Now, first thoughts may be a poll on which one to build, and unfortunately I'd have to decline building either of these tanks. Plenty of people have tried their hands at making them, and have done wonderful jobs as is.
So the second thought about this is the 70-something year old question of which is better? And that's what I'm here to ask, in a civil and well thought out manner.
Now, the reason I'm asking is while I procrastinate finishing that Ar 217, I thought about creating a sorta compare-contrast-thing of the two most well known tanks of WW2, and do the thing literally every WW2 fanperson does with them (i.e. 1v1 fight).
Well, I wish to bring some sort of discussion on this topic, since the last one that I recall happening was heavily biased towards the M4, and was a pretty shoddy debate to say the least.
(Also, a note; take any opinions you find or any factual stuff with a grain of salt. If I don't provide any citations for obscure stuff, then ya don't have to necessarily believe it)
Now, to spur some conversation, lets talk about the pros and cons of the Tiger 1 (Specifically the Pz.Kpfw. VI H Ausf. H1), which should be common knowlede among WW2 fanpersons.
-Pros:
-The large caliber 8,8 cm KwK 36 L/56 could devastate most every Allied tank fielded at it's time, and it did.
-It's 100mm frontal armor could protect it from swaths of large caliber gun fire, especially if the hull was angled 30°-45° in either direction of the enemy tank.
-Worked exceptionally well as a defensive tank.
-Saw action on every German front post 1942.
-The large treads gave the Tiger 1 decent climbing ability for a tank of it's size, and could traverse some terrain tanks of other nations couldn't.
Cons:
-It was a heavy lump of metal, well over 50 tons.
-Had that staple German Complexity.
-Was prone to breakdowns since the transmission and engine were not designed to move such a heavy tank.
-Was a large target to Allied CAS.
-Extremely fuel hungry.
-Had thin rear and side hull armor, making ot vulnerable to flanking attacks to tanks with as small of caliber guns as the British 37mm (Point blank though).
-It had flat surfaces that made shoe boxes jealous.
-Saw action on every German front post 1942.
With the Pros and Cons outta the way, the Tiger H1 was still a decent tank for Germany. It had excellent crew survivability when against the M4 Shermans of 1942-44, as well as the T-34 from 1939-44.
The Tiger H1 could penetrate the unfortunately thin hulls of the M4 and T-34 at ranges well exceeding their smaller caliber guns. A single Tiger 1 hulled down outside the hedges and flooded fields of Normandy (There's a word, I know, I just can't recall!) could manage to withstand attacks from most angles until the tank becomes unservicable (If I'm not mistaken, this did happen at some pount during the Normady Campaign. I can't recall very many details besides a Tiger 1 on a hill stopped an entire British spearhead).
On the other hand, though, the Tiger 1 overall was a costly endeavor that constantly broke down and drained Germany of it's already strained fuel supply. Even though the Tiger struck fear into Allied tankers across all fronts, it required such complexity in logistics it hurt the German industry, and redirected supplies from more effective and efficient tanks such as the assault guns (StuGs, StuHs, Marders, Jagdpanzers, etc.) and the Panzer IVs and Vs.
It also didn't help that the number of T-34s and M4s the Tigers went up against exceeded the number of destroyed German tanks on all fronts. (There were almost 50k M4 Shermans produced, and likely the same number of T-34s produced against the number of German tanks destroyed over the entirety of the war, which was numbered around 33k)
Now, lets move onto the M4 Sherman
The M4 Sherman, specifically the M4A1 from 1942. It was the one with the 75mm gun M3, and the cast hull.
Lets start with the pros!
-Pros:
-Was a decently fast medium tank, with a top speed of around 30mph or 48km/h.
-The 75mm gun M3 was an excellent gun for fight tanks and supporting infantry during it's time.
-Had decent crew survivability.
-Had excellent armor of 50mm sloped at 55° when against German tanks from 1939 to 1942, and honestly most every Japanese tanks couldn't stand a chance. (I shouldn't even need to mention the Italians here)
-Was extremely efficient to produce on a massive scale, hence why there was almost 50 thousand of them produced in a three year period.
-Saw action on almost every Allied front post 1942. (The last three M4 Shermans to see active service were retired by Paraguay this year)
-The Sherman was very fuel efficient, and wasen't as prone to breakdowns as the Tiger 1.
-Performed exceptionally well against Italian and Japanese tanks in their respective theaters.
