# How did the quality and quantity of tanks in WW2 compare **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 5, 2015, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-quality-and-quantity-of-tanks-in-ww2-compare/739484 "2015-12-05T02:20:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2015, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-quality-and-quantity-of-tanks-in-ww2-compare/739484/41 "2015-12-10T18:11:16Z")
> [@lazybratsche](#): > > For one example, the late-war J variant of the Pz IV was dramatically simplified. It replaced the hydraulic turret of earlier variants with completely hand-cranked turret. A lot of other things were stripped too: it was given an undersized transmission, armor skirts were removed, various ports and bells and whistles all stripped away. All this put it at a significant disadvantage. However, by this point Germany was on the defensive and the biggest fraction of their armor was turretless StuG assault guns. These, like the Pz IV J, were adequate for the endless ambush and delay tactics that Germany resorted to. Most of what they did was do things like remove the gun ports from the turrets, reduce the return rollers from 4 to 3, an on some of them, change the solid side-skirts out with wire-mesh ones. Which made sense, as all of those things were essentially either vestigial or frivolous; in the case of the side-skirts, the wire mesh makes a lot of sense, because they were always intended to pre-detonate shaped-charge weapons, and wire mesh could do that just as well as sheets of armor. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2015, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-quality-and-quantity-of-tanks-in-ww2-compare/739484/42 "2015-12-11T16:39:08Z")
I’ve been thinking about the thread a little more; I wonder if the way to identify the relative quality of the participant’s tanks might be to identify which tanks had the traits that others copied, or that essentially became standard after the war. By that particular light, the T-34, the Panther and to a large extent, the Sherman were the big 3. The T-34, because it was the first tank to combine a relatively powerful gun with good mobility and adequate and well designed armor. The Panther because it took the lessons from the T-34 and did them one better- an extremely powerful gun, well designed armor, good mobility, along with some technological advances, such as the torsion bar suspension (not the only tank with it though). It was essentially the prototype for the present-day MBT. The Sherman because of some technological implementations- “wet” ammo storage, stabilized gun and a very fast traversing electric turret are the ones that come to mind. ---
**Author:** ![Jaguars](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jaguars/32/5879_2.png) [@Jaguars](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jaguars)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2015, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-quality-and-quantity-of-tanks-in-ww2-compare/739484/43 "2015-12-11T21:51:06Z")
Another good article myth-busting about the panther, from someone who was reading directly from primary sources and actual scholarship on the subject. [http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/327199-our-problem-child-a-teardown-of-pzkpfw-v-panther/](http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/327199-our-problem-child-a-teardown-of-pzkpfw-v-panther/) A lot of what the History channel says about German tanks is complete bullshit - myths and odd incidents that worked their way into the conventional wisdom. ---
**Author:** ![Pushkin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ee59a6/32.png) [@Pushkin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pushkin)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2015, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-quality-and-quantity-of-tanks-in-ww2-compare/739484/44 "2015-12-12T22:34:30Z")
> [@engineer\_comp\_geek](#): > > The Sherman ended up with the nickname “the Ronson”, which was a brand of cigarette lighters at the time. Ronson’s advertising slogan was “lights the first time, every time”. I take it that was an Allied nickname? There’s a strange bit of gallows humour in war, I didn’t think things were that bad that they’d feel like naming it that on the offensive. Like the nickname for the [US carrier Forrestal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Forrestal_(CV-59)); > [@](#): > > She was also informally known in the fleet as the “USS Zippo” and “Forest Fire” or “Firestal” because of a number of highly publicized fires on board, most notably a 1967 incident in which 134 sailors died and an additional 161 were injured ---
