned.

[Terabitten]

I can answer D and F. Tank treads actually wear out pretty quickly because they don’t roll - they slide. With all that weight on them, there’s lots of friction, and lots of rubber or metal left on the ground. Metal treads like the Germans used wear out faster than rubber treads, which is why all modern tracked vehicles use rubber. Rubber’s also probably cheaper. Plus, it’s a PITA to change a tread out, or even an individual track shoe.

The equivalent modern light tank, though not properly classified as a ‘tank’ but instead as a ‘infantry fighting vehicle,’ would be the Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle. It has a turret with TOW missiles, a 7.62mm machine gun, and a 25mm cannon as its main gun. It’s not as heavily armored as a real ‘tank,’ but it’s still armored and (relatively) fast.

[wordsofearnest]

Was not the T-34 an American design?

[AppyPappy]

The British gun was the 17 pounder. The Brits didn’t have any outstanding tanks in the latter part of the war so they used ours. The Firefly (brit) and Sherman 76mm were good tanks but the Americans and Brits used speed to defeat the Germans. The key was to swarm the Germans and get behind them while occupying their attention with AT guns and air attacks. Our best tank was a P-47.

By 1944, tanks operated at the whim of aircraft above them. A tank seen from the air was a dead duck.

The T-34 was good because it could run at the enemy at a rapid pace.

[C19fan]

(b) A by-then-antique British Centurion tank has been the only tank I myself have ever seen up close, and operating (although not in combat, of course); how did that tank compare with the Shermans and T-34s?

The Centurion was a late WW II design that entered service after WW II. The British learned the lessons of WW II and the Centurion had very thick sloped armor and a big gun, originally a 84 mm gun. It was vastly superior tank to both the Sherman and T-34. The fact that Centurions were in service for most of the Cold War period, including Israel is a testament to the great design.

[nathanbedford]

The Soviet T. 34 was arguably the most effective tank ever built. In making that assertion I rely heavily on the fact that it was so simple that it could be swiftly manufactured and thus the Germans were simply swarmed even though their tigers were individually superior. It was the superior weapon in the theater and was decisive on the Eastern front.

In addition to its ease of manufacture, the T. 34 was equally easy to maintain and for the same reason: simplicity. The T. 34 in effect was AK-47 of tanks. In addition to heavy armor the armor was sloped which proved to be very effective.

In view of the snow and mud which obtained in Russia for about two thirds of the year, the extrawide tracks on the T. 34 meant that it slogged on when the Germans with narrower treads were bogged down.

[GeronL]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanks_in_World_War_II

thats the wiki

http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/world-war-2-tanks.asp

another site

http://military.discovery.com/history/world-war-2/vehicles/vehicles.html

Military Channel site on tanks

[PeterPrinciple]

Was not the T-34 an American design?

---

I am willing to be corrected but think the suspension system was designed by an American. For some reason, our military was not interested in the design.

[C19fan]

(e) If the Soviet-made T-34 was the "best" tank of the war, why wasn't it adapted by the Allies, too--and remember, apparently the T-34 was American-designed in the first place.

What might be considered the grandfather of the T-34 was the American designed Christie tank. The Soviets bought a few copies and used it as the basis of the BT series of tanks. The T-34 kept the Christie suspension of the original but the design and engine were Soviet.

[Gaffer]

For the Sherman, speed and pure numbers trumped the German. 4or 5 Shermans to a Tiger.....one gets around and pops him in the ass....over.....[The others? Toast]

[ozzymandus]

T-34 was not an American design. The basic suspension was developed from a design by J Walter Christie, using large road wheels for high speed travel, but he didn’t design the tank. The Soviets had several tanks that used the Christie system (BT-5, BT-7) before the T-34, which first arrived in 1940 and still had some bugs when the Germans invaded in 41.

[Welcome2thejungle]

The German produced by far the most powerful and deadly tanks of WWII.

