Hey all

I am sufficiently bored to create a simple one stop shop numerical based rating system for all of the tanks that have been covered so far on Paper Tigers. Until this point all of my reviews have basically ended with feels as opposed to a hard rating, but now I'll add that hard rating so that this can be marginally more scientific.
So here is how this is going to work.
There will be 8 catagories. Each will be rated on a scale from 0 to 5. They are listed as follows.

Armor
Anti tank firepower
Anti infantry firepower
Mobility
Reliability
Repairability
Ergonomics
Production

The tanks total score is divided by the max score of 40 for the overall score. The first 7 catagories will be divided by 35 for the individual tank score (this allows for good tanks with low production like Tiger I to be appraised more fairly). Finally, the first 4 ratings will be divided by 20 for a 'scariness' rating, which is how much you do not want to run into this tank. This last score is also a better representation of how these tanks are normally percieved.

Alright. Throughout the next few days, I'll post my ratings as replies in this thread. Understand that these ratings are still a bit subjective, and if you dont agree with any of them feel free to argue to point, you may be able to convince me to change my score. Also, If there are any tanks that you want summarized that I haven't already covered just ask, and I may have enough info to throw them down here as a quick review.

6862661
Armor: Stalinium
Anti Tank Firepower: Stalin
Anti Infantry Firepower: Stalin
Mobility: Rush 🅱️
Reliability: Stalin
Repairability: Repair? Don’t need Repair. Just Stalin
Ergonomics: Stalin
Production: STALIN

Kicking things off, the M4 75mm tank circa 1944-1945.

Armor: ***
Anti tank armament:***
Anti-infantry armament:*****
Mobility:***
Reliability:*****
Repairabiliy:*****
Ergonomics:*****
Production:*****

Overall score:34/40. 85%
Individual score: 29/35. 83%
Scariness score: 14/20. 70%

Not much to mention here.In actual combat characteristics the tank is very average. The armor can block the shorter german 75s if angled and the turret is pretty stout, but there is a lot that can kill it. The gun can take out Stugs and Pz IV's from about 1000 yards if untangled, but at 30 degrees that becomes questionable and there are lots of tanks that a sherman can't hope to pen from the front. Mobility is also just fine. It isnt fast but it isnt slow, and off road it is fine but not exceptional. The only real plus is against infantry, with a best for its weight HE found, A WP round for infantry support and screening, and a handy canister round. This is a very good anti infantry vehicle.

The 75mm Sherman crushes all the non combat stats though, with fantastic reliability, world beating repairability, great ergonomics and some of the best production of the war. Because of this, the 75mm Sherman is the highest scoring tank ive covered so far overall, and I dont know of anything that can knock it off its pedestal.

6862684
If anything, mobility

The 76mm Sherman

Armor: ***
Anti tank armament:****
Anti-infantry armament:***
Mobility:***
Reliability:*****
Repairabiliy:*****
Ergonomics:*****
Production:*****
Overall score:33/40. 83%
Individual score: 28/35. 80%
Scariness score: 13/20. 65%

The same as the Sherman except for the gun, and honestly the tanks main hinderance. Yes, it does eliminate the ability of the stugs and Pz IV's to angle, and it does give a fighting chance against the tiger from around 1000 yards, but this is not a end all be all anti tank gun. Which is fine, but it gives up a bit too much with it's anti infantry ability. the HE has some advantages, but 390 grams of explosive is just never going to be as good as 670, and the tank loses the canister shot and only gets WP in early 45. As a whole package it's slightly worse than the 75mm Sherman, but integrated into a tank platoon it is a worthy addition, and the two complement each other very well.

A bit of a new one, the M4 Sherman in 1943

Armor: ****
Anti tank armament:****
Anti-infantry armament:****
Mobility:***
Reliability:****
Repairabiliy:*****
Ergonomics:***
Production:*****

Overall score: 32/40. 80%
Individual score: 27/35. 78%
Scariness score: 15/20. 75%

In 1943 the Sherman is still a good tank, but for different reasons. The gun and armor is more capable against its enemy's, with only a few 'special' Pz IV's and Tigers to really challenge it. Where it pays for this is in worse reliability (still kinks to be worked out) and much worse ergonomics, with each position having at least one noticeable issue. In all, still a solid vehicle.

