Read the forum code of contact
By: - 5th February 2016 at 18:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It could be argued that it was the Russians who produced the most effective tank of the war in the T34 as they had embraced Christie's suspension design with adequate armour, a diesel engine and a good gun.
If the US or the UK had taken on board some of Christie's concepts in the twenties/early thirties they may have had more effective equipment earlier.
By: - 5th February 2016 at 20:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, the T34 was a fine tank. Quite probably the best all round tank design of WW2. Produced too, in very large numbers, it proved an unstoppable force spearheading the numerous Russian army offensives. I think that without the benefit of this tank, the Russians would have had a much tougher time on the Eastern front.
By: - 5th February 2016 at 23:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I've always been interested in (obsessed with!) tanks; in fact tanks were my 'first love' before I became interested in military aircraft!
On the whole I'd agree with your assessment of the rather poor development of British tanks during, and before, the war. It wasn't all bad but was a product, as you point out, of lack of development (lack of money) between the wars and then a mad scramble to procure enough tanks, however immature the designs, to catch up with German rearmament.
German tactics, German tactics heavily influenced by the interwar thinking of British Army officers, did much to hide the inadequacies of German tanks and highlight the inadequacies of British and French tanks.
The classic tank-design balancing-act between firepower, armour and mobility is less than half the measure of a successful tank design; reliability, as you point out, strategy, tactics and, most importantly, crew effectiveness are more important, and difficult to quantify. Crew effectiveness is a combination of training, combat experience and, most importantly, crew layout within the tank itself.
The crew layout in British tanks was pretty good, that of German tanks was excellent, and the crew layout of French tanks, and to a lesser extent Russian tanks was shockingly bad!
The Germans had gained a fair bit of priceless experience from the Spanish Civil War of course.
The main weakness of the crew layout in French and Russian tanks, despite their 'on-paper' excellent armour and armament, was how overworked the Commander was. In most French tanks the turret was a one-man affair so the Commander had to load, aim and fire the main gun, he had to visually search for targets and threats, he had to command his own tank crew as well as any other tanks he was responsible for, so selecting and talking on different radio networks. And in French tanks, although the Commander had a cupola, it did not have a hatch on top so he could fight with his head out (as the German tank Commanders preferred to do).
Russian tanks, even the much vaunted T-34, weren't much better in respect of crew layout, at first anyway.
By: - 5th February 2016 at 23:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It could be argued that the Russians produced the most effective tank of the war in the T34...
Yes, the T34 was a fine tank. Quite probably the best all round tank design of WW2...
Well, if I may, I'd like to qualify those statements: at a particular time during the war the T-34/76 was the tank that suited best the particular requirements of the Russian Army...
...and that's very different from the oversimplification that it was the 'best tank of the war'.
At other times during the war other tanks could be considered the 'best tank' of the war but always we must consider a more in-depth analysis than just calibre of gun, thickness of armour and cross-country speed...
...one-on-one, I'd take my chances in a Sherman against a T-34/76 any day of the week.
By: - 6th February 2016 at 00:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I know little of tanks so if I am wildly wrong bear with me, but I thought the Churchill turned out to be fairly rubbish, and we only got it right (too late but spectacularly) with the Centurion?
Moggy
By: - 6th February 2016 at 00:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No, you're not wrong, I think Churchill was substituted in error for Centurion in the original post.
By: - 6th February 2016 at 00:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Although, I may take issue with the description of the Churchill as 'fairly rubbish'...
...yes, it had faults, mainly a weak gun (needed the 17-pounder), but it wasn't a bad tank overall.
By: - 6th February 2016 at 03:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And, of course, we gave the Churchill away to the enemy fairly early by depositing dozens in mostly undamaged condition on the beaches of Dieppe (mostly undamaged apart from broken track pins and jammed suspension caused by the chert beach) - those that were hit by shell or mine showed how well the crew were protected since no one was killed inside a Churchill. FYI Dieppe was the first time the Sten gun was used in action too.
On reflection since Dieppe was just a raid, not an attempt at invasion, there appears to have been little thought gone into the return of any surviving armoured vehicles. Therefore it seems that, damaged or not, all these '60-odd' new Churchill tanks would have been gifted to the Germans...
[ATTACH=CONFIG]243810[/ATTACH]
(I tried to find appropriate images of Churchills at Dieppe but many featured a beach strewn with dead Canadian troops, which makes you wonder - in awe at the bravery of the men on the scene, and the sanity of the planners whose schedule left little room for poor intelligence and simple c0ck-ups.)
By: - 6th February 2016 at 09:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
CD, I was using "effective" as shorthand for what I think you mean e.g. That the T34 was relatively easy to produce in the vast numbers required, efficient, mostly reliable in the conditions it was designed for , and eminently suited to the tactics and terrain in which it was used. Was it the 'best tank'? Not really in any one of the areas of easiest to crew, most effective mounted weapon, etc.
