[webbrahmin]

These were my thoughts also. During WW II German tanks were technologically superior to Russian tanks. However Russian tanks were easy to repair in the field and that was one of the reasons why Russian armour prevailed over German armour.

[Theodores]

No, no, no, the comedy tank of the era was the Sherman Tank.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-m-4-sherman-tank-was-he...

Favourite quote: Hence, the Sherman’s grim nickname—Ronson, like the cigarette lighter, because “it lights up the first time, every time.”

Everything was wrong about it and the Russians that got given these on Lend Lease knew that they had been given a death sentence. Aforementioned article just touches the surface, the barrel was too short, the 'tech' for being able to shoot on the move did not work and you needed five of the things to take out one German tank, four as cannon fodder (complete with the guys inside) and one to sneak around the back to get that German tank whilst it was busy taking out the other four.

The 5 Shermans vs 1 Panzer myth is much disputed however where there is smoke there is fire and I would not want to be in one. Plus, by the time that the Americans rocked up to fight WW2 - which was late to the party - the Germans had run out of oil so their tanks were running on recycled coal dust extract rather than the diesel fuel required.

The shoddy design of the Sherman Tank was no matter though, the 'allies' were expected to pay for these useless behemoths after the war so this was the military-industrial-complex and built-in-obsolescence at its finest.

Meanwhile the Soviets had a much more serious war on their hands so their hardware wasn't about making a quick buck. It had to be fit for purpose. The same thinking happens today hence we have toy planes like the F-35 where everyone and his pet congressman is getting a backhander vs. the fit for purpose planes of Russia, as advertised over the skies of Syria and doing much better in the global arms trade.

[evgen]

This is the sort BS stories that capture the imagination of people who don’t know what they are talking about but are trivially disproven by actual facts and statistics. At US entry to the war the Sherman has equivalent tank and crew losses due to fire as similar tanks from other countries and by the end of the war The Sherman was the _least_ likely tank to suffer an ammunition fire of all the major tanks fielded in the war by a very large margin. The biggest tell for this if you look at the stats is to compare vehicle losses and crew losses (e.g. a penetrated Sherman frequently lost one crew member while a T-34 with a similar hit that causes a loss of the tank frequently only had one survivor.) Oh, and the erroneous derogatory term popularized by Belton Cooper's widely discredited book was "Tommy Cooker" and not Ronson.

The T-34 was fit for purpose for certain, as long as the purpose was to leave a trail of broken-down tanks from factory to battlefield. Prior to 1944 more T-34s were lost to mechanical problems than to enemy action.

[willyt]

Tommy Roaster is the translation from German for their nickname for British tanks. The German tanks were much better than the British tanks according to this primary source[0]. I don't know about Sherman tanks.

[0] https://soundcloud.com/historyhit/captain-david-render-tank

[what-the-grump]

Did the US engage the Germans in heavy armor combat similar to that of the Russia’s e.g when Hitler was trying to take Moscow?

[evgen]

Infrequently. The US were early proponents of combined arms tactics. Find heavy armour? Call in artillery or air support -- one of the advantages of owning the airspace over the battlefield.

Oh, and the only Tiger tanks that got close to Moscow are the captured ones on display at Kubinka.

[isk517]

The US Shermans were equipped with cannons that had weaker armor penetration by design so that they could fire more potent high energy rounds that would take out infantry since they were expect to meet very little tank resistance. I think part of the 5:1 myth is from the fact that out of a platoon of 5 Shermans only 1 would be equipped with a gun that could penetrate a Tiger from the front.

[evgen]

Correct. US pre-war tank doctrine was that enemy armor should be taken out with AT guns and dedicated tank destroyers (e.g. M10 & M36) while the Shermans were infantry support and to create and take advantage of breakthroughs to flank the enemy or take out supply and ammo depots. For US units all tanks in the platoon of four tended to be the same, but UK tank corps that had Sherman Fireflys available (a Sherman with a British 17 lb gun stuffed into the turret) would often run one Firefly per platoon since the 17 lb gun could engage and destroy at range any German tank it encountered. This was why the longer barrel on the Firefly tank was often camouflaged to look like a short 75/76mm gun to reduce the chance that it would be identified and targeted.

[lambdadmitry]

> as advertised over the skies of Syria

You mean in an uncontested airspace, with no AA to speak about, disregarding any collateral damage because there is no one to hold them accountable (unlike US forces that are panned by US press)? Right, those plane may be fit for that purpose. Meanwhile, US&allies measure up their planes against each other during Red Flag, where both F-22 and F-35 have stellar performances. FIY, the only time Su-s (of Indian airforce) were there they were outgunned pretty heavily and had a very tough time protecting the engines from foreign object damage. Pretty bleak if you ask me

[gandhium]

> You mean in an uncontested airspace, with no AA to speak about

... and Russia still managed to lose about 1/3 of their carrier's planes.

[saalweachter]

I dunno, forcing everyone to equip their armies with suicidal weapons seems like a great way to discourage future wars.

[killjoywashere]

War is diplomacy by other means, a fundamentally political decision. As long as there are armies, it is politicians who will send men to die, and those politicians are responding to their voting blocs.

Thus senior military leadership is keenly interested in readiness. This requires training, R&D, and intelligence. "Are my officers and troops more physically and mentally prepared than the enemy's?" "What's the best weapon I've got?" and "What's the best weapon they've got?" are critical questions.

See T. R. Fehrenbach's "This Kind of War" for the US's brutal baptism into the darker side of their role as a superpower, a war no American wanted to get involved in. The short-hand in history for this necessity of readinesss is Task Force Smith (2).

(1) https://smile.amazon.com/dp/1574883348

(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Osan#Task_Force_Smit...

[Marazan]

Define technically superior? The German tanks had massive reliability problems, not just ease of repair they broke down under non-striker's situations.

They were technical nightmares.

[Pica_soO]

You can be a technological nightmare if you get to shoot a kilometer before the enemy.

[oftenwrong]

This talks about this a bit, and many other examples of Russian military equipment simplicity:

http://militera.lib.ru/research/suvorov12/06.html

I have heard the book this is from is somewhat inaccurate, but it makes for a good read.

[binarray2000]

Due to simplicity Russian tanks were also cheaper and easier ti build. Which is why they outnumbered the Germans.

[contingencies]

I can get another if I break it, so a clay cup trumps a grail. - Mirza Asadullah Khan Ghalib, classical Urdu and Persian poet from the Mughal Empire

... from http://github.com/globalcitizen/taoup

[masklinn]

OTOH Germany didn't have the resources (raw materials or crews) to field that many tanks, so focusing on fewer but better tanks made sense. Not that it panned out, but it made sense.

[return2sender]

It's also the reason why Finland successfully defended its independence.

[arto]

Indeed. http://ar.to/2010/08/red-blood-white-snow