[Epapazian]

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.

[Shawn 507]

Originally Posted by Epapazian

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

[Epapazian]

Thanks Shawn for an interesting analysis. Although you mentioned the German Pzkpfw III, I think that this excellent tank was highly respected by the Allies during the early part of the war when it spearheaded the Nazi conquests of the low countries, France and the Balkans. The Mark IIIs got a nasty surprise when counterattacked by British Matildas at Arras in May 1940 and had trouble with British-manned General Lee tanks in North Africa, but aside from this, their only shortcoming was lack of sufficient firepower. This became apparent in Russia when the Red Army unveiled its T-34s, which were more or less impervious to the Mark III's 50-mm L/60 main gun. Since the Mark IIIs turret ring was too narrow in width to permit the required upgunning, the Germans were fortunate to have the reliable Mark IV available for this purpose. Certainly, both are candidates for most underrated tank of WW II.

[Martin Baker]

I would say the Churchill tank is underrrated
It was very versatile tank & was used in lots of different ways on D- Day

[Aircrafty]

The Churchill was certainly a great infantry tank and coped well with inclines. But I'm going to plug for the IS-2 which was the only WWII allied tank that King Tigers were reluctant to tackle.

[ZS-VAN]

I'm with Aircrafty on this one. In my mind tanks need to be powerful, well armed and fearsome vehicles. Built to engage other powerful tanks. While the British produced some good tanks, I've only recently been drawn into checking them out because of the new 1/72 HM releases.

As for the Sherman, there may have been many and on that basis contributed to winning the war but it was by no means a powerful fearsome tank. (potent with the british 17 pounder maybe) But to be called Tommy cookers by the Germans. Nahhh. Doesn't do it for me. I saw some program on the greatest tanks and the Tigers were killing Shermans like they were sqatting flies. After interviewing tank crews from both the German and British sides, asked which tank they'd rather have been in, all said the Tiger.

[Cardinal]

Originally Posted by ZS-VAN

I'm with Aircrafty on this one. In my mind tanks need to be powerful, well armed and fearsome vehicles. Built to engage other powerful tanks. While the British produced some good tanks, I've only recently been drawn into checking them out because of the new 1/72 HM releases.

As for the Sherman, there may have been many and on that basis contributed to winning the war but it was by no means a powerful fearsome tank. (potent with the british 17 pounder maybe) But to be called Tommy cookers by the Germans. Nahhh. Doesn't do it for me. I saw some program on the greatest tanks and the Tigers were killing Shermans like they were sqatting flies. After interviewing tank crews from both the German and British sides, asked which tank they'd rather have been in, all said the Tiger.

ZS-VAN you should purchase the excellent book Sledgehammers: Strengths and Flaws of Tiger Tank Battalions in WW II as it is very interesting, especially when one looks at the ridiculous (approx. 800 000 reichsmarks) cost of each Tiger Tank (e.g. same as B29) versus other options. As much as I Iike the Tiger, the Panther was far more economical, effective and versatile (in my opinion) . Also, the Tiger was not suited to Blitzkrieg.

[Shawn 507]

Originally Posted by ZS-VAN

As for the Sherman, there may have been many and on that basis contributed to winning the war but it was by no means a powerful fearsome tank. (potent with the british 17 pounder maybe) But to be called Tommy cookers by the Germans. Nahhh. Doesn't do it for me. I saw some program on the greatest tanks and the Tigers were killing Shermans like they were sqatting flies. After interviewing tank crews from both the German and British sides, asked which tank they'd rather have been in, all said the Tiger.

Yeah that show added nothing new to the world. It continues to play up the legend of the Tiger even when it was a Sherman show. Ask the same crews which they would rather drive / pull maintenance on from the beaches of France into the Heart of Germany and beyond. It wouldn't be the Tiger or Panther, neither had the operational / mechanical record to pull that off. The show was another example of the Hitler Channel's Slobbering German Fetish gone wrong. Also, once the Tiger/Panther has been found the use of tactical air support or artillery make it a sitting duck.
I'll take the Sherman over anything of the period.

The Churchill probably is the most underrated tank though getting back on topic. Despite the name they never seem to get the attention they deserved. From North Africa, the MTO, and NWE the tank held its own well. Especially in Holland where the Germans complained of their "unfair" use in a densely wooded sampy area.
- Shawn

[tank nut]

The germans had a nother name for the sherman ronson, lights the first time, after the ronson cig lighter. One thing about the sherman was that for every one the germans blew up they had about 10 more waiting to replace them. The germans did not have that many tigers to replace the ones that they lost during the war.

[timbo]

Originally Posted by tank nut

The germans had a nother name for the sherman ronson, lights the first time, after the ronson cig lighter. One thing about the sherman was that for every one the germans blew up they had about 10 more waiting to replace them. The germans did not have that many tigers to replace the ones that they lost during the war.

I thought that was the British Tankers nick name for it.

IMHO - The only reason the Sherman was any good was because they were swarming around like midges on a scotish highlands summer night.

The Panther, Tiger, etc would fall down in my eyes because they were a mechanical nightmare.