Cons:
-The Tiger 1 came into production 1942 as well.
-While it's armor could handle the German tanks of 1939-42, by 1944, 50mm of sloped armor was basically paper. Tanks such as the Marder III, which was armed with the 7,5 cm PaK 40 could penetrate the hull at distances greater than 100 meters while being far more lightly armored than the Sherman, and far easier to produce and crew.
And lets not need to throw in tanks such as the Tiger 2 (I don't think it really matters if P or H) and the Jagdtiger.
-The British No. 2 Operational Research found that from a sample of 40 Shermans destroyed in Normady, 33 of them burned after having the hull penetrated.
This goes even further, though!
John Buckley (I'm not sure which John Buckley?), using a case study from the British 8th and 29th Armored Brigades, found that of the 166 Shermans destroyed during the Normandy Campaign, 94% burned down after being penetrated.
Fortunately, the number of Shermans burning down after being shot dropped to 15% overall when installed with wet ammo storage, according to a 1945 US Army study.
But keep this in consideration; not all Shermans recieved wet ammo storage, or what I've come under the impression of.
(So yes, the "Ronsen lighter" phrase was true up until late during the war)
-While the 75mm gun M3 was excellent as an infantry support weapon, it performed poorly when against the Tiger 1 and later Panther 1.
The M61 shell, through testing, was estimated to have 78mm of penetration against flat Rolled Homogenous Armor (FHA) at 100 meters. Now, the standard American shells could well easily penetrate the sides of a Panther or Tiger hull, but against the heavily sloped front of a Panther or the hull of a Tiger when angled 45°, it's a no-go.
-While able to keep a good speed on roads, if the Sherman came across soft mud or snow, it's very likely the M4 would get bogged down because of it's narrow tracks.
Lieutenant Colonel Wilson M. Hawkins of the 2nd Armored Division had this to say about the M4 Sherman;
"It has been claimed that our tank is the more maneuverable. In recent tests we put a captured German Mark V [Panther] against all models of our own. The German tank was the faster, both across country and on the highway and could make sharper turns. It was also the better hill climber."
The narrow tracks are also emphasised by Staff Sergeant and tank platoon Sergeant Charles A. Carden, who gave a report about the M4 Sherman;
"The Mark V [Panther] and VI [Tiger] in my opinion have more maneuverability and certainly more flotation. I have seen in many cases where the Mark V and VI tanks could maneuver nicely over ground where the M4 would bog down. On one occasion I saw at least 10 Royal Tigers [Tiger II] make a counterattack against us over ground that for us was nearly impassable."
There were attempts to solve this issue in the form of "Duckbill" track extenders, but results were mediocre at best.
With the pros and expansove cons outta the way, the M4 was the best tank for the US. It was extremely well suited for the massive and uninterrupted industry of the United States, greatly unlike that of the British and Germans, and provided a decent tank to combat other tanks with for the first year or two after it was introduced.
The 75mm gun M3 was excellent against infantry due to it's short barrel and ability to load explosive shells, while also being able to acvurately fire for several hundred meters at the early and lightly armored German tanks.
It also managed to serve in literally every front across the globe under countless flags. From the humid and dense jungles of the Pacific, to the freezing and unforgiving tundras of the Soviet Union, the M4 could handle pretty much any environment thrown at it.
Along with it's extreme ruggedness, the M4 had one advantage over any Axis tank it came across; numbers. As said twice before, almost 50 thousand Shermans were built, meaning if a Tiger managed to knock out a Sherman, at least half a dozen would be right behind it.
Although these advantages the Sherman had, it was still horribly outmatched when it came to the European front. By 1944-45, the Sherman would likely encounter tanks that weighted almost three times more than it, like the Tiger 2 H and Jagdtiger. While variants of the M4 were produced to alleviate the issues, such as the Jumbo, the Easy 8, and Firefly, they only provided moderate improvements to firepower and/or protection.
Now, I probably annoyed at least one person by speaking negatively about the Sherman, so feel free to constructivly choose a side on which tank was better.
Now, I must make my opinion clear on which tank I prefer, and that is neither.
The reasons I choose this is...
1. These two tanks are overhyped into fetishism of sorts (I'm pretty sure that's a word). One side would believe their tank is the absolute best and chooses to put themselves in an echo chamber that confirms their beliefs, and block out any negative views.