How are you defining reliability?

6863668
How far can I drive my tank without something going wrong.

6863783

...THAN HOW THE HELL DO THE SHERMANS GET FIVE STARS!? The only two things that could possibly make them five star worthy is the zippo effect (they caught fire on the first shot) and the interchangeable parts!

Let's detour away from Sherman's for a minute (they'll be back because there are so many of them, but a break is in order) and talk about the T-34's, starting with the T-34/76 of 1941 and the first half of '42

Armor:*****
Anti tank armament:*****
Anti infantry armament:****
Mobility:****
Reliability:*
Repairability:***
Ergonomics:*
Production:*****

Overall: 28/40. 70%
Individual: 23/35. 66%
Scariness: 18/20. 90%

This is one of the tanks that first comes to mind when you think of a paper tiger, and for good reason. Its scariness rating for 1941 and 42 is almost a perfect score, and I could be convinced, easily, to bump up the mobility and anti infantry firepower. The armor for the time is fantastic and Germany does not create a good tank borne solution to it until mid 1942, and even then not in large numbers. The gun can destroy any tank it runs into front at least a kilometer, and has decent HE and a shrapnel shell to boot. And it is fast and can cross terrain no one else will even consider. This is a scary tank.

And then you get inside and everything sucks. The bow machine gunner can't see out except through the one tiny hole for his gunsight and has a radio that doesn't work if he's lucky and no hatch to escape if the vehicle gets hit. The driver has just awful controls and his hatch is just terrible. The loader can only load the gun once every 15 seconds if the tank is totally still and has to share a awful forward folding hatch with the commander who is completely blind and it just sucks. And then the transmission falls apart within 200 miles and the engine maybe lasts 300 if your lucky because the air filter only removes 4/5 dust particles that pass through.

It really cripples this tank, but in 1942 the Soviets dont need reliability, they need a bunch of powerful tanks. This fits the bill.

6863836
Ah, it's my favorite part of the day, the part where I get to impart some knowledge and hopefully convert someone into the folds of shermanism.
I know that a lot has been said negatively about the Sherman, literal savior of the free world, but a lot of that is either out and out wrong or a major exageration.

So two things. One is that the Sherman can drive a very long way without things going wrong, as evidenced by Exercise Dracula in 1943 where 6 Sherman's drive a combined 13,986 miles without any replaced components or major repair and only regular maintanace averaging 2,331 miles per tank without things going wrong. So, I would call that 5 stars for reliability.

Also, Sherman's were in general not as flammable as people make them out to be, or at least just as flammable as anything else. The US Army concluded that dry storage Sherman's would burn 65 percent of the time after 1 penetration, and the British concluded that it would burn 80 percent of the time after 2 hits. This is the same as a Panzer IV.
Also, when the army changed the ammo storage to wet ammo in armored bins in the turret floor, the burn rate dropped to 10% chance of fire after a penetrating hit. This is the lowest chance I have found for a tank to burn of the war.

I've written all about this in the forum. Feel free to take a look.

Again, a bit new, but the T-34/76 in 1943

Armor:***
Anti tank armament:***
Anti infantry armament:****
Mobility:****
Reliability:***
Repairability:***
Ergonomics:**
Production:*****

Overall: 27/40. 68%
Individual: 22/35. 63%
Scariness: 14/20. 70%

The main thing that has changed for the T-34 in 1943 is that germany has largely caught up. Every Stug and Pz IV now has 80mm of armor at the front, and for a gun with 90mm point blank penetration it becomes questionable if a T-34/76 can penetrate these tanks at 500 yards. Further, the 75mm L/43 is now in service, and while the T-34 can still bounce it at around a kilometer, the pendulum has swung in the other direction.

Luckily, other things have improved. With a new gearbox that actually can work for about 1500 miles, and a new air filter that actually filters air, the T-34/76 is now somewhat reliable. Also the ergonomics have been improved (in the turret anyway) with a bit more room for both crewmen and dedicated hatches for both (that still open forward and raise the silhouette of the tank by like a foot and a half). The T-34/76 is still a viable tank at this point, but that is more due to numbers than the tanks quality. It needs a model refresh, and everyone knows it.

