7

Prompted by this question and a comment by matt_black. The T-34 is often cited as the best tank of WW2. However some articles paint a very different picture.

Quote:

According to the head of the Armored Directorate of the Red Army N.Fedorenko, the average mileage of the T-34 to overhaul during the war, did not exceed 200 kilometers. This was considered adequate since the T-34’s service life at the front was considerably less. For example in 1942 only 66km. In that sense the T-34 was indeed ‘reliable’ because it was destroyed before it had a chance to break down on its own!

Quote:

The T-34 is possibly the only weapon system in history to be rated by most commentators as the finest all round weapon in a century of warfare, and yet never consistently achieved anything better than a one to three kill-loss ratio against its enemies.

I don't necessarily just limit this question to the T-34. But the overall effectiveness/performance of Soviet tanks in WW2.

Community
  • 1
Stefan
  • 573
  • 7
  • 14
  • 11
    I'm sure answers will have to carefully define what they mean by "better". In broad economic terms, for example, the T34 beat the german tanks despite a 1:3 kill loss rate because it was cheap and fast to manufacture so the soviets could have far more than three times as many. It will also be useful to take the quality of tactics into account. Soviet tank tactics were mostly worse the germans' so battle losses won't be an accurate reflection of the merits of the vehicles. – matt_black Feb 03 '13 at 18:26
  • 2
    I'm with @matt: This question is entirely subjective until you define the exact criteria for what makes the best tank. Further, I would like to see an explicit quote for notability here. You don't seem to doubting what the sources you quote are saying. – Oddthinking Feb 03 '13 at 23:36
  • @matt_black The article from the first quote even questions the cheap part. – Stefan Feb 04 '13 at 14:21
  • @Oddthinking to quote from operationbarbarossa _The technical superiority of the T-34 in 1941 (and during WWII in general) has become the stuff of legend. Its apparent superiority has become so entrenched in the psyche of post WWII authors that it is now assumed without question. Some go as far as to claim the T-34 as “the finest tank of the twentieth century” and the T-34 “rendered the entire fleet of German tanks as effectively obsolete”._ – Stefan Feb 04 '13 at 14:23
  • @Oddthinking I am doubting weather Soviet tanks were better than German tanks in both terms of performance and effectiveness and probably even cheapness. Which seems to be the generally accepted position. The bottom 2 quotes are to show why i am doubting it. – Stefan Feb 04 '13 at 14:26
  • @Stefan: Re: first quote: Rather than quote the deniers (who you seem to agree with), quote the people you deny. That way, there is proof of notability, we have some idea of the definitions that the proponents are using and we can check we aren't arguing against a strawman. – Oddthinking Feb 04 '13 at 14:57
  • @Stefan: Defining "best" in terms of "performance" and "effectiveness" doesn't get us any closer. For example, maybe the tanks did need an overhaul every 200kms. Was that an actual factor to be considered? Did it matter? What about fuel efficiency? Cannon-calibre? Carrying capacity? Top speed on roads? Ferocious reputation? Until it is specified exactly what it means to be best, we are just playing [Top Trumps](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Trumps). You don't get to specify it, though. The claimants do - hence the need for a cite. – Oddthinking Feb 04 '13 at 15:06
  • 1
    There is a quote from Guderian or Manstein in their memoirs where they recount Russian visits to German tank factories while the countries were still collaborating. The gist of the story is that the Russians didn't believe the Germans were being open about their tanks, and the Germans missed the implication that the Russians already had better tanks in development. I'm looking for the detail now. – matt_black Feb 04 '13 at 16:05
  • This question reminds me of the time I wandered into the youtube comments section on a video about WW2 tanks... Dark Dark times *shudder* – Ian Feb 05 '13 at 14:27
  • @Oddthinking I will try to improve the question with more quotes. – Stefan Feb 11 '13 at 18:46
  • 1
    Actually there is no notable claim that it is here. – Chad Dec 07 '13 at 22:43
  • 2
    The main difference is a production speed and overall production number: USSR's built T-34 - 84,070; German Tiger II - 492; German Tiger I - 1,347; Germans had superior tanks. Many of them scored great victories, but they just lost by numbers. USSR produced more mediocre tanks in one month than Germany overall. Additionally, German tanks was not only technically advanced, but extremely expensive and overengineered. – alex Dec 14 '13 at 00:05
  • 2
    Kill ratios are not a good measure, but themselves, of Tank effectiveness. That also depends on the quality of crew training and tactics. The Germans were much better at both. But the Germans were surprised in their early encounters with T-34s (which suggests the quality compensated for poorer Russian training to a significant extent). And they copied parts of the T-34 design to develop the Panther, which also suggests the *design* had significant merits. – matt_black Aug 19 '16 at 17:18