Perhaps we should have a go at tank Top Trumps.
The Sherman, when effectively crewed,using tactics suitable for it's strengths was a very useful weapons system but as with the T34 it's principle advantage over it's opposition was arguably the large numbers available
By: - 6th February 2016 at 09:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No, I understand exactly what you are trying to say; it would require a book to do justice to the T-34, or any other tank for that matter.
The problem with 'shorthand' is that it all too easily becomes accepted as 'fact' and once accepted it is very difficult to shake people's opinion of that accepted fact.
As far as tank 'Top Trumps' goes, that is exactly the opposite approach that which is needed to judge the T-34...
...but you are exactly right in your assessment of ease of production and suitability for the Russian crews!
I often wonder what British or German crews would have made of the T-34 if they had been issued with them? My guess is that they wouldn't have been that impressed!
By: - 6th February 2016 at 09:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Like most British designs of the period, Churchill was vastly over complicated, and not very reliable. Coupled with the poor gun, it didn't make a for a very happy design. It did improve over the years, but it was never great.
This said, the early Tigers and Panthers were little better in terms of reliability, but their armour, both offensive and defensive was rather better!
The big advantage with Sherman, was that it was relatively simple, easy to repair, and there were a LOT of them. Mass production at its best.
By: - 6th February 2016 at 09:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As a kid I always liked the look of the Czech LT vz 38 that became the Panzer 38(t)
As mentioned above, it wasn't it's armour or gun or crew layout that made it a very effective light tank in the early campaigns indeed it had failings in each of these areas, but it's essential relaiblity and ease of maintenance endeared it to it's crews earlier in the war.
Once it's inadequacies as a battle tank had been exposed it's excellent chassis was used in the Marder and Hetzer 'tank destroyers'
By: - 6th February 2016 at 10:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I understood that many of the differences arose from the US prewar strategy that they would have relatively light tanks to support the infantry and tank destroyers to combat enemy armour?
Moggy
By: - 6th February 2016 at 11:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I know little about tanks either, but I wonder if they have reached the end of their development ?
Is there scope for improving armour any further, or the projectiles coming out of the barrel ?
Most, if not all of the conflicts we have been involved with where tanks have been used (post WWII), have been
against poorly equipped or poorly trained adversaries. You will only know how good your tanks are, if pitted
against a well trained army using modern tanks. I suspect that given this scenario, there wouldn't be much in it.
One thing is for sure, your tank would be a target for every anti-tank missile on the battlefield.
It also takes a long time to move a lot of tanks.
By: - 6th February 2016 at 11:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No confusion between Churchill and Centurion. The Centurion played no part in WW2. The Centurion's significance was that it possessed one of the first, if not the first, workable gyro stabilised tank gun enabling the weapon to engage the enemy with - allegedly - some accuracy while the tank was on the move.
The Churchill is worth a mention because it was a step - perhaps a small step - improvement over the Matildas and Crusaders that had gone before.
Robert Kershaw's "Tank Men" p.222 mentions that the Churchill tank with armour of an overall thickness of 4" (102mm), and, as others have commented, the original 2 pounder gun which was ineffective and ultimately replaced by the 6 pounder. These assets, coupled with its spacious hull and solid protection, endeared the Churchill to its crews. May I offer a small correction: According to Kershaw, just 28 Churchill's in total were landed at Dieppe.
The Sherman wasn't all it was cracked up to be. But, it was available - as others have commented - in huge numbers. It was an American development of the M3 Grant tank. The Grant was a useful tank which caused the German army some headaches. When the Sherman's 75mm gun was replaced by the British 17 pounder the tank became a different beast that could engage and destroy both the Panther Mk4 and the Tiger.
Kershaw describes the 17 pounder as the most deadly and efficient artillery piece produced by any side during WW2.
By: - 6th February 2016 at 11:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I understood that many of the differences arose from the US prewar strategy that they would have relatively light tanks to support the infantry and tank destroyers to combat enemy armour?Moggy
Again, Kershaw mentions that this strategy permeated American thinking and bedevilled American tank development. These theories were also part of British inter war military thinking
By: - 6th February 2016 at 11:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Kershaw describes the 17 pounder as the most deadly and efficient artillery piece produced by any side during WW2.
That's a big claim against the legendary Flak 8.8cm
Moggy
By: - 6th February 2016 at 12:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You're right about its reputation. Originally designed for use as an anti aircraft weapon, its 'secret' was its tremendous muzzle velocity - I can't quote the numbers. From what I can glean, the two weapons, the 17pdr and the 88 were much of a muchness.