**Author:** ![jz78817](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jz78817/32/1028_2.png) [@jz78817](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jz78817)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2015, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-quality-and-quantity-of-tanks-in-ww2-compare/739484/45 "2015-12-12T22:46:59Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > They also took pride in the complexity of their machines, boasting that the Tiger required 300,000 man-hours for completion. Unfortunately for them, the T-34 was something like 20,000. This would explain German cars. ---
**Author:** ![engineer\_comp\_geek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/engineer_comp_geek/32/504_2.png) [@engineer\_comp\_geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/engineer_comp_geek)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2015, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-quality-and-quantity-of-tanks-in-ww2-compare/739484/46 "2015-12-13T00:23:37Z")
> [@engineer\_comp\_geek](#): > > The Sherman ended up with the nickname “the Ronson”, which was a brand of cigarette lighters at the time. Ronson’s advertising slogan was “lights the first time, every time”. > [@Pushkin](#): > > I take it that was an Allied nickname? There’s a strange bit of gallows humour in war, I didn’t think things were that bad that they’d feel like naming it that on the offensive. The British gave it that nickname. The Germans called it a Tommy Cooker, which was the nickname of a portable alcohol stove issued to British soldiers in WWI. ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2015, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-quality-and-quantity-of-tanks-in-ww2-compare/739484/47 "2015-12-13T00:45:44Z")
> [@silenus](#): > > … > Japanese tanks were a joke all through the war, and with good reason. Islands aren’t tank territory. > > > [@John\_DiFool](#): > > > > Keep in mind most of the Japanese Army was in China. I’ month sure how these two statements can be addressed/elaborated (although of course they can), but tell me: what _were_ tank operations during the brutal island hopping, but as an offensive and defensive matter? ---
**Author:** ![Pushkin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ee59a6/32.png) [@Pushkin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pushkin)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2015, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-quality-and-quantity-of-tanks-in-ww2-compare/739484/48 "2015-12-13T16:07:47Z")
> [@Leo\_Bloom](#): > > I’ month sure how these two statements can be addressed/elaborated (although of course they can), but tell me: what _were_ tank operations during the brutal island hopping, but as an offensive and defensive matter? The Quora Q&A site had some related discussion on the topic of why [WWII Japanese tanks looked so weird.](https://www.quora.com/Why-were-Japanese-tanks-so-weird-looking-during-WW2) ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2015, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-quality-and-quantity-of-tanks-in-ww2-compare/739484/49 "2015-12-14T15:01:27Z")
> [@Leo\_Bloom](#): > > I’ month sure how these two statements can be addressed/elaborated (although of course they can), but tell me: what _were_ tank operations during the brutal island hopping, but as an offensive and defensive matter? I’m not really sure how to parse this question, but there wasn’t that many tank battles in the Pacific. For the most part, the Japanese only had limited numbers of tanks. Most islands’ defenses only had a few up to a dozen or so. They brought in 12 for Guadalcanal, but lost all of them. They had 50ish for Saipan, but lost them in armored banzai attacks against the Marines who used bazookas. Most of the island terrain was not advantageous for tanks. PI was the only battle where there was enough flat terrain to allow for large numbers of tanks. The largest action was on the Philippines Campaign when US forces retook the islands. There were over 230 of the obsolete Japanese tanks in the IJA 2nd Tank Division and 500 US tanks and tank destroyers. The Japanese tanks couldn’t penetrate the front armor of the Shermans and could only penetrate the side and rear armor from close range. The Japanese army had limited experience with tank tactics, and failed to concentrate their forces, which compounded their problems. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2015, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-quality-and-quantity-of-tanks-in-ww2-compare/739484/50 "2015-12-14T15:14:54Z")
And here’s a picture of a [US and Japanese tank](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kwajalein#/media/File:M4-sherman-killer-kwajalein.gif). ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2015, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-quality-and-quantity-of-tanks-in-ww2-compare/739484/51 "2015-12-14T15:17:58Z")
> [@engineer\_comp\_geek](#): > > The British gave it that nickname. > > The Germans called it a Tommy Cooker, which was the nickname of a portable alcohol stove issued to British soldiers in WWI. The Germans named an American tank after a piece of British mess equipment almost none of them would have ever seen or heard of? ---