3 Answers3

8

The USSR had a better military than Germany in WWII, the proof for this is the second part of the book The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, in other words, the Nazis lost and the USSR won, in a conflict that was mostly decided by Armor clashes, like the Battle of Kursk.

Tanks are made to win battles and wars and the T-34 was successful while the German Tiger and the Panzer IV weren't.

However to choose which tank is better would need a definition of quality, or "what do you mean by better". To do a comparison to anther losing German vehicle, the Maybach brand, while having more luxurious and better engineered cars than Toyota, it was closed, while Toyota is the 12th-largest company in the world by revenue. Maybach, while having better engineered and more comfortable cars, had a price tag that was so high that (almost) nobody wanted to buy them, at the same time Toyota cars are selling like condoms in a cheap Motel.

The same happened with the German Tanks, While being superior engineer-wise they weren't easy to manufacture, and not suitable for war time economics. The USSR produced 35119 T-34 tanks and 29430 T-34-85 tanks in the period between 1941-1945, it's a total of 64549 T-34 Tanks produced in 5 years, while the Germans managed to produce only 1347 Tiger I tanks and approxematly 8800 Panzer IV tanks which is a total 10147 tanks in a period longer than what the Russian had. So the soviets had the sheer number advantage, on the Battle of Kursk The Soviets had 2.7 times more tanks than the German and on the Battle of Moscow the Soviets had 1.9 times more tanks.

The Military Channel did a "Top 10 Tanks" article, that named the T-34 as the best tank ever, while the Tiger and Panzer IV got the 3rd and 6th places respectivly, the reasons are the same as I explaned. You can watch these video clips where they explain in more detail that while the German Tanks were exactly what you would expect from german engeneering, their cost and manufacturing time were just too high to fight in an all out war that lasted for 5 years.

The T-34:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVg6gFmuRlE

The Tiger:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoyW83fdJi4

The Panzer IV:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfZE_IUjwGM

There is no "Best tank", there is the more suitable tank and army. While the Panzer and the German war machine were probably the more suitable Army for short engagements in relatively small areas like Poland, France, the Netherlands and Belgium, The T-34, the Red Army and the Russian People were more suitable for an attrition war in the largest country in the world during one of the harshest winters of that decade.

  • Many of the sources are Wikipedia, but only because they do such a good job, of summing all the numbers.

  • I have nothing against Toyota, they make great cars, they were given as an example for a smart and successful operation in contrast to the unsuccessful endeavor of the Maibach brand.