2. Both of these tanks weren't really that amazing in combat. There are of course several famous examples, like the Tiger 1 that knocked out a Pershing, only to get stuck on rubble a minute later, but those are, of course, only chance examples over the entirety of a world-changing war.
3.The stigmas these tanks have online. Now, this may fit well into #1, but whatever, it's my forum. But yeah, these stigmas. If you say you prefer, say the Tiger 1 for example, people have a tendency to assume your a Panzer fanperson who believes in all sorts of crackpot ideas of the German Reich winning if the Maus was produced or some junk.
I don't always like being scooped into groups without being accurately judged, but that might seem odd for me to say when 90% of my recent uploads have swastikas painted on em...
But, if I were to say there was a "Best Tank of WW2", I'd have to say...
There was no "Best Tank of WW2"
nah, jk, the british valiant is the best tank of ww2
So yeah, wall of words has happened, hope things go swimmingly in the below places.
I'l try to answer any criticisms had, and answer questions if needed.
Really? No one is still welcoming him back?
Oh heck, man am I bad am remembering stuff...
Alllllriiiight, lemme see... okay, first thing that I have stable ground; the choice of Sherman against the Tiger 1.
I chose the M4A1 as it likely would of been one of the first Shermans to encounter the Tiger H1 in North Africa.
Other variants of the M4 Sherman such as the standard M4A2 I believe (And even I take what I say with a grain of salt) didn't see combat in the US Army until several dozen where converted into DD Shermans, but were sent over to several of the US' allies during Lend Lease.
Now the M4A3 did see widespread use as it was the prefered variant of the M4 Sherman from June of 1942 to June 1945. But I doubt in my personal opinion too many variants of the M4A3 ended up in Africa at the same time as Tiger H1s late 42.
Now, lemme keep reading, and skip over that lil below the belt comment annnnd the Tiger H1 and it's improvements. The Tiger 1 did see upgrades to it's reliability and other odds-and-ends, but these were pretty insignificant since any major improvememts would require reworking the already complex Tiger 1, and rebuilding existing Tiger 1s would require steel that was in horrifically short supply.
By 1944 and 45, literally every German tank was suffering so bad from the steel shortages, that steel had to be replaced with soft alloys. The Panther for example, by 1945 had it's sloped armor effectiveness decreased a noticeable amount due to the inability to make them with just steel. (I can't necessarily recal which metals were used to replace steel, but lets just throw Magnesium in there just because)
Now, compare that to the the M4 and variants. The M4 Sherman was a fairly simple tank, and I bet if you went another notch or two down in simplicity and you'd get the Bob Semple. It was easy to modify the M4 Sherman, especially so when compared to the Tiger 1. From rubber extenders on the tracks all the way to making the hecking tank float, the M4 was extremely versatile.
Now, lets not forget the US powerhouse of an economy!
The US had a large economy with many sources of steel to feed into the M4, from mines across the world to the spare pots and pans people had in cabinets. There was virtually never a shortage, since ya know... there tens of thousands of the M4 built overall, and that's not including other tanks like the M10 Wolverine, M18 Hellcat, and whatever you call the M36.
So yeah, aside from the US using the Konami code to boost it's economy, the M4 had the advantage of versatility.
Also,
@MrVaultech Of course the Tiger had a much bigger gun than any WWII-era Sherman.
As for the casualty count, I’d say you’d rather be in Armored Corps than anywhere else involving shooting.
The US Army lost 1,470 tankers throughout the entire conflict, a 3% casualty rate.
Approximately a third or a half of these casualties happened outside the tank; likey on sentry duty or gunned down after getting out of a tank.
It’s not the greatest tank ever, most certainly. But as far as options in World War 2, you can’t go wrong with a Sherman.
For the sake of argument, I chose the M4A2 and M4A3 Sherman families and the Tiger E. The M4A2 and A3 were the most common variants, and would be prudent to use the latest variants which saw wide service. It would be imprudent to compare less common early variants after all.
I wouldn’t compare your quality of builds from when you first started, after all.
The many flaws the initial Shermans had were largely solved by early 1944. The base M4A3 began production in 1942. The wide-track modification to the 75mm began production in February 1944. The M4A3(76)W began production in March 1944. I believe by the time the M4A3(75)W was made, it would feature wet stowage.
Remember, D-Day was in June 6, 1944. And the performance of the Sherman tank was considered excellent by all contemporary records.
