Operationally speaking the Sherman was the best tank because
it featured the best all round reliability. When the T-34 started out they were
losing 60 out of every 100 tanks for every 100kms driven on marches alone. The
German Pz III did much better than this marching over the same ground and
distance losing about 1/3 tanks, so in the early war period the Pz-III was the
best.
As the war progressed the German ammo manufacturing failed
to keep pace and the replacement ballooned into the Panther monster tank, which
had appalling reliability.
In the late war period Russian tank loses [read T-34] were
around 13% for every 100km driven. But this was more of a reflection of the
improved emphasis the Soviets placed on parts and the logistics tail of their
combat units. Meanwhile Sherman reliability topped all in no small part to
design.
When you look at the Tactical side, the most important
quality is fire power as this is the mechanism that kills and that's what
settles the battle. In terms of firepower the most important criteria is ROF or
rate of fire. Obviously nothing can be stated as simplistic as that, because
there's a point where ROF can't make up for poor ammo penetration. This is why
the failure of the German ammunition concept -when the AP 40 shots disappeared
- became one of their biggest failures.
In the initial stages the Pz-III was the best tactically due
to its high rate of fire [2:1 against the French/ Brits and 3-4:1 against the
Russians]. By mid war the Panthers and Tigers featured lower ROFs while allies
remained the same [8 rpm Germans Vs 3-4 rpm T-34s and 10-12 rpm for the Shermans].
So the heavy armor and fire power worked against the Russians- to wars end, but
didn't work so well against the western allies.
It’s hard to show just how important ROF is but if you take
2 tanks that are equal in all respects but blue out shoots red by 3:1 then- in
an even battle -blue will inflict 10:1 kill ratios. Even outnumbered, this kill
ratio can be maintained due to the smoke and fog of war. This allows better
trained troops to section off large numbers into mini firefights near one on
one. The weak point of the ROF argument is that it does require 'well trained
troops' and to preserve those you do need good armor over enough of the front
quadrant to allow the said 'well trained troops' to survive.
So I guess the bottom line is you can't pin down the best
tank unless you have a proper strategy and tactics. If you’re forced to change
mid stride, like the Germans you have to adjust your designs accordingly. Even
the Poorly designed T-34 is the best tank at the end of the war cause the Soviets
finally got there tank; logistics and strategic situation right.
No comments:
Post a Comment