Rank the Tank!

SHERMAN said:
10. M-4 Sherman (US)- I Would definetly put it much higher up than this. Made in huge noumbers and allowed the alllies superiority in noumbers that countered the quality of German tanks. In my eyes it is the American T-34

I generally agree with what you said, except the above. In no way should the Sherman ever be compared to the T-34. True the Shermans were available in very large numbers, were easy to build and service in the field. But there's no getting away from the fact that the Sherman was a bad tank design. The T-34 was also easy to build, available in vast numbers and easy to service in the field but the big difference is that it was an excellent tank design that was improved upon by the Panther. But the Panther was too hard to build in wartime and was too complicated. So I generally agree with the T34/85 being the best overall tank of all time. The Sherman, by contrast, has no right to be on that list.
 
the shermans only true disadvantge was in its protection. Other than that, it is very easily compared with the T-34.
 
SHERMAN said:
the shermans only true disadvantge was in its protection. Other than that, it is very easily compared with the T-34.

Well, it was also undergunned, the only variant being able to engage German tanks on a somewhat equal basis being the Sherman 'Firefly'. Therefore on 2 of the 3 classic ratings for tanks it was found lacking. It also had a very high silhouette and there was a tendency for its ammunition to explode when the tank was hit, hence why the Germans called it 'tommy cooker'.

The T-34 by contrast had well-sloped, thick armour, a powerful 75mm gun and wide tracks, giving it great mobility. Therefore on all 3 of the classic ratings for tanks it was excellent. It was also a design that was able to be upgraded throughout the war.

There's no way that, objectively, that the Sherman and T-34 designs can be compared favourably. By every measure the T-34 was far superior.
 
Production by itself does not win wars. That is a wholly simplistic and misleading statement to make. Production is only one of many factors and I'm sure you're aware of this.

Nowhere did I say "production by itself". By "Production wins wars" I most certainly meant and I'm sure you're well aware if you think about it instead of getting hot under the collar at the inclusion of the Sherman, that production is the deciding factor in winning wars. True, you can have a great ability at production and still lose if you have no will to win and no commanders of ability, however, the likelihood of that combination is remote. The Allies did not have superior commanders (though we had great ones), the Allies did not have better quality tanks (until the T-34), but we had good enough in those factors that the production factor told the tale and Germany was defeated. Now you may say that my arguement is flawed, but history has proven me correct.
 
Im gonna jump into this one as well.....

Say, in the Zulu war, the British carried the henry rifle or whatever the frig it was called. The zulus carried a spear. The rifle took longer to make but was a better weapon individually. The zulus made thousands of spears. The zulus won bacuse, oput simply, they had more weapons than the british. does this meant that, overall, the spear was a better weapon than the rifle?
 
Doppleganger said:
Charge_7 said:
Their justification for including production, and since I already said as much earlier I quite agree with them, is that although the Tiger was a greatly superior tank one on one, it wound up being one Tiger against four or five Shermans. With a numerical advantage like that, it doesn't matter how good you are - the Tiger still loses. That is just what the Allies did. They knew they couldn't match the Germans for quality but they sure as heck knew they could out produce them. The Tiger may knock out the first three Shermans but while doing so the fourth one kills it. Production wins wars and is thus a perfectly allowable quality in rating a tank.

Production by itself does not win wars. That is a wholly simplistic and misleading statement to make. Production is only one of many factors and I'm sure you're aware of this. The Tiger 1 is at #2 on the list which I don't have an issue with. The Panther being excluded I do. To state that the Sherman is better than the Tiger or Panther just because there were far more of them is a deeply flawed argument. By your argument the Sherman should have been rated above the Tiger no?

'More' does not equal 'better'.

The numbers of Shermans available did not win the Western Front for the US and her Allies. Indeed, all the sheer numbers of Shermans did was to offset how weak a tank design it really was. The reasons why the Allies won are much more complex and multi-dimensional.

So why was the Panther excluded and not the Tiger? Why was a tank that almost all consider better than the Tiger 1 excluded?

I am backing this argument, I personally wouldnt have rated the Sheman in the top 10 tanks of WW2 let alone all time.

Indeed, all the sheer numbers of Shermans did was to offset how weak a tank design it really was.

I think this is the most accurate statement made todate.
 
Never said it was a powerful tank. And your comment that it's numbers offset the weak design was exactly the point I (and Janes, and Aberdeen, and Sandhurst) made. It was a marvel of mass production. That design was what made it a great tank.
 
Basically as a tank it was a steaming pile of crap as manufacting exercise it may have been the most awesome thing on earth (although I wonder how many PZ IIIs and IVs were made) but that still doesnt stop it being a worthless bucket of bolts in the job it was designed to do.
 
Well, it obviously wasn't "worthless" or it wouldn't have succeeded. Sure it took four or five Shermans to kill a Tiger, but they still killed it.
 
I am sure the first 4 Sherman crews were rapt with those odds, I can just see them saying "well thank the Ford Motor Company we arent the 11th best tank in the world".

I am sorry the fact that incredible numbers of them were produced doesnt make it a good tank just the product of a great industrial base.
 