Take the heavy Tiger Tank. It weighed over 56 tons, it was equipped with an 88 mm cannon and 92 rounds of ammunition. Its frontal armor was 100 mm thick and no allied tank could knock it out even at close range, at least from the front. The Tiger, conversely, could destroy Allied tanks over 2,000 yards away.

The even heavier Tiger II or King Tiger which was used during the Battle of the Bulge weighed in at nearly 65 tons had even thicker armor making it virtually an indestructible fortress unto itself on the battlefield.

The problem was two-fold with these types of tanks: Their sheer size and complex engineering made them impossible to mass produce unlike the Soviet T-34s and American Shermans which were massed produced by the tens of thousands. In addition these heavy tanks were terrible gas guzzlers and Germany was chronically short of fuel especially towards the end of WWII.

I saw a program on tanks on the Military Channel about tanks and many experts regard the medium sized German Panther Tank as the superior tank of WWII. Although smaller than the Tiger, it was faster and more fuel efficient than the Tigers and it also had sloping armor.

The two best tanks in operation today are the American M-1 Abrams Tank and the German Leopard Tank.

[chadwimc]

I think the Russian tank's suspension system was an American design.

The Sherman tank was nick named “Ronson” or “Zippo” because of the way it burned when struck by the German guns or anti tank efforts.

[GonzoGOP]

Yes and no. Christie tried to sell a design for a tank with road wheels and torsion bar suspension to the US army. When they wouldn't buy it (not invented here) he sold it to the Russians. Now that was the BT-5 that had very thin armor, a gas engine and a 35mm popgun and was interned for use as a light scouting tank. The Russians took the design, gave it an incredibly reliable diesel engine that could burn the low grade fuel they had available, used the additional power to thicken up the armor and add a hard hitting 76mm gun. Most of the other tanks in the world at the time mounted a 30-50mm gun.

The best part about the tank was that the turret was large, so that when the 76 wouldn't do the job any more, they had the room to put in a hard hitting 85mm.

It was also very easy to produce in vast quantities. And the rather crude construction meant that it could be repaired in the field by your average tractor mechanic.

On the down side only the command tank had radio, there was no crew comfort, and gun was not stabilized like the Sherman's.

The T-34 may not have been the best tank of the war. But the tanks that were better, the American Pershing, German Panther, and Russian JS-2 all showed up in 1945. Also they were built largely based on experiences gained from trials of or fighting the T-34.

[Tijeras_Slim]

apparently the T-34 was American-designed in the first place.

You might be thinking of the T-10-2-4 which ran on Dr. Pepper.

[jalisco555]

In addition to its ease of manufacture, the T. 34 was equally easy to maintain and for the same reason: simplicity. The T. 34 in effect was AK-47 of tanks. In addition to heavy armor the armor was sloped which proved to be very effective.

Yes, the Russians understood the importance of simplicity. Reminds me of the (probably apocryphal) story of how NASA spent millions developing a pen that could write in zero gravity while the Russians just used pencils.

[Rinnwald]

(e) If the Soviet-made T-34 was the “best” tank of the war, why wasn’t it adapted by the Allies, too—and remember, apparently the T-34 was American-designed in the first place.

The T-34 was not an American design. Its torsion-bar suspension, however, was based on the designs of an American, Walter Christie. An earlier Soviet light tank was a licensed copy of a Christie tank.

[C19fan]

(f) What is the current equivalent of the now-obsolete (one assumes now-obsolete) Sherman tank--light-weight, fast moving, smaller, but not so well armored as heavy tanks?

Today one does not really have the differentiation of tank designs of say World War II. With increased engine power and developments in metallurgy and ceramics a tank designer can build a well balanced tank, in terms of armor, firepower and mobility. Back in World War II there was a much greater tradeoff between these characteristics. Probably the closest comparison to the Sherman in the post-war era were the German Leopard I and the French AMX-30 which sacrificed armor protection for more speed.