How did WW2 US, British, Soviet and late German tanks compare in terms of reliability, ease of maintenance and repair, combat performance, cost and ease of production?
By late German tanks I'm referring to everything after, including the Panther.
EDIT: The guide has been moved here.
NOTE: This post is obsolete. I've done a more in depth one below.
I've been trying to put together a basic guide to WW2 tanks of the major powers that talks about the main differences in these categories. I hope nobody minds if I use this comment to write the summary of what I've learn so far and update it with what I learn here.
DISCLAIMER: Correct me if I'm wrong, please.
Later German tanks were notoriously unreliable and had the tendency to break down in the field before they even reached battle. Supposedly, of 45 Tiger II tanks sent to Ogledow, only 4 made the 45km drive.
Soviet tanks were more reliable, but suffered from production issues, mostly because of the lack of quality of early rushed batches. "Poorly trained crews would beat up the equipment faster. And their early war build quality was pretty terrible because of all the upheaval going on in Russia." (/u/TheHIV123)
British tanks were also not very reliable and required more maintenance. Although I'm not sure how they compare to Russian tanks, they were less reliable than US tanks. "The Brits ran a big road march with a Sherman, a Cromwell and another Brit tank. Despite the Sherman being the slowest of the 3 tanks it always finished first because it rarely had to stop to be fixed." (/u/TheHIV123)
US tanks were the most reliable tanks in the war.
TL;DR US had the most reliable tanks, German had the least (Panther and later), and Brits and Soviets had average.
German tanks were extremely difficult to maintain. "One hour of Tiger operation requires ten hours of maintenance," said Alfred Rubbel. The track replacement and wheel removal took 30 minutes for each side of the tank, according to Anderson's 2013 Tiger book (p. 69). Removing an inner wheel that had lost its solid rubber tire (a common occurrence) required the removal of up to nine other wheels first.
US tanks were the easiest to maintain.
Soviet were relatively easy to maintain, at least the lighter ones, like the T-34, but not as easy as the US tanks.
British tanks were in-between?
Christopher W. Wilbeck, in "Sledgehammers: Strengths and Flaws of Tiger Heavy Tank Battalions in World War II", citing the Tigerfibel (the Tiger's manual), states that the final cost of the Tiger's production was much higher - 800,000 Reichsmarks - and 300,000 man-hours were required to produce one single Tiger. The Tigerfibel, in view of making those numbers more personal to the Tiger crewmen, stated that it was required one week of hard work from 6,000 people to produce one Tiger. It also stated that 800,000 Reichsmarks figure was equivalent to the weekly wages for 30,000 people.
Soviet tanks were very cheap, with the exception of the more heavy tanks like the IS series. Although some sources suggest that the T-34 was actually more expensive to build than the Sherman. Prices are difficult to determine in war economies, but T-34 had simple and rugged construction which meant that they were capable of being mass produced.
British tanks?
US tanks apparently cost between 40,000 and 60,000 if this source is to be believed, although I'm not sure how to compare dollars to reichsmarks, but supposedly the Sherman is similar in price to the Pz.IV and Panther.
This source has some exchange rates that seem to corroborate other sources when it comes to the price of German tanks in US dollars.
On the matter of visibility, I am still uncertain. On one side, the Americans actually remarked that the optics mounted on the T-34 they were given to evaluate were some of the best in the world. On the other side, I've also heard that Soviet tanks lacked good visor ports, that they had poor visibility and low quality optics. Not sure what to make of this.
On the matter of armor, they had very hard armor but suffered from spalling.
Ok, this is quite a topic, so forgive me if I miss something in your question.
From WWII, German tanks are a good place to start. The Germans believed in highly-engineered tanks full of useful features, but often with complex transmissions or suspensions which caused frequent breakdowns in the field. Early war German tanks were typically outgunned by their enemies; the Panzer I and II were undergunned, underpowered light tanks, the Panzer III and Panzer IV were both fairly good designs for 1939 or 1940, but since they had vertical armor and (mostly) short barrels, which didn't allow the shells to accelerate as much as they would in a long barrel, they were outdated almost immediately.
