Best/favorite WW2 medium tank

[Ramirezzz]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Hmmm - what was so revolutionary about the T-34? It just used the same tech that was already used on existing tanks.

well not the single features but the combination of them in a single tank made it a revolutonary design that revolutionised the tank warfare and invented the conception of a MBT

[Bigxiko]

I voted in the the Pzkw IV (Late models)

[parsifal]

Cost of manufacture and the use of scarce resources has to figure prominently in mediuum tank design. Also mobility in difficult or ice ridden terrain .

The Sherman cost about 2/3 that of a MkIV in dollar terms to produce, and less than half that of a MkV. Dont know the dollr cost of a T-34, but it was easy to make, much easier than the equivalent german models. However, German tanks held a distinct technological advantage in the gun-armour stakes.

All tank design, and production is a compromise between engine power, gun power, and protection. Slight adjuncts to that are the cost of the technology, and overall production costs. Finally there may sometimes be issues of reliability, and commonality (ie haviong too many differnt marks and models, makes the logistics issue a real nightmare)

Now, firstly to break down by nationality (marked 1-10, 10 being perfect, 1 being abysmal)

Germany:

Engine/Mobility: 7
Gun Power: 9
Protection: 8
Technology Cost:6
Production Cost: 3
Reliability: 5
Commonality: 3
Total score for german tanks: 41
Best tank in German lineup: Panther
Germany loses out badly in the technology costs (her face hardened armour, engine and gun decvelopment costs, and her pioneer work oin the AFV sphere all made for added expense). I believe she had some issues with reliability (particulalry with the panther, and the overall lavish fitouts and standards of finish all worked against them when it came to numbers
US

Engine/Mobility: 6
Gun Power: 5
Protection: 3
Technology Cost:5
Production Cost: 8
Reliability: 6
Commonality: 8


Total Score: 41
Best US Medium: M4 Sherman
The US scores badly in the firepower and protection stkes. Their tanks were adequately mobile (although overall i think they were slightly worse than Germany). Because the US was coming from so far behind (take a look at their M2 type if you dont believe me), they had to invest a lost in the technology to bring their tanks up to speed. The US scores top marks in production costs, and commonality, and I consider them to be reasonable in terms of relaibility


Britain

Engine/Mobility: 5
Gun Power: 4 (have not included 17 pdr in Medium tanks)
Protection: 5
Technology Cost:5
Production Cost: 5
Reliability: 6
Commonality: 4
Total : 34

The best wartime medium in the british inventory would be either the Churchill or the Comet IMO

British tank development suffered a lot of problems in the war. The separation of cavalry roles and Infantry support roles stunted and deformed British tank development. Armament, in the early stages with the two pounder, which was unable to counter German 88s effectively, cost many tanks, many battles and a lot of tankers lives. British engine development was backward at the beginning of the war. The Commet suffered from a relatively weak armament at the end of the war. However, British technoilogy costs were still better than the germans, and the production costs of their relatively simple AFVs also quite good.
IMO the best Brit tank, though a close competition, is the Comet.


USSR

Engine/Mobility: 7
Gun Power: 6
Protection: 6
Technology Cost:7
Production Cost: 6
Reliability: 6
Commonality: 5
Total 43
The Soviets are not clear winners in any single category, however in every category they score quite well. This is because in my opinion, Soviet tanks are a good balance between all of the various factors. Looking at the t-34, it was mobile because of itrs wide tracks, it was well armoured, because of its sloped armour scheme, it had adequte gun performance, its technology was relatively easy to develop, because it was an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary development. It was simple and easy to build, And the Soviets were succesful in the commonality area IMO

Best Overall tank IMO is probably the T-34, although ther heavier armouring scheme of the KV-1/2 make it tempting

France

Engine/Mobility: 3
Gun Power: 6
Protection: 7
Technology Cost:5
Production Cost: 4
Reliability: 4
Commonality: 2
Total: 31

Best wartime tank: Somua

Italy

Engine/Mobility: 2
Gun Power: 4
Protection: 3
Technology Cost:4
Production Cost: 4
Reliability: 3
Commonality: 4
Total 24

Best overall. Not a tank, but inmy opinion the best Italian tanks were their varios Semoventes

Japan

Engine/Mobility: 4
Gun Power: 4
Protection: 4
Technology Cost: 2
Production Cost: 3
Reliability: 4
Commonality: 2
Total: 23

Best overall
Shinhoto Chi Ni

The best overall medium tank, on the absis of theabove assessment, therefore gets down to either the T-34, or the M4, taking into account the non-battle related variables. My instinct tells me that the fonal top position should go to the T-34, but this might be a matter of opinion

[seesul]

thanks for your ranking, I agree almost in all aspects...

[Danielmellbin]

Yea Parsifal - All very well put.

[slaterat]

How could you not include the 17 pdr in assessing British tanks ?

I voted for the Firefly because it had the 17 pdr. The 17 pdr was the great equalizer. My second pick would be the Comet. I didn't pick it first as it came a little late in the war, however I believe its superior to the panther or T 34.

