Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Only once they added the three-man turret with the 85mm gun. Before that it was average to slightly below average for it's time. It's just that the rest of Soviet armor was so much worse. But the early two-man turret was a pig to fight - having the TC be gunner is always a bad idea - and negated most of the advantages of the rest of the design.The T-34 was one of the best tanks of WWII imo.
Only once they added the three-man turret with the 85mm gun. Before that it was average to slightly below average for it's time.
Why would you think that? Just curious.
I see you added a bit . Now i see why you can think " best tank " take a look atSloped armor allowed for good protection without weighing it down. That allowed for good mobility, especially when combined with wide tracks and that 500hp aluminum-block diesel. Once the 85mm gun and 3-man turret came on, it carried a good gun that could be efficiently loaded and pointed. In short, it was a well-rounded tank.
I see you added a bit . Now i see why you can think " best tank " take a look at
The T-34/76mm was a great tank too and overall better then the contemporary Panzer IV. You shouldn't just jump time-periods.Only once they added the three-man turret with the 85mm gun. Before that it was average to slightly below average for it's time. It's just that the rest of Soviet armor was so much worse. But the early two-man turret was a pig to fight - having the TC be gunner is always a bad idea - and negated most of the advantages of the rest of the design.
No doubt you have caused some keyboard seeth in more than one location.My reference to the T-34 was to piss someone off.
Before 1941, U.S. Army doctrine was to use tanks to support infantry.The T-34/76mm was a great tank too and overall better then the contemporary Panzer IV. You shouldn't just jump time-periods.
When the Russians fielded the T34/76 what did the Allies have? Valentines, Crusaders, Mathilda's, Grants. all inferior against Panzer IV or a T-34/76 if fielded in equal numbers.
Medium Tank M4 Sherman - Tank Encyclopedia
The M4 Sherman was the main Allied tank in WW2, mass-produced to an extent of 50,000 and used in countless conflicts through numerous decades.tanks-encyclopedia.com Tank Encyclopedia - The Online Tank Museum
All about the tactics, technologies, and evolution of the tank worldwide, from World War I to the Atomic and Digital Ages.tanks-encyclopedia.com
Regards
Jagdflieger
Hi,The T-34/76mm was a great tank too and overall better then the contemporary Panzer IV. You shouldn't just jump time-periods.
When the Russians fielded the T34/76 what did the Allies have? Valentines, Crusaders, Mathilda's, Grants. all inferior against Panzer IV or a T-34/76 if fielded in equal numbers.
Medium Tank M4 Sherman - Tank Encyclopedia
The M4 Sherman was the main Allied tank in WW2, mass-produced to an extent of 50,000 and used in countless conflicts through numerous decades.tanks-encyclopedia.com Tank Encyclopedia - The Online Tank Museum
All about the tactics, technologies, and evolution of the tank worldwide, from World War I to the Atomic and Digital Ages.tanks-encyclopedia.com
Regards
Jagdflieger
Taking the Africa-corps tank collection in numbers and Types into account - any Allied tank posed a danger to them - even a Valentine.Hi,
Interestingly enough, although I have always thought that the M3 Grant was an a fairly odd and ungainly beast I was actually surprised to find that for a period of time it actually was considered be some to be one of the better tanks in North Africa when it first arrived.
Specifically, accoring to Wikipedia the M3 first saw service with the British in North Africa in May 1942 and I read somewhere that the range of its 75mm gun came as a surprise to the Germans, and there is even a footnoted comment on its Wikipedia page ( that the author of the book "Panzer Commander" by a former German Army Colonel during the war (Hans von Luck) that he believed that the M3 was a better tank than the Panzer IV, prior to the F2 variant. Also according to the Panzerserra Bunker (Panzer IV Ausf F2 - Sd.Kfz. 161/1 - case report) site Rommel had only received 27 Aus F2 tanks by August 1942).
So, for a period of time at least I believe that the M3 may have held some advantage over the German tanks it was encountering in battle.
Pat
It also helped that much of the opposition was operating the Italian M13/40 and the short barreled Pz.Kpfw. III. The M3 will have to work harder against the Pz.Kpfw. IV and especially the Pz.Kpfw. VI, but for the most part the M3 was the superlative high volume tank of North Africa, until the M4s arrived.The advantage the M3 had, was that it had both the main gun and the 37mm upper turret (comparable to the PzKfw III armament) and it's crew may have been six, but the tank's weapon systems were fully manned, meaning all weapons could be active at the same time, instead of crewmen scrambling from one weapon to another during battle.
Hi,Taking the Africa-corps tank collection in numbers and Types into account - any Allied tank posed a danger to them - even a Valentine.
But in an equal number comparison I don't see a reason for a Panzer IV crew with the long 75mm cannon being intimidated by a Grant with a crew of 6-7 and a side mounted
75mm M2 gun. It was however most likely the best Western-Allied Tank in Africa.
IIRC once the Sherman came on in numbers the Grant's were immediately transferred to Australia and others deployed in South-East-Asia.
Regards
Jagdflieger