I don’t thing the Tiger’s many flaws were rectified to any degree. It didn’t have a wide-angle gunner optic to help acquire targets, the ergonomics was sub-optimal, and the maintenance never got any easier. At least it got an illustrated manual which was something most people wouldn’t mind reading.
yus, you actually saw this!
Alrighty, I'm very glad to get your opinion on this debate, and well, you left a lot to read over.
Mmmkay, so a point that stood out to me first was comparing the M4 to the Tiger, and how they served completly dofferen roles.
Now, I 100% agree with you on this, as having the M4 and Tiger 1 fight is like throwing a brick and block of clay at each other. While one has a very specific method of use that consitently works, the other can be molded and shaped into many forms that it can work effectively in.
Now, the only reason I did this was because very WW2 fanperson has done this at least once before in a debate, and I didn't really wanna be left out.
Now the second thing that I noticed that I'd like to point out is the survivability after the armor is penetrated;
As noted in the cons, specifically the M4A1 was chosen for the argumemt as it came out the same year as the Tiger H1; 1942. While later M4 variants did carry wet ammo stores, for the first year or two the ammo was still kept dry, and was very prone to catching fire after being hit. It also didn't help when crew haphazardly threw extra ammo into any space they could.
But this doesn't mean they'd catch fire instantly. They likely slowly started to cook off, and by the time British and American researchers (or whatever) came along to tally them for case studies, they'd be burned out, and probably have been for a day at least.
And the final thing that stood out was you mentioning armor;
Yes, the M4 did have fair armor on it, 50mm sloped at 55°. This gave it roughly 80-90mm of effective armor, and that could really bounch shells from short barreled Panzer IIIs, Panzer IVs, and StuGs.
But, the canon on the Tiger 1, the 8,8 cm KwK 36 L/56 with it's PzGr.39 standard shell could penetrate this armor at ranges well beyond the firing range of the M4s 75mm gun M3.
Now, I must clarify I'm not saying the M4 is bad, I just wish to poibt out it wasen't the greatest tank ever. Much like every tank of WW2, it had a fair number of flaws, and a number were not solved until the war was pretty much over.
Although, I'd still rather being put in a B-17 mid-42 over a Sherman
@Pilotmario
@MrVaultech There is no best tank of World War II. What is the best option for someone may perhaps be the worst option for another.
And if I had to point out one tank that could be a certifiably good option for most participants in WWII, that would be the Sherman.
It would serve in the rocky deserts of North Africa, the forests of Germany, the jungles of New Guinea and Burma, the frozen steppes of Russia, and the sands of Pacific atolls. Few tanks could boast such a wide variety of service, perhaps the Valentine and the Matilda to a lesser extent (the Soviets never warmed up to the Matilda, but loved the Valentine).
But where it served, it served with distinction and with adoration from its crews. The crews weren't afraid to criticize it; it had tendencies for rollovers at times due to its height, and the drafty interior when the engine was running served to turn it into a refrigerator in the cold.
But the combination of armor, mobility and firepower in a spacious, ergonomic, and reliable platform won more fans than haters among the crews. They could trust it to not only take it to the fight, but to fight well. A machine perhaps not built by tankers, but one built with them in mind.
And no better testament to this other than its long and illustrious postwar service around the world, be it the jungles of South Asia, the mountains of Korea, and the deserts of the Holy Land. Where it went, it gave a good impression, even when it was thoroughly outclassed by much newer and better designs.
Watch this, and come back with your thoughts.
@MrVaultech To compare the Tiger and the Sherman is comparing apples to oranges; they're both tanks, but two very different tanks, evolved to meet different requirements.
And as it turned out, the Sherman was probably the better tank. The frontal armor was comparable; while the Sherman's frontal armor was about half as thick as the Tiger's, it was given a generous slope that bring it to relative parity. It would have done much good to give it a bigger gun, but statistics complied by the American, British, and Soviet armies indicate that it did reasonably well with what it had.
In the event the armor is penetrated, the Sherman is perhaps the best tank to be in. Granted, it's still a very bad situation, but the Sherman made it far less so. The machine's ergonomics were excellent, and the large, spring-loaded hatches were placed conveniently above the normal crew position. This was no accident; those who designed them could draw upon decades of experience with ergonomics in automobiles. And while a tank is a monster compared to a car, the one driving it is likely to be the same.
And while early Shermans were just as prone to fires as other tanks, only the Sherman tank would improve upon these measures; ammunition would be stored in the vehicle floor and thus out of the line of fire in the event of a penetration. And if the ammunition was ruptured, it would be surrounded in a water-glycerol mixture.