Well obviously, more learned analysts and historians than either of us don't agree with you. The people from Janes, Aberdeen, Sandhurst and other groups all agreed that it was the design itself that allowed for such mass numbers along with the industrial might.
 
beardo said:
Im gonna jump into this one as well.....

Say, in the Zulu war, the British carried the henry rifle or whatever the frig it was called. The zulus carried a spear. The rifle took longer to make but was a better weapon individually. The zulus made thousands of spears. The zulus won bacuse, oput simply, they had more weapons than the british. does this meant that, overall, the spear was a better weapon than the rifle?

The Brittish won the Zulu wars.
 
Charge_7 said:
Well obviously, more learned analysts and historians than either of us don't agree with you. The people from Janes, Aberdeen, Sandhurst and other groups all agreed that it was the design itself that allowed for such mass numbers along with the industrial might.

I'm sure there was some political or artistic license taken there. It's the only reasons I can think of for such a bizarre top 10.

Forgive me Charge, but I'm unable to question those experts directly, or I would. As you've stated the list is virtually your picks it does mean that I can question you. :) I have some questions for you on your list.

1) What makes the M1 so much better than the Merkava and Challenger when all 3 are very close in capability?

2) Why was the Leopard 2 omitted when the above 3 tanks were included?

3) Why was the Panther omitted?

I'll leave the Sherman out of this debate for now because it seems our opinions are polarised there.
 
1.) Simple enough. Production again is the answer. The original Merkava was very slow in production and required a great deal of field maintenance as well. Although the Challenger didn't have as great a problem with maintenance, relatively few were ever made - just over 300 of them.

As for 2.) and 3.) I can't answer for the experts anymore than you can question them. For myself, I would've included the Leopard II but probably had it in a tie with the Challenger. As for not having the Panther, well you have to remember that the tanks were considered in the context of their time. The Mark IV was the tank of the blitzkrieg era and the finest the Germans had at the time. The Tiger, of course came later as did the Panther so of the two the Tiger was superior for their time in terms of capability, however the Panther had the edge in production. It would be a close call though between those two and I could accept either for their era.

Oh and in defense of the experts, I don't think they would risk their professional credibility on something so transient as politics.
 
Charge_7 said:
1.) Simple enough. Production again is the answer. The original Merkava was very slow in production and required a great deal of field maintenance as well. Although the Challenger didn't have as great a problem with maintenance, relatively few were ever made - just over 300 of them.

As for 2.) and 3.) I can't answer for the experts anymore than you can question them. For myself, I would've included the Leopard II but probably had it in a tie with the Challenger. As for not having the Panther, well you have to remember that the tanks were considered in the context of their time. The Mark IV was the tank of the blitzkrieg era and the finest the Germans had at the time. The Tiger, of course came later as did the Panther so of the two the Tiger was superior for their time in terms of capability, however the Panther had the edge in production. It would be a close call though between those two and I could accept either for their era.

Oh and in defense of the experts, I don't think they would risk their professional credibility on something so transient as politics.

A reasonable reply Charge, thanks for that.

However, I'll state for the final time that 'production' as a measure of the superiority of a weapon or weapon type is absurd IMO. In no way does the Sherman belong in the Top 10 Tanks of all time - that is also absurd IMO. Finally, to leave out one of the finest tanks of all time, the Panther Ausf G, renders the list incomplete and really kills its credibility, experts notwithstanding

For the record I am not an expert but I am a very well informed amateur - had I chosen military history as a career then I would have been an 'expert' but I doubt very much my opinion on this matter would have changed.
 
Whispering Death said:
beardo said:
Im gonna jump into this one as well.....

Say, in the Zulu war, the British carried the henry rifle or whatever the frig it was called. The zulus carried a spear. The rifle took longer to make but was a better weapon individually. The zulus made thousands of spears. The zulus won bacuse, oput simply, they had more weapons than the british. does this meant that, overall, the spear was a better weapon than the rifle?

The Brittish won the Zulu wars.

not the battle of... :cen: ...forgotten its name...

the one from the film
 
beardo said:
Whispering Death said:
beardo said:
Im gonna jump into this one as well.....

Say, in the Zulu war, the British carried the henry rifle or whatever the frig it was called. The zulus carried a spear. The rifle took longer to make but was a better weapon individually. The zulus made thousands of spears. The zulus won bacuse, oput simply, they had more weapons than the british. does this meant that, overall, the spear was a better weapon than the rifle?

The Brittish won the Zulu wars.

not the battle of... :cen: ...forgotten its name...

the one from the film

Rourke's Drift.
 
The British didn't "win" the Battle of Rourke's Drift so much as the Zulus let them be. They still had thousands of warriors and would've eventually overwhelmed the Brits. Only their admiration for the bravery and skill at arms the British showed caused them to decide to leave and let them live. If you've seen the movie, you should know that.
 
Charge_7 said:
The British didn't "win" the Battle of Rourke's Drift so much as the Zulus let them be. They still had thousands of warriors and would've eventually overwhelmed the Brits. Only their admiration for the bravery and skill at arms the British showed caused them to decide to leave and let them live. If you've seen the movie, you should know that.

In 90% of the cases movies arn't correct, theres always something thats untrue in them even if they are based on a real event. :p
 
Back
Top