SIMEL
  • 29,037
  • 14
  • 123
  • 139
  • 2
    Good answer. I like the vivid "condom in a cheap hotel metaphor" and I hope that it doesn't get edited out. Vivid writing is good writing! – matt_black Feb 03 '13 at 21:29
  • 1
    It's a good answer, but it seems the OP was meaning to ask about technical merits, not cost effectiveness (too vague to be sure). – user5341 Feb 03 '13 at 22:48
  • It's a good answer, but I agree with @DVK on the focus, if any. – Carlo Alterego Feb 04 '13 at 00:10
  • @DVK I would even question the cost effectiveness: _Just to give an example the ‘cheap’ T-34 had an aluminum engine. The Germans with more industrial assets than the SU and significantly higher aluminum production reached the conclusion that they could not provide their own tanks with an aluminum engine. It was simply too costly for them._ From http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html – Stefan Feb 04 '13 at 14:28
  • @Ilya Melamed Quote from operatiobarbarossa: _It should be remembered (a fact that seems to be often forgotten) that Allied strategic bombing reduced German AFV production by at least 10% in 1943, 40% in 1944 and even more during 1945, exactly when German AFV production had peaked._ – Stefan Feb 04 '13 at 14:30
  • 1
    _One very significant point about these figures is that if we remove the 11 900 AFVs received by the Soviets via Lend Lease, and allocate all German WWII fully tracked AFV production to the Wehrmacht’s East Front forces (i.e. add those lost fighting the Western Allies), then the Germans would have only needed kill loss ratio of 2.45 to 1 in order to have destroyed all Soviet fully tracked AFVs that existed on 22nd June 1941 (23 300 AFVs) and all 99 150 fully tracked AFVs produced during the war (122 450 AFVs). This figure is well below the 2.94 to 1 kill-loss ratio historically achieved._ – Stefan Feb 04 '13 at 14:31
  • @stefan, I'll address what you said, as well as what DVK wrote in the coming days in an edit (I have 3 finals in the upcoming 4 days). – SIMEL Feb 05 '13 at 17:09
  • But I just want to emphasize again comparing just tanks is not a good comparison, tanks don't fight a war alone, the whole army and in the case of WWII the whole nation fights the war, it's meaningless to compare just 1 aspect of a war effort without considering all other aspects. While the t-34 was hugely successful in WWII, its variant, the SU-100, had devastating results in the hands of arab armies in the Six Day war, Yom Kippur war and the Suez Crisis. The same model was used successfully during the bay of pigs envision and suppression of the Hungarian Revolution and the Prague Spring. – SIMEL Feb 05 '13 at 17:12
  • -1 for numerous inaccurate or unsupported claims, use of unserious sources (Shirer, cable TV documentaries,) etc, etc. – Evan Harper Feb 06 '13 at 18:47
  • @EvanHarper, why isn't Shirer a good source to the fact that **Germany lost WWII**? – SIMEL Feb 06 '13 at 19:24
  • 1
    @IlyaMelamed My question is actually if the T34 was actually that huge success everyone claims. Look at the [Battle of Kursk](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kursk). Yes it was a Soviet victory on all levels. But look at the numbers. Its like saying the [Battle of Thermopylae](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae) proves that the Persian forces were _better_. While being outnumbered almost 3:1 the Germans still destroyed at least 4 times the number of tanks (mostly T34) and that despite the Russians having the battlefield (meaning they could repair tanks). – Stefan Feb 11 '13 at 18:45
  • Russian defensive tactics basically revolve around We Have Reserves -- turn the front into a meatgrinder until the enemy advance slows to a halt, then hold the lines with a total disregard of the casualty costs until winter sets in and kills off the enemy. – Shadur Dec 07 '13 at 13:15
  • Anyway, downvoting because while you make a good argument that the Soviets had a better military as proven by the fact that they won, it's pretty clear that the victory was one of quantity over quality -- they didn't have *better* tanks; they just had tons *more* of them. – Shadur Dec 07 '13 at 13:19
  • 3
    @Shadur - Cost to produce should be taken into account, as should reliability. This is why the Sherman - slow, undergunned, weakly armored - won the day in Africa. They didn't break down, and there were a metric crap-ton of them, as they were cheap and fast to produce. Meanwhile, the Char-B1 had *massive* kill ratios against German armor, and it didn't do France a bit of good, as they were unreliable and rare. – RI Swamp Yankee Dec 12 '13 at 15:07
  • 1
    Deducting who had the "best" tank by "who won the conflict" is several flavors of downvote-worthy. Also the reduction on production numbers: Germany could not afford to get into a war of attrition in the first place, due to the lack of resources -- oil, ores, men. I feel this answer, while repeating the popular points made all across the internet, is pretty much missing the point. – DevSolar Aug 19 '16 at 14:49
  • @DevSolar, The whole point of the answer is that there is no "best" tank there is a winning army (or nation). A tank and an army are better if they mannage to win a war, and descision making (like goining to war againts the USSR) is also a part of this. For example, Israel uses it's own tanks (the Merkava) and not the american Abrams M1. It doesn't mean that the M1 is better or worst than the Merkava, it means that when considering all the considerations, some of them are probably also economic and political, Israel descided that the Merkava is better suited to its needs. – SIMEL Aug 20 '16 at 06:18
  • @IlyaMelamed: The whole point of my comment is that "who won" is downright irrelevant to the question. – DevSolar Aug 20 '16 at 06:26
  • @DevSolar, how would you rate tanks, what is more important, speed, armour, fire power, menouverability, ease of use, fire rate, durability, ease of repair on the field, ease of repair in a workshop, fuel efficiency, cost, weight, size of crew, ammo capacity, time to manufacture, ability to manufacture, range, accuracy, and more factors. Those are just factors for the actual tanks, without considering other very important factors, like quality of crews, quality of commanders, suply and support chains and other strategic question (for example, not engaing in a land war in Russia). – SIMEL Aug 20 '16 at 06:47
  • @IlyaMelamed: I don't, really. (See my answer.) In a one-on-one, I would rather be in a German Tiger than a Russian T-34-85. As a field commander, I would rather have lots of tanks than a few. While driving, I would rather have a Panther's suspension. While replacing road wheels, I would rather not. And so on. I do not think "better" is an operative term here – DevSolar Aug 20 '16 at 06:53
2