Slaterat

[Soren]

The Firefly wasn't even close to being as good as the Panther. The Panther features far superior optics, mobility, armour protection and an equal gun.

The Firefly was vulnerable to the Panther out and beyond 3,500+ m, while the Panther could feel relatively safe against the Firefly at most ranges as long as it was head on.

[parsifal]

How could you not include the 17 pdr in assessing British tanks ?

I voted for the Firefly because it had the 17 pdr. The 17 pdr was the great equalizer. My second pick would be the Comet. I didn't pick it first as it came a little late in the war, however I believe its superior to the panther or T 34.


I would put the firefly under the generic heading if "Sherman". It was, after all, known as the Sherman Firefly. It was on that basis that I bumped up my firepower rating for the Sherman, and also a reason why I short listed the Sherman against the T-34.

[parsifal]

The Firefly wasn't even close to being as good as the Panther. The Panther features far superior optics, mobility, armour protection and an equal gun.

The Firefly was vulnerable to the Panther out and beyond 3,500+ m, while the Panther could feel relatively safe against the Firefly at most ranges as long as it was head on

Basically I agree, but the limitations on the panther are there nevertheless. It basically cost 2.5 times as much to produce a panther as it does a Sherman (of any description). Early on ther were some reliability issues, that led to the loss of some panthers. Finally because the germans had a number of types being produced simultaneously, there were some issues with logistics and commonality. IMO the germans suffer very poor marks in these non-battlefield related areas.

If you look at the loss statistics for the Tiger losses, a lot were lost because they had to be abandoned, either due to breakdowns, or because of fuel shortages. I expect that the panthers suffered similar fates in a lot of instances

[joy17782]

the m 3 tank had alot of flaws,mostly the 75 mm in the hall didnt have much traverse, you had too point the tank at its target , the 35mm on top was a 2 man show with the comander being the gunner , and the commander comands and thats already a tough jop, the french tanks had the same flaw , the m3 was a stop - gap measure and thats it ,,it did work good in the indian-burma area, but then agian what did the japs have too oppose it, the panther was as good as a medium tank as you can get, the sherman too!!!

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by parsifal

It basically cost 2.5 times as much to produce a panther as it does a Sherman (of any description).

Given the Sherman cost roughly about 40 000 USD, the Panther in the rangeo of 160 000 RM IIRC, with the conversion ratio being something like 1USD/4RM, actually their final price was rather similiar - at least roughly, given that we cannot be sure what is included in the price, details etc.

[parsifal]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Given the Sherman cost roughly about 40 000 USD, the Panther in the rangeo of 160 000 RM IIRC, with the conversion ratio being something like 1USD/4RM, actually their final price was rather similiar - at least roughly, given that we cannot be sure what is included in the price, details etc.

No, it actually cost US $34000 to produce a Sherman, with armament and radio included. It cost RM 174000 to produce a Panther, exclusive of radios and armament. A 75 mm ATG cost RM 12500, and the radios and secondary armament came to RM 5500. Total cost for the panther was therefore in the vicinity RM 192000. Dont know where you got your conversion rates, but according to Overy (considered the leading wartime historian on wartime economies), the exchange rate was actually closer to 3.05 RM to every dollar, rather than 4:1. This lower excahnge rate is applicable because of the artificial price fixing and rate pegging that took place in Germany at the time. This made the RM look grossly over-inflated,and look much more valuable than it actually ever was, during the war.

At RM 3.05 for each dollar, the actual cost of a Panther, in USD is $62951 per unit, or 1.85 times the price of a Sherman. So, it appears that the Sherman was more than I had first assumed, but still a lot less than the panther tank.

However, it does make the Mk IV look a little more competitive. At RM 142000 (with armament and radio fitted), the dollar value of the Mk IV comes in at about US $ 46557, making it somewhat closer to the value of a Sherman.

The Tiger, however, is completely outgunned, in the cost area. It was valued at over RM 310000, with armament and radio. which equates to US $101639 per unit. This made them very expensive pieces of hardware

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by parsifal

No, it actually cost US $34000 to produce a Sherman, with armament and radio included. It cost RM 174000 to produce a Panther, exclusive of radios and armament. A 75 mm ATG cost RM 12500, and the radios and secondary armament came to RM 5500. Total cost for the panther was therefore in the vicinity RM 192000. Dont know where you got your conversion rates, but according to Overy (considered the leading wartime historian on wartime economies), the exchange rate was actually closer to 3.05 RM to every dollar, rather than 4:1. This lower excahnge rate is applicable because of the artificial price fixing and rate pegging that took place in Germany at the time. This made the RM look grossly over-inflated,and look much more valuable than it actually ever was, during the war.

At RM 3.05 for each dollar, the actual cost of a Panther, in USD is $62951 per unit, or 1.85 times the price of a Sherman. So, it appears that the Sherman was more than I had first assumed, but still a lot less than the panther tank.

More difficult to c ompare once you start into discussion of Infantry support role where many M4s and T-34s made a huge difference when the 88's and Tiger/Panthers could be overwhelmed by sheer numbers

However, it does make the Mk IV look a little more competitive. At RM 142000 (with armament and radio fitted), the dollar value of the Mk IV comes in at about US $ 46557, making it somewhat closer to the value of a Sherman.

