Borrowing an idea from Gort, but switching gears, so to speak, let's talk tanks. Everybody praises the USSR's T-34 and Germany" Panther but many other tanks participated in that extended conflict, often in great numbers. Quite a few of these are looked down upon or even ridiculed, but is this a fair assessment? Excluding self-propelled guns and dedicated "tank destroyers" like the U.S.A.' s Hellcat, I've listed some candidates for most underrated tanks of WW II. What do you guys think? Germany: Panzer IV (long Barrel versions ) ; U.S.A. : M3 ( General Lee/Grant ), M4 Sherman; Great Britain: Matilda II. Mark VII Cromwell, Cruiser MK VI Crusader; USSR: KV-1, IS-2 ( Stalin ); Japan: Type 97; France: Somua S-35 and Char B1. |
Humm, lets see.
- The Panzer IV ausf G,H, and J were the backbone of the panzerwaffe. So I can't see them being underrated.
- M3 Lee / Grant while not the best thing going it, did slow the Germans in North Africa, and served well in the Pacific with the Aussies. A stop-gap tank to be sure, but maybe a candidate.
- M4 catches heck because it had a tough time with the big cats (Tigers / Panthers). But one must understand the M4 was never designed to take on other tanks, it was an expliotation tank. No other tank served as well and in as many places as the M4. And when compared to its closest rivals, the Panzer IV and T-34, it held its own just fine. Its the tank that won the war bottom line.
- Matilda Mk II, well it had a poor showing in France. But it did scare German AT gunners because of its heavy armor. As an Infantry support tank it served well in the sands of North Africa. Under gunned though.
- Cromwell, a good fast tank that was hit and miss with crews formerly on the M4. Alittle light on the armor and of a bolted / welded construction. Its bigger brother the Comet was much better, but late to the party.
- Crusader, can't comment as it has no interest with me. Served the Crown well in North Africa, a bit under-gunned and poorly armored.
- KV-1, big slow and cumbersome. Had mechanical issues that prevented it from doing more. But held the line until the T-34 came.
- JS-II, a good design, good gun, and weighs as much as a Panther roughly. But two piece ammo and small ammo stowage is a big minus. And well even a Hetzer scored a kill on one.
-Type 97, good when going up against anything but an Allied tank after '41.
- Samua S-35, Deployed improperly to really say how it performed. One man turret and small main gun do the armor protection a huge injustice.
- Char B-1bis suffers from poor gas mileage, and bad design. Sponson mounted main gun, one man turret again do the armor injustice. And it too was deployed improperly to say how it would have done with better tactics.
I think the Sherman will get the most votes, it is underrated because most wont accept it wasn't designed to be a tank killer. But none of the tanks mentioned can do what the M4 did. None of them would survive the road march across NWE, up Italy, Russia, or Asia without breaking down. Save the M3 Lee / Grant which rolled with them as recovery vehicles.
One not mentioned but did serve well was the Panzer III series. Also, the Czech T-35s and T-38s were in greater numbers for the Invasion of France than Panzer IIIs and IVs.
- Shawn