Anyone wishing to know more about tanks - these very effective battlefield weapons, the previously mentioned Robert Kershaw's "Tank Men" and Mark Urban's "Tank War" are both comprehensive works of reference.
By: - 6th February 2016 at 15:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The muzzle velocity of the 88mm was, from memory, about 950 metres-per-second (something like 3100 feet-per-second), compared to the 75mm gun of the Sherman which struggled to make 2000 feet-per-second...
...and since the kinetic energy of the rounds fired is given by half the mass of the round multiplied by the velocity squared you can really see how effective the 'secret' of the 88mm was in practice!
The 88mm also fired a massive shell, at the time when the standard British anti-tank (and tank) round was a (57mm) 6-pounder (the same weight as a typical cannon-ball fired at Waterloo), the 88mm was firing an anti-tank round weighed in at over 7kg (16lb) or, depending on the type of round, over 10kg (22lb)!
I'd say that the 88mm always had the edge over the 17-pounder, particularly since the Germans were using 88mm anti-aircraft guns agains British Matilda (Mark II) tanks in 1940 before Dunkirk, Matilda tanks armed with a 2-Pounder gun (:rolleyes:!), and the British didn't get the 17-Pounder into a tank until 1944 (Sherman)...
...but that doesn't mean that the 88mm didn't have its drawbacks! Primarily size! It was huge!
The only German tanks to carry the 88mm were the Tiger I and the Tiger II, only 1347 and 492 built respectively, no other German tank could carry it; the Panther only managed to carry in in the Jagdpanther, only about 400 built, and the Panzer IV could only carry it in the very thin-skinned 'Nashorn' (Rhinoceros), of which only 475 were built.
So, yes, 88mm was a good tank-gun but it was mounted on less than 1850 German tanks in the whole war...
...compare that to the thousands and thousands of Shermans and T-34 tanks (many with 85mm guns).
By: - 6th February 2016 at 15:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No confusion between Churchill and Centurion. The Centurion played no part in WW2. The Centurion's significance was that it possessed one of the first, if not the first, workable gyro stabilised tank gun enabling the weapon to engage the enemy with - allegedly - some accuracy while the tank was on the move.The Churchill is worth a mention because it was a step - perhaps a small step - improvement over the Matildas and Crusaders that had gone before...
My apologies for suggesting you had written Churchill when you meant Centurion.
My confusion arose because there were two distinct paths of British tank development during the war: 'Infantry' (support) tanks, such as the Matilda I, Matilda II, Valentine and latterly the Churchill, and 'Cruiser' tanks, such as the A9, A10, Covenanter, Crusader, Cromwell and Comet. So in that respect the Comet could never be considered a 'successor' to the Churchill, but I now understand what you meant.
During the war the British finally, and sensibly, merged these two design paths to create the 'Main Battle Tank' (MBT) and, with the benefit of all their wartime experience fighting German Tigers and Panthers, created the excellent Centurion...
...just too late for the actual war unfortunately!
By the way, it is not a well-known fact but the Sherman and Lee / Grant carried a 'stabilisation' system for the main gun (elevation only); not very effective, and not often used, but no German tank of the war ever carried one!
Posts: 6,535
By: John Green - 5th February 2016 at 17:41
For me, tanks are a big turn on. Britain invented and developed them circa 1916 so, this year is the centenary of British tank development. With that depth of background, one would have thought that the history of the British tank would be one of continuous and sometimes dramatic improvement.
Not so. We did little to nothing between the wars to produce anything like an effective tank. Effective that is in terms of a reliable engine with reliable rolling gear and above all, armour of a thickness sufficient to withstand the impact of at least some battlefield artillery used by European armies and, equally as important; an effective high velocity cannon.
By the start of WW2, the Germans were not much better off, altho' they had numbers of fairly inferior tanks - inferior that is to the French army who at that time had some of the best tanks in the world and plenty of them. They just did not use them with any serious intent.
As the war developed, one of the better tanks on the Allied side was the Sherman - altho' with severe limitations. This was an American tank equipped with a petrol engine which because of its readiness to set the tank and its fuel alight, inspired the Germans to refer to it as the 'Tommy Cooker'. A 'Tommy' being the German soubriquet for a British soldier.
The Sherman wasn't good enough to take on a German panzer Mk4 or, a Tiger until the British replaced it's standard 75mm gun with a high velocity 17 pounder weapon and renamed the tank, the Sherman Firefly. The ordinary Sherman and the Firefly looked identical and identifying which was which, for the Germans, led to serious and very often fatal mistakes.
The British began eventually to catch up with the Germans with ever more efficient and capable tank designs like the Churchill and its successor the Comet, which came into service rather too late in the war to be a decisive weapon.