The Tiger, however, is completely outgunned, in the cost area. It was valued at over RM 310000, with armament and radio. which equates to US $101639 per unit. This made them very expensive pieces of hardware

3;1 in contrast to cost of M-4 tanks/crews killed by Tigers seems cheap. I have no idea what the actual ratios were of Panther/Tiger kill ratios were but suspect that the M4 and all other Allied tanks performed miserably against the two German tanks,

One could just look to modern day effectiveness of F-15 to evrything else it has fought as a comparison ----> higher cost but much higher value in both crew expense (training) and airframe.

Maybe a different story when considering T-34 and M-4 in Infantry support where agility and speed and quantity were very important.

[parsifal]

Originally Posted by drgondog

3;1 in contrast to cost of M-4 tanks/crews killed by Tigers seems cheap. I have no idea what the actual ratios were of Panther/Tiger kill ratios were but suspect that the M4 and all other Allied tanks performed miserably against the two German tanks,

One could just look to modern day effectiveness of F-15 to evrything else it has fought as a comparison ----> higher cost but much higher value in both crew expense (training) and airframe.

Maybe a different story when considering T-34 and M-4 in Infantry support where agility and speed and quantity were very important.

In fact, in 1943-5, the Germans achieved a kill:loss ratio of 2.37:1 against their enemies. The Tiger equipped units achieved an impressive 5.74:1 kill ratio against the allies. I dont the specific breakdowns past that point

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by parsifal

No, it actually cost US $34000 to produce a Sherman, with armament and radio included. It cost RM 174000 to produce a Panther, exclusive of radios and armament. A 75 mm ATG cost RM 12500, and the radios and secondary armament came to RM 5500. Total cost for the panther was therefore in the vicinity RM 192000.

Spielberger`s definitieve book on the Panther gives the following prices (via Heereswaffenamt WuG 6):

Pz V Panther: 117 100 RM
7.5cm KwK 42 12 000 RM
HL 230 engine: 11 000 RM
AK 7-200 gearbox: 3500 RM
MG 34 : 312 RM

That works out roughly as 145 000 RM, complete with gunetc.

Originally Posted by parsifal

Dont know where you got your conversion rates, but according to Overy (considered the leading wartime historian on wartime economies), the exchange rate was actually closer to 3.05 RM to every dollar, rather than 4:1.

Groehler. It may not be 100% accurate, but then again, we don`t know either what the Sherman prices include, wheter it is for the initial batch or later batches that would be obviously cheaper etc. I don`t buy that it was cheaper than the Pz IV, which was a very simple tank design with no fancy things on it, also much smaller.

I am not sure why Overy would be such an authority on WW2 economy - though I haven`t seen much from him in this subject - but he seems to an expert of all fields at the same time, writing numerous books on wildly different aspects of WW2, which makes me wonder how would that be possible for a mere human.

In any case, 145 000 RM figure Spielberger gives (you should really see that book.. its simply Teutonic thoroughness in its sickest form) it works out at roughly 47 500 USD a piece (or 36000, practically the same amount as a the figure claimed for the Sherman tank).

Considering the Panther was produced in a lesser production run (=> higher unit costs for the whole project) than the Sherman, and the uncertainity about the Sherman figures, I would say there was no particularly great difference in costs - and slightly higher costs were more than justified by the Panthers superior capabilities IMHO.

Originally Posted by parsifal

This lower excahnge rate is applicable because of the artificial price fixing and rate pegging that took place in Germany at the time. This made the RM look grossly over-inflated,and look much more valuable than it actually ever was, during the war.

I don`t think this matters a lot to our current discussion IMHO - MAN had to pay the electric bill at the end of the month, its workers, and Krupp for the armored plates delivered; just like Chrysler, and also make some profit on it.

The Tiger, however, is completely outgunned, in the cost area. It was valued at over RM 310000, with armament and radio. which equates to US $101639 per unit. This made them very expensive pieces of hardware

The Tiger saw only limited orders and limited production. Unit cost of any product that is produced in small series is going to be higher, regardless of what that product is, a Sherman, a Tiger or a hair-dryer.

In practice however a Tiger costed nowhere near 3 Shermans - what would actually matter in wartime conditions were the raw material needs to produce a single tank, and the time needed on actually producing it from these materials (ie. work hours needed to complete a single unit). In the field, 3 Shermans definietely needed at least twice the support and suplies (ie. 3 times the crews needed to be trained, two to three times the fuel consumed etc.).

It was also not a viable or sensible strategy for the Germans to try to match the sheer output of their enemies - a phyisical impossibilty - but to try to counter higher numbers with higher quality weapons. In an example if the Germans would simply copy the Sherman, they would be still vastly outproduced by the US.

Its an old numbers vs quality thing. NATO played that game against the WP in the cold war. NATO tried for superior quality (altough it did not achieve it IMHO until the Leo2/M1/Challanger came to the scene IMHO).