Best/favorite WW2 medium tank

People over-emphasize the diesel engines. The T-34 did burn very easy, more so than the Panther.

The interleaving wheels were also very important in making the Panther as stable a gun platform as it was.

KrazyKraut said:

The interleaving wheels were also very important in making the Panther as stable a gun platform as it was.

Click to expand...

The interleaving wheels system is pretty complicated for manufacturing and maintenance.
And not the best for arctic winter conditions. Frozen mud could even stop the tank which was very common in Russia.
Nothing else than improved copy of T-34...

Read online that the infamous tendency of the M4 Sherman to catch fire when hit by shell fire was not because of gasoline engine but because of ammunition storage.

Correct Renrich, and it was later partially solved with a wet storage arrangement.

As for the T-34, well it tended mostly to explode immediately after being hit, the pressure from the German 75 88mm APCBC projectiles setting off the ammunition storage. Now if that didn't happen the round usually just went right through the tank (Sometimes the fuze could fail), penetrating straight through the engine block causing a fuel explosion.

The IS-2 also tended to either immediately brew up or explode if hit by a 75 or 88mm APCBC shell. An explosion was almost guaranteed if the turret was penetrated, which was what the German gunners were aiming at; Explaining how a few Tiger Ausf.E's massacred over 20 IS-2's in an engagement at 1,500m in late August(IIRC) 1944.

An intersting perspective

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dA-Sv1Ndso

My favorite tank is the M3 Grant (I know blasphemy). I like it because it has 2 big guns. It would be a lot more useful when attacking soft targets.

is this true...the german mk5 tank...sticking in the ice,my god,i understood it was so advanced.no wonder the t34 was better. .

seesul said:

The reason why I voted for T-34 and not for Panther is because T-34 was really revolutionary conception and Germans only used and improved (not in all aspects) it on their Panther.

Click to expand...

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

The Panther and the T-34 has only superficial similiarities - like shape of the hull - but inside they are completely different.

Kurfürst said:

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

The Panther and the T-34 has only superficial similiarities - like shape of the hull - but inside they are completely different.

Click to expand...

I really don´t know, in fact nothing...only Germans knew that as they copied and improved that conception and armour inclination on Panther...think for a first time with the turret in the middle...

Inclined or sloped armor was nothing particularly new, it was well understood at the time.. take a look at AFV designs from the era, including German ones.




Earlier German medium tanks like Pz III and IV had a boxy design for two reasons - they were relatively small and this maximumised usable space inside the tank, and because the Germans opted for face-hardened armor plates on their early designs (a very reasonable choice against the typically small-caliber, pre-war AT guns firing uncapped projectiles, as they would shatter upon impact) and face-hardened armor worked best if used vertically.

The Soviets basically took existing technologies of the time (for example, the large V2 diesel of T34 was a modified French airship engine to my best knowledge), and applied them to their 'fast tank' concept seen on the BT series, only in bigger and heavier version with more armor and larger gun.

Its just natural evolvement of technology.

Kurfürst said:

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

Click to expand...

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

I voted in the the Pzkw IV (Late models)

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

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

Yea Parsifal - All very well put.

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

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.

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.

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

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!!!