If the Tiger had any tangible advantage over a Sherman, it would be mainly psychological; their presence is often significantly overreported in reconnaissance reports. After all, the more common Panzer IV shared many common characteristics; a boxy hull with an angular turret sporting a long-barreled gun with a muzzle brake. Add the fog of war, and you've got yourself a case of mistaken identity. Not disastrous perhaps, but certainly notable.
@MrVaultech The Tiger and Sherman are made to different doctrines.
The Tiger is a heavy breakthrough tank. It is designed to carry thick armor and a big gun to smash through more heavily defended areas. A machine kept in reserve most of the time, the relatively high maintenance requirements were not a factor. It was a specialized machine, brought forth for a certain task.
Problem was, the Tiger was used as a brigade-level fire support weapon, a medium tank with more armor and firepower. And unsurprisingly, the maintenance problems that would not have been as severe a factor, were in fact such.
The Sherman was a proper medium tank. A balanced platform, suitable to crush anything the infantry can't handle. More firepower and armor than a heavy tank, but with greater strategic mobility than a heavy tank. This of course includes enemy armor, something even the Tank Destroyer manual states.
In their words for when they are attached to US tank divisions, "Since the armored division can meet strong armored attacks with effective organic weapons, tank destroyers may execute secondary missions on rare occasions, even when a hostile attack or counterattack is imminent."
The "effective organic weapons" of an armored division just so happen to be tanks. And the tanks the US Army would have is the M4 Sherman. And even as early as August of 1942, there were trials to fit the 76mm M1 on the Sherman tank. However, while the arrangement was workable, it was clearly a stopgap measure, and the Armored Corps certainly didn't want to settle for a stopgap measure when they could easily get a proper tank with a 76mm gun.
Which they got by mid-1943, and production shifting to this new design. The M4 with the 75mm was still manufactured until the end of the war for Lend-Lease countries that wanted the 75mm as well as the US Marine Corps, which never fought tanks that could challenge the 75mm M3. By May 1944, 200 of these 76mm-armed Shermans were available in England, ready for D-Day.
The fact they weren't brought along, as well as the lack of any HVAP ammo for the 76mm, is indeed a significant oversight. Even if the 75mm had proven that it could deal with the threats and a new weapon to complicate logistics somewhat, it would still have been prudent to have brought them anyways.
Well, when it could hit her target and when she wasn’t reloading, it was a good tank. The large turret made it a very big target for air and ground attacks. It was designed as a troop support and bunker busting. And yes, the gun is quite powerful. I one shot so many people in world of tanks @MrVaultech
@Pilotmario
Wasen't the KV-2 a failure in combat situations normal KV-1 and T-34 tanks encountered?
but I must agree. Not much can withstand a 152mm shell
@CRJ900Pilot
Oh, I would of gladly of compared a Tiger against one of those M4 variants, but there appears to be some belief among the more extreme M4 fans that just about any M4 could take on a Tiger and win. Heck, even specialized variants like the (105) and Firefly barely had a chance since the main improvements were towards their guns, while the armor was left practically paper-thin.
Now, there are Jumbos, but they just upped the armor to 100mm. Now, that could bounce the short 88s Tiger 1s had, but against heavier and more dedicated tanks and tank destroyers -such as the Jagdpanther and Tiger 2- they stood no match.
annnnd another rant has been had, I must apologize
@Mostly
Oh definitely Sherman crab tanks
Maybe a Sherman Firefly or the M4A3(105), something different, normal shermans can’t compete against the tiger.
Huh, I just saw both at the Bovington Tank Museum this morning! Both are quite beautiful, and I don't even like tanks!
When I first saw the title, I though you were asking the community which one to build.
Fair point @MrVaultech
bIaS-2 @marcox43
But zen ze Germans ver like, ve need bigger guns to counter ze Russian sekrit dokumints. Then they made the Panzerkampfwagen IV with its big gun and smol armor. @MrVaultech
aaaaand yet no one still noticed he's back, and didn't welcome him...
maybe do both, and decide which to go first
cough Kv-2 is dominant
@MrVaultech True strory, IS-2's are scary
*Insert big blocks of information that nobody will read here*
Unless the kitty finds it's way into the home of an IS-2, then kitty is food
@marcox43
Who needs a 50mm when you have a 20mm autocannon?
@Destroyer5713