**Author:** ![engineer\_comp\_geek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/engineer_comp_geek/32/504_2.png) [@engineer\_comp\_geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/engineer_comp_geek)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2015, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-quality-and-quantity-of-tanks-in-ww2-compare/739484/52 "2015-12-14T18:25:48Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > The Germans named an American tank after a piece of British mess equipment almost none of them would have ever seen or heard of? The original Tommy Cooker (actually Tommy’s Cooker) was a small portable alcohol stove from WWI that by most accounts didn’t work very well. There were a lot of knock-offs made both during and after the war. Other country’s militaries copied them and they were sold commercially as well. They were good for camping and hunting and picnics. The name became kinda of generic (like Kleenex). A lot of Germans would have known what a Tommy Cooker was, even if they hadn’t seen the original British military version. The fact that the Germans called the British troops “Tommies” probably helped with the nickname’s popularity. There were also variants of Tommy Cookers that were being used in World War II, one of which was made by Blackie and was sold under both the names Blackie and Tommy’s Cooker. The British also used Hexamine Cookers or Hexi Cookers, which, even though they aren’t the same design, were also commonly called Tommy Cookers. This is a WWII Tommy’s Cooker, made by Blackie: [![](http://lh6.ggpht.com/_dVcnpchhsqI/S7unkrvkA9I/AAAAAAAABk8/gXWPjyLB2_I/s512/TommyCooker1.jpg) ](http://lh6.ggpht.com/_dVcnpchhsqI/S7unkrvkA9I/AAAAAAAABk8/gXWPjyLB2_I/s512/TommyCooker1.jpg) This is a WWII style Hexi Cooker, which is a completely different design, but was also often called a Tommy Cooker: [http://www.surplusandadventure.com/images/product/main/g\_hex\_cooker\_1.jpg](http://www.surplusandadventure.com/images/product/main/g_hex_cooker_1.jpg) Germans in WWII would have come across quite a few of these. As I understand it, the nickname originally referred to any British tank that blew up, but later became more associated with the American Sherman as those tended to blow up in much higher numbers (part of which was probably due to there being more Shermans in the area than any other kind of tank). ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2015, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-quality-and-quantity-of-tanks-in-ww2-compare/739484/53 "2015-12-14T21:54:38Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > And here’s a picture of a [US and Japanese tank](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kwajalein#/media/File:M4-sherman-killer-kwajalein.gif). Wow. And thanks for the reply above it. Of course, tankettes _are_ better at squirreling around obstacles, as opposed to rolling over them. Not much defense there, though. ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2015, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-quality-and-quantity-of-tanks-in-ww2-compare/739484/54 "2015-12-14T21:57:37Z")
BTW, one-man tankettes: anyone else ever design them, let alone use them? (Tracked Jeep–\>tankette.) I think Leonardo’s tank was a one-man operation…will check. - back \* Extraordinary engineering analysis of his tank:[http://www.leonardodavincisinventions.com/war-machines/leonardo-da-vincis-tank/](http://www.leonardodavincisinventions.com/war-machines/leonardo-da-vincis-tank/) Still couldn’t find how it was to be manned; presumably on a platform, but didn’t see the measurements. Or none, entirely automatic? ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2015, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-quality-and-quantity-of-tanks-in-ww2-compare/739484/55 "2015-12-15T04:12:35Z")
> [@Leo\_Bloom](#): > > BTW, one-man tankettes: anyone\*\* else\*\* ever design them, let alone use them? You have “else” but the Type 94 was a two-man tankette. The Morris-Martel was a one- or two-man tankette designed in Britain, and a half a dozen or so were built and tested against the Carden Loyd tankette which won the competition. The Japanese Type 94 tankette, the one in the picture was based on the Carden Loyd. The type 94 comes from the Japanese numbering system which used the last two digits of the year from the mythical founding of Japan, and 1940 was the year 2600, so models that year were Type 0. The Type 94 would have been designed in 1934. ---
**Author:** ![botsgotme](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@botsgotme](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/botsgotme)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2015, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-quality-and-quantity-of-tanks-in-ww2-compare/739484/56 "2015-12-15T13:10:12Z")
> [@bump](#): > > Pretty much none of that is true, except for the fact that the Germans would have been better off without the Tiger. > > The Panther, which was basically the tank built with the lessons learned after 3 years of war and with the example of the T-34, was widely considered the best tank of the war. Fast, powerful gun, well armored- it pretty much had everything going for it, save mechanical reliability. The Tiger merely had a powerful gun and thick armor- it was slow as hell, and not reliable either. And, in late 1944/early 1945, the 76mm gun on the new production Shermans could penetrate the frontal armor of the Tiger at combat ranges using HVAP rounds. In a sense, the Panther was one of the grandfathers of modern Main Battle Tanks, being one of the first to combine a high powered gun, effective armor protection and good mobility in one hull. > > The thing with the Western Allies tanks wasn’t so much that they accepted the idea of “they may be cruddy, but we have 5:1 on the battlefield” as the doctrines were totally different. Fairly early on in Russia, both sides realized that the best weapon against a tank is another tank, and