The answer is a see-saw, up until 1942 with the introduction of the 75mm KwK 40 L/48 gun the T-34 was superior. Having said that the superiority could not be taken advantage of due to command shortcomings like lack of radio, and also to political interference stifling initiative down to small unit level.

German tank designs were marred not by over-engineering but by a lack of raw materials to make specially hardened steels for vehicle drive trains. So Panther, Tiger 1 and Tiger 2 suffered from gear box break downs. By then being on the defensive and in retreat they were often unable to recover and repair vehicles.

Assuming their designs could be built properly the Germans had the best designs. They were physically bigger than Soviet designs not just heavier. They had more working space, carried superior optics, more ammunition, and better protection.

According to Dr S. Hart and Dr R. Hart German Tanks of World War II 1998 Brown Books, late model Panther was best tank of WW2, and as a result Germans had better tanks.

Sklivvz
  • 78,578
  • 29
  • 321
  • 428
Marty
  • 21
  • 1
-2

T34:

A nasty surprise, superior in combat to its opposition when introduced. Aluminum engine. Enough armour to make it more MKIV proof than was nice. [Shot trap under gun a small 'saving grace' for Germans but too small.]

I confirm @matt_black's recollection re factory visits and the Soviets thinking that the Germans must have hidden superior models.

Guderian makes quite a few comments about the effectiveness of the T34 relative to then current MKIVs. Panther was essentially a T34 response. |

Guderian October 6th 1941: This was the first occasion on which the vast superority of the Russian T34 tanks to ours became plainly apparent. ..."

Guderian: July 2nd 1941: " ... here for the 1st time the enemy deployed his T34 tank, a tank against which our guns at that time were largely ineffective".

von Mellenthin "Panzer Battles" says good things on a number of occasions about the T34. He also notes the rough state of finish and lack of paint - which he notes is them getting their priorities right.

FWIW: I found Wikipedia's comments on von Mellenthin's "Panzer Battles" being " ... part of the exculpatory memoirs genre that fed the post-war revisionist narrative, ...". I read the book 1st and the Wikipedia page latterly. I thought his writings fitted well enough with all other German sources that I've met (including Guderian, Rommell, Kesselring, ...).

Russell McMahon
  • 735
  • 4
  • 10