6863883

grumbling Yeah yeah, I know all about Dracula. I guess that does show how reliable they are. Still prefer my Panzer’s, mind you. And even than, nothing above the Tiger I. Personal favorite is and always will be the Panzer IV Ausf. H.

Hey. It's 1944 and the T-34 had a model refresh. Lets see it.

T-34/85

Armor:***
Anti-Tank Armament:****
Anti-Infantry Armament:***
Mobility:*****
Reliability:****
Repairability:***
Ergonomics:****
Production:*****

Overall: 31/40. 78%
Individual: 26/35. 74%
Scariness: 15/20. 75%

Hey, this is a good model refresh. The 85mm gun is very synonymous with the american 76mm, giving the tank good abilities against Stugs and Panzers and even a fighting chance against Tigers. However, the HE shell is unimproved and the shrapnel shell is no longer an option, hitting the anti infantry score. This is made up for by the added mobility the tank gets from the multi-cyclone air filter, which finally allows for enough airflow for the whole 500 hp of the engine to be unleashed.

The main improvements are to the reliability and ergonomics. On January 1 of 45 the T-34 gets guaranteed for 2500 km without major repair. This is 1500 miles, which while ain't Sherman levels is still really good, and is also the minimum distance that was expected. But the ergonomics are where the tank really improves. The loader has room to load, no longer is taking apart the floor to get more ammo, and isnt the commander. The commander has a cupola. The gunner has a telescopic sight, periscope, and isnt the commander. Each tank has a radio. While crude, everything is set up right at least.

In all, the T-34/85 is a solid tank.

6864926

Uh...what?

6865314
6865321

Careful now.

I am waiting for the panzer tracts book on Pz IV G-J before I can make a final conclusion on the Pz IV's but here is where they stand now. (Edit, it is here and it is not what I expected. its basically a list of improvements without any mention of what the problem was they were supposed to fix or if they had any effect in fixing said problem. No trials are mentioned, or any other things. I did learn a thing about Schurzen , and a thing about production, but that's all. My search for the Pz IV reliability continues.)

Pz IV G-H

Armor: ***
Anti Tank Armament:****
Anti Infantry Armament:***
Mobility:***
Reliability: ?
Repairability:****
Ergonomics:***
Production:****

Overall: between 25 and 29 over 40, or a 63 to 73 percent.
Individual: between 21 and 25 over 35,
Scariness:13/20, or 65%

The Panzer IV I think is most referred to as the backbone of the German tank forces, and rides on the early war reputation of the panzer arm and the late war reputation of the big cats to a good little niche for itself. And in 1943, I think this is valid. In the eastern front the armor is pretty good (you could even bump it to a 4) and all of the characteristics are solid or above average. But nothing is exceptional. The armor is fine, it give a chance to bounce the main guns of its adversary's with angling at range. The gun is a pretty good antitank weapon that allows it to destroy its main adversary's at the same range it can be taken out at. The HE shell is perfectly serviceable. And the mobility is fine enough as well, matching with the Sherman in all ways but horsepower to ton.

But the big question is reliability, and that is the question that I want answered. There is a lot of talk about how reliable it was early war, but around the time of the Panzer IV HI have heard rumors of the dreaded final drives failing. Oh no, not again. It is on this that the Panzer IV H's final judgment rests.

The tank is actually almost best in class in terms of how easy it is to repair, with convenient access to all major components. Only the fact that spare parts are rare and not really interchangeable keep it from top Mark's here.

Ergonomically, it is a mixed bag. There is good stuff here (cupola, hooray! Hatches for each crewman, rejoice!) But also all the same issues of German tanks that we are used to, plus a few more that are new. It averages out to being, well, average.

And production is fine too.

In all, the tank is either a solid performer, or a bit of a disappointment. It all depends on that reliability.

6865479
You ain't wrong, but the fact that the suspension was overloaded by the time we get to the Pz IV H and never gave that good a ride to begin with didn't make it less mobile. It still has ok flotation, better than Sherman's without the extenders, and because it is just a bolt on thing is easy to repair (and replace, which makes me wonder why the bogies were not redesigned to carry more like on the sherman. Hopefully the book will tell me).its crude, and probably bodes poorly for the reliability, but it works.