German tanks turn around with the adoption of the Panzer V, the Panther, and the Panzer VI, the Tiger. Both of these tanks were excellent performers when working properly, with sloping armor, powerful engines, and very dangerous weaponry. However, both the Panther and Tiger suffered from reliability issues - the Tiger I in particular required multiple wheels to be removed in order to fix a thrown tire, and both tanks were known for delicate machinery which broke down under combat conditions. The Tiger II was possibly the best heavy tank of the war, but ultimately, the tanks were too expensive and too difficult to maintain, so they were not seen on the field in numbers large enough to impact the tide of the war in 1944-45.
American tanks were dominated by the Sherman, possibly the best medium tank of the war. The M4 Sherman was an excellent medium tank, though it was tall (which made it more visible and prone to attack) and had thin sides. The Sherman was designed for quick transport, and it was cost-effective and easy to produce. The small size of the tank allowed for easy transport across the Atlantic, though it wasn't really equal to a Panther or Tiger in a 1:1 engagement; American tank crews feared the Tiger, and overreported sightings of it, when they more frequently encountered Pz IIIs or Pz IVs in Europe. The Sherman was reliable, cheap to produce, and carried a sizable weapon, though it was outgunned by both the German and Soviet counterparts.
The Americans also focused heavily on mobility instead of just absorbing fire, like the German tanks were designed to do. The M18 and M36 tank destroyers were designed to quickly flank the German armor and fire through their thinner side or rear armor. The Americans used these in place of heavier tanks, and while American tank crews took heavy casualties in their lightly armored vehicles, the sheer number of tanks overwhelmed the higher quality, though often broken-down, German tanks. Importantly, the tank destroyers prevented the German tanks from engaging at long range, as they were very capable of and where they were vastly superior to the Shermans. This changed German tank doctrine, and prevented them from engaging at their preferred long range, where their powerful guns and thick armor could protect them from the smaller, less dangerous Shermans.
More advanced American medium tanks arrived in the European theatre by the end of the war, including the M26 and M46, where their combat records were excellent. They were, however, much more expensive and difficult to transport, and only arrived in Europe in the last months of the war.
The British used both domestic tanks and modified Shermans with a heavier, 17 pound gun, called the Sherman Firefly. These tanks were found to be capable of penetrating the German armor in Normandy, at ranges the normal Sherman was usually incapable of. I do not know much about the domestically produced British tanks - the Shermans were provided to the British through the Lend-Lease program - but the British loved the Shermans and used them to great effect. Another reader with more expertise may comment on the British domestic tanks for you.
The Russian tanks were typically excellent. The T-34 was adopted early in the war, and was likely the best all-around tank of the entire war on either side. It was fast, used sloped armor (important for redirecting shells, since it increased the functional thickness of the armor when compared to vertical armor), and despite visibility concerns from the turret, was a very dangerous enemy to face. The tank was both faster and arguably better protected than most enemies it faced (aside from the Panther or Tiger, which were faster and better armored, respectively), and, when used in concert with the Kv-1 or Kv-2, both excellent Soviet heavy tanks, the T-34 was vastly more effective in combat than most of its counterparts. The Americans even designed a tank based off the T-34 postwar, but it was never implemented. The T-34 was robust, fast, and well armored, and it was well loved by its crews.
The Kv-1 and Kv-2, as well as later heavy tanks, the IS-1 and IS-2 (and possibly the IS-3, though combat records are dubious) were excellent heavy tanks. The Kv-1 sacrificed armament for armor, the Kv-2 did the opposite, and the IS-1 and 2 were both excellent heavy tanks (though expensive to produce). The Soviets fielded some of the best tanks of the war, and it's hard to point to a specific Soviet tank design that was a complete failure, or could have been done better another way.
This, of course, makes sense - the Soviet Union had invested heavily in tank research before the war, and their reserves and designs were far ahead of most Western equivalents. The sheer size of the Soviet Union dictated the necessity of a mechanized army, and the T-34, KV series, and IS series were the answer to that problem.
An excellent read on the subject is Tigers in the Mud, written by German tank ace Otto Carius. The Blitzkrieg Myth by John Mosier is another example of a fascinating look at tank and bomber usage in WWII.
EDIT: I see I made a bit of a historical error on the Fireflies, thanks guys; as I said, I didn't know as much about British tanks, so thanks for the information. OP has plenty to read.
On the subject of British tanks, I'll reproduce a post a made earlier.
The efficacy of British tank design and doctrine is a question that is complicated by several factors.
1.The need for tanks now
Most immediately, after the catastrophe in France, the British needed tanks. Any tanks. And they needed them now, simply because 500 obsolete tanks are better than no tanks at all when you’re face with an imminent existential crisis.
This meant that, for example, the A11 ‘Matilda 1’ continued in production long after it was known that the design was seriously flawed and the tank was essentially ineffective. Around 700 of these quite useless vehicles were built after Dunkirk.
The Covenator was another example of a bad tank that was rushed into production due to the immediate requirement for tanks of any kind. In peace-time, pre-production testing would have revealed that the Covenator had congenital flaws and the design would simply have been binned. As it was, around 1,700 Covenators were built. None of them ever saw a shot fired in anger.
The A22 Churchill is an extreme example of a type that was rushed into production – in this case the tank was ordered for full production without a single prototype being built. Of course, this meant that the early examples were plagued by faults. Vauxhall, the manufacturers, supplied each tank with a handbook detailing the faults and explaining that these were faults that ordinarily would have been ironed out in testing, but that the tank was essentially a good vehicle. They were right. The Churchill would go on to be arguably one of the most effective armoured vehicles of the war.
The same principle applied to armament. The 2-dpr was a very good gun by 1940 standards but was quickly becoming obsolete. The 6-pdr was much better but production was delayed because it was viewed as unacceptable to re-tool the 2-pdr production lines because the gap in gun production was unacceptable given the circumstances.
2.Logistics and reliability
The Axis in North Africa has the luxury of a short supply line, being only a short hop over the Med, while the British had to ship their tanks around the Cape. The long sea journey meant that corrosion would often set in, particularly in the early part of the war when tanks were stored on deck with little thought given to adequately protecting them from rust. This meant that British tanks developed a notorious reputation for a lack of reliability. The Crusader was not a bad tank but the sea journey had such an impact on its reliability that it earned a bit of an evil reputation for itself.
3.Non-doctrinal factors impacting tank design
There were several factors peculiar to the UK that affected tank design. Mainly, the UK was heavily dependent on rail transport. This had several effects
•There were very few heavy road-going vehicles from which tank engine designs could be drawn. The A12 Matilda II’s engine was in fact two bus engines bolted together.
•There were no tank transporters meaning there was no battlefield tank recovery infrastructure
•The British loading gauge was smaller than on the continent. This meant narrower tanks, with narrower turret rings, meaning smaller turrets and therefore smaller main armament.
In fact, the Churchill was built to the limit of the loading gauge to the extent that the radiator louvers had to be unbolted and stowed on top of the hull before the tanks would be moved by rail.
Another factor was that Britain had to undergo a fairly comprehensive re-armament programme and that the army was the lowest in priority of the three services for funding and resources. Neverthless, some very good new equipment was brought in, such as the 25-pdr gun and the Bren squad automatic weapon, and the entire army was motorised (which is more than you can say of the Germans). In addition, these scarce resources had to be shared amongst the need for new everything from uniforms to field kitchens.
So out of the total UK defence spedning 'pie', only a very fine sliver indeed could be devoted to new tank designs (Fletcher gives a figure for this, which IIRC is in the region of 1% or less of UK defence spending going on tanks)
Neither Germany nor Russia were effected by spending constraints to the same extent as the UK - Firstly because neither country gave very high priorty to their navy, secondly because both countries could put "guns before butter", and certainly in the case of Germany, because their level of defence spending was economically suicidal - Germany depended on conquest after 1938 to keep herself fed, solvent, and armed.
4.Doctrine and tactics
The major limiting factor was less the dichotomy between infantry and cruiser tanks but with doctrine of arming tanks with anti-tank guns, rather than a dual-purpose weapon. As mentioned above both the 2-pdr and 6-pdr were excellent guns for their respective times, but only for knocking out other tanks. But because they only fired solid shot, they were almost useless against enemy anti-tank guns, artillery, and infantry.
Thus Rommel’s standard tactic of throwing an anti-tank screen in front of advancing British armour – the British tanks had no choice but to charge pell-mell against a screen of guns which outranged their own armament, hoping to get within machine-gun range before they were knocked out. All of this charging about was jolly dashing and certainly courageous but it was tactically near suicide.
The British would have to wait for the first M3 and M4 tanks to arrive before their tactics could be adjusted to deal with anti-tank screens.
5.Late war developments
By later in the war, British tank design was rapidly evolving. Both the Cromwell and Comet were effective battle-worthy designs. The Cromwell, a relatively small chassis fitted with the immensely powerful meteor engine did have some reliability issues in that it was simply too fast, even for the Christie suspension and even after the top speed was restricted, it still had trouble with thrown tracks and damaged suspension. These defects were remedied in the Comet but this arrived too late to see action in any large-scale battles.
The Centurion, which arrived too late to see action, would prove the definitive tank design of the early to mid cold war era. In effect, the cruiser concept merged with the medium and heavy concepts to produce the universal tank.
Against all of this, you have to consider that many of the British designs were actually fairly good
•The Matilda II was a good tank for its day but was impossible to upgrade and too slow in production
•The Crusader was a decent tank and the earlier marks of cruisers were probably at least on a par with the Pz 1, Pz II, Italian, and Czech designs that made up the bulk of the Axis’ early war armour
•The Valentine was a reasonably good design and was used by the Soviets until at least the end of Op Bagration.
•The Churchill was an exceptionally good armoured vehicle, despite its low speed and anachronistic appearance. In fact, the mixed 6-pdr and 75mm Churchill platoons gave great service in north west Europe.
Sources:
The Great Tank Scandal – David Fletcher
Death by Design – Peter Beale
The Desert War – Alan Moorehead
Ok, Imma talk about the German tanks since they are the most popular. Early war designs such as the Mk3 and Mk4 had decent reliability and lower maintenance than later German tanks. However, they were clearly old designs as is evident with their box shape, with mostly flat vertical surfaces. This led to them having numerous "shot traps" which would allow armor piercing shells to penetrate more easily. The Mk6 Tiger 1 tank was also influenced by these early designs as you can easily see the resemblance with its box shape. However, the Tiger was much heavier, and much less reliable, than the lighter MK3/MK4 Panzers. It weighed just shy of 60 metric tons, and was powered by a 700hp engine, so the power to weight ration was just awful. Even with 150 gallons of fuel, the Tiger could only manage some 70-80 miles on road. Off road, the range dropped to roughly half that. Top speed was not too good either, but for its size it wasn't bad, some 23mph max on road. Quite why a more powerful engine wasn't specified is unknown, perhaps there just wasn't one available. Consequently, the Tiger had numerous mechanical problems mostly related to its engine. In addition, due to the interlocking wheel design, if mud and dirt built up between the wheels, the tank could become immobilized in cold weather since the mud would freeze. It also made it a pain in the ass to perform track maintenance since there were three rows of overlapping wheels to take off.
The Panther was probably the best German tank, maybe the best tank overall for that war. It was a near perfect blend of mobility, firepower, and armor protection. For all that, it wasn't much more expensive to produce than a Mk4 panzer, even though it was some 15 or so tons heavier. It used fewer plates for armor, thus simplifying production and reducing the time and cost to build. However, it did have the overlapping interleaved wheel design as seen on the earlier Tiger 1. And late war, the Allies had tanks that could beat it handily.