started engineing, arming and armoring their tanks accordingly. The Western Allies didn’t really realize this until late in the war- look at Gen. McNair’s tank destroyer doctrine, or the British idea of cruiser vs infantry tanks to see what I’m talking about. The US tank destroyers weren’t ever really undergunned, while the US Shermans were, but they weren’t ever intended to square up against enemy tanks in the first place. > > By the time that the Western Allies came around to the realization that they needed better tanks, as they were fighting German armor themselves, the war was mostly won, and industrial changes like that wouldn’t have been seen until too late anyway, so they opted for the next best thing, which was to upgun the existing ones as best they could, and just build more of them. > > US tanks in particular were known for their mechanical reliability- they didn’t break down as often as others, and were easily repaired when they did- this meant that the numeric difference was even more amplified, as the German tanks suffered mechanical breakdowns more often. > > So it’s not really a matter of looking at gun bore diameter, armor thickness and feeding it into some formula to determine the best- you have to look at more intangible things like reliability, and even ergonomics- the US tanks were more comfortable than say… the Soviet tanks, which makes a difference over the long haul when it comes to fighting. In addition, the Tiger was so heavy that it could not cross most bridges. Its enormous weight also proved problematic in Russia-when the autumn and spring rains made the roads seas of mud. The Tiger would just sit there, spinning its tracks and not moving …any had to be towed. Plus (as was mentioned), many Tigers were abandoned on the battlefield, as they were so difficult to repair. ---
**Author:** ![lazybratsche](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ba8739/32.png) [@lazybratsche](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lazybratsche)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2015, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-quality-and-quantity-of-tanks-in-ww2-compare/739484/57 "2015-12-15T13:56:37Z")
> [@Leo\_Bloom](#): > > BTW, one-man tankettes: anyone else ever design them, let alone use them? (Tracked Jeep–\>tankette.) I think Leonardo’s tank was a one-man operation…will check. The Italians used tankettes quite a bit in the 30s. Several companies were deployed in the Spanish Civil War, where they were completely outclassed by Soviet light tanks on the opposing side. They also equipped several armored divisions with tankettes in the invasion of Ethiopia. There, in rough terrain the tankettes had poor mobility and in several instances were immobilized, overrun and destroyed by Ethiopian infantry. Some of these tankettes were still used by Italy in WW2. By that time they were even more hopelessly obsolete, having such little armor that they could be destroyed by heavy machine guns. Meanwhile, the obsolete light tanks of every other country at least had some utility, having such luxuries as turrets, guns that could threaten other light vehicles, a commander, and decent ways for the crew to look outside the tank. ---
**Author:** ![Your\_Great\_Darsh\_Face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ac8455/32.png) [@Your\_Great\_Darsh\_Face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Your_Great_Darsh_Face)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2015, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-quality-and-quantity-of-tanks-in-ww2-compare/739484/58 "2015-12-15T14:08:21Z")
> [@botsgotme](#): > > Indeed-the Char 1B had almost 3" thick frontal armor. In one encounter (Arras), a Char 1B destroyed 13 German tanks, with its 75 MM cannon. Had tyhe French tanks been dployed properly, they could have stopped the german advance cold. Something similar happened in Russia when the Germans ran up against [KV](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Raseiniai#The_operation) tanks. I like the side-note that a single KV-2 held up a whole _panzer division_ for a day. :eek: ---
**Author:** ![Quercus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/7ab992/32.png) [@Quercus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quercus)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2015, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-quality-and-quantity-of-tanks-in-ww2-compare/739484/59 "2015-12-15T15:06:24Z")
> [@Your\_Great\_Darsh\_Face](#): > > Something similar happened in Russia when the Germans ran up against [KV](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Raseiniai#The_operation) tanks. I like the side-note that a single KV-2 held up a whole _panzer division_ for a day. :eek: Even the Russian T-34 was a bit of an ugly shock to the Germans. (The Panther was really just a moderately improved copy of the T-34) The story, probably not true, is that right before WWII, when Nazi Germany and the USSR were military buddies, a Soviet Army delegation came to Germany, and their hosts proudly showed off all their new Mk II and Mk III tanks. The Soviets laughed, thanked the hosts for the good joke and then asked where the real new tanks were. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-quality-and-quantity-of-tanks-in-ww2-compare/739484.md?page=2)