And while it may have been expensive and simplex to make, they still did make like 6000 of them, which ain't bad at all.

6865543

That’s funny, because historians found records of Rommel begging Hitler for more Panzer IV’s and less Panthers, Tigers, Jagdtiger, and whatnot. Mostly because the Panzer IV’s were cheaper and easier to make...but they got the job done.

6865986
Huh, interesting. The only time I've run across a general specifically asking for an specific tank, it was Montgomery, asking for Challengers of all things. Usually generals would take what they could get.

6866157

I dont think that equipping the panzer corps with Stug III's would have been a good idea. Yes, the stug III is a great anti tank weapon, and a good enough infantry support vehicle as well. It is not a tank though, and I'm pretty sure that in order to expand production they would have had to get rid of other things.

I hate to be a subscriber to economic determinism or something like that, but keeping the Panzer IV in production was the right call in 1942 and beyond because the nazis had completely neglected their production until then. It was only after the battle of moscow that they stopped making civilian cars at their factories. And because they were now faced with a 'totaler krieg' they couldn't spare the months it would take to retool lines for Panzer IVs to something else. I dont know how panther would have benefitted from economies of scale (its being built by slaves after all) and I'm sure that no one would have been satisfied with the panzer IV being the sole medium. As far as production goes, I think they had it right with producing both panther and Panzer IV. Their mistake was making the Panther a huge piece of shit that sucked and weighed 15 tons over the weight requirement.

Remember one comment ago, when I said the Panther was a huge piece of shit that sucked?

The Panther

Armor:****
Anti-Tank Armament:*****
Anti Infantry Armament:***
Mobility:*****
Reliability:

Repairability:*
Ergonomics:***
Production:****

Overall: 25/40 or 63%
Individual: 21/35 or 60%
Scaryness:17/20 or 85%

This is a scary tank, amirite? it has crazy armor from the front, a gun that can kill like 90 percent of what it meets from like 2 Km out, and it can drive over crazy mud fields and go like T-34 speeds if it has enough run-up. Holy shit, if I ran into this, especially in a open field when its in a defensive position, I'd think it was the best tank ever.

But then you look a little closer, and your like, 'oh, the armor shatters when it gets hit and the welds break all the time.' or maybe 'oh, its only a anti-tank gun, it has like a ok HE shell, but that's all.' Or perhaps ' oh, the steering gear breaks if the tank tries to turn while reversing or neutral steering.'

And that's all the stuff that looks good on paper. You look at reliability and it is dogshit, and it is always dogshit, and it never gets better at any point of the war. And even if you could repair it when it broke (you basically cant because of such few spares) its such a pain in the ass that you shouldn't really bother because it will just break down again, statistically within one full tank of gas.

Ergonomics are fine, the tank has a higher skill ceiling for operating it than many others but if you have a skilled crew it'll work (oh, most of the time you don't). And they did build a fair few of them I guess, but that won't save this tank.

6866475
Yeah, it is. if the hellcat will get 0 stars for armor then this can get zero stars for reliability and repairability.

EDIT: this gets 1 whole star for repairability. it's possible.

Remember when I said that the Hellcat would get 0 stars for Armor?

The M18 76mm GMC Hellcat

Armor: ha. funny
Anti Tank Armament:****
Anti Infantry Armament:***
Mobility:*****
Reliability: *****
Reparability:*****
Ergonomics:***
Production:***

Overall: 28/40 or 70%
Individual:25/35 or 71%
Scariness:12/20 or 60%

The M18 is a endlessly interesting vehicle to me. It is the perfect example of the ideal tank destroyer and probably did more to end the tank destroyer doctrine than anything else. It is a army vehicle designed by a car company, and marketed by one too. It is a vehicle of extremes, designed for a role that was not as important as the military thought, and forced into others for the majority of its service. It's also one of the more influential designs of the war, with its suspension and transmission serving far after it did while also birthing the first purpose built armored personnel carriers (discounting something like the Mk XI of course). Point of fact, the M18 is so interesting to me I nearly wrote a book about it... nearly.

But however interesting it may be to me, that does not mean that it is particularly good. Not that it is particularly bad either, it meets its design requirements very well, but its design requirements are built around a flawed doctrine. The flaws of this doctrine become