The Tiger 2 was simply a larger, meaner Tiger. But, weighing over 70 tons, and with the same 700hp engine, the problems that plagued the Tiger 1 were amplified. Abysmal power to weight ratio and an extremely inadequate engine were its chief problems. But, if properly deployed, the Tiger 2 was a fearsome weapon, its gun able to destroy any enemy while its armor was nigh impregnable. Most Tiger 2 were lost due to mechanical failure, or lack of fuel.
One thing to note about the German tanks is that they all carried two way radios and had 3 man turrets (except for the very early Panzer Mk1 and Mk2). This meant that the German tanks had an enormous advantage in battle against their counterparts early in the war. Communication was very effective, and having a dedicated loader in the crew meant that the gunner and commander were not distracted from their main duties. Compared to the T-34/76, which did not have a 3 man turret, meant that the commander or gunner had to load the gun in addition to their normal duties. This was distracting, and tactically dangerous for the crew, as it meant that they either could not aim and shoot, or could not receive orders or spot threats whilst the gun was being reloaded. Furthermore, Russian tanks lacked two way radios except for the lead tank, and oftentimes did not have any radio equipment at all. So communications were terrible for them. This lead to the Russian tanks being outfought by the admittedly inferior Panzer Mk3 and Mk4.
Ill be back later stay tuned
I'm trying to create a basic comparison guide on the tanks of WW2 I have managed to gather some info on British tanks and put together a small presentation. Any correction and/or addition to it is very welcomed. Thank you!
The guide has been moved to r/TankPorn/wiki/ww2guideindex
Germany: On paper they were great. The Tiger II, the Lowë (although never produced), the Maus, (only a prototype was made), and E-100 (again, only a prototype). However, they were needlessly complex, which is why you'll notice many were fraught with problems or never even mass produced. However, despite their mechanical issues, they were still amazing tanks. For example, a Jagdtiger took down about ten Sherman Fireflies and a few Comets before being taken out. Summary: very good armour and armament, however was lacking in speed and general agility.
U.S.A: U.S tanks were simple but deadly, mainly in the later war years. For example, the Pershing was one of the best tanks of the war, combining speed, agility and good armament, while still retaining decent armour. Also, they were fairly reliable. However, the armour was still no match for late German tanks, such as the Tiger II and Jagdtiger. Summary: Good all rounders, although still lacking in the armour department
U.K British tanks were very bad during early war years, with the Matilda 1 being a good example. However, the late war tanks were good. The Comet, for example, had a 17 pounder, capable of piercing most German tanks from the front, and later ones from the side and rear. They were separated into 2 categories: infantry tanks, which were slow but heavily armed and armoured, and cruiser tanks, which were fast and agile, while having bad armour and decent armament. Both had reliability issues, but these were soon resolved. It is thought the later models of Churchill's could potentially stand up to a Tiger II, if commandeered by an experienced crew. Just after the war, Britain produced the Centurion. This is thought to be one of the best tanks of all time, and is still in service in some countries. Summary: Very bad early war tanks, good late war tanks, great post war tanks. Unreliable at first, with poor armour and armament, but slowly got better throughout the war.
Soviet Russia: Good tanks throughout the war. A common misconception is that the T-34 was the tank that stopped Germany. This isn't true. A variant of it did, the T-34-85, which was fitted with more armour, a better gun and a higher top speed. I'm not saying the T-34 was a bad tank, I'm just saying it wasn't amazingly good. Towards the end of the war, Russia developed some of the best tanks of the decade, such as the IS, IS-2, and IS-3. These were revolutionary tanks, with 152mm guns and insane amounts of armour, while still retaining a decent top speed. However, they were extremely unreliable. Summary: Revolutionary tanks throughout the war, however they were unreliable and used a lot of resources.
Best tanks late/post war period:
Best tanks early wary period:
Best tanks in terms of armament:
Best armoured tanks: (not including sloping or spaced armour)
Best tanks for agility/speed:
Thanks for reading. I know this will be somewhat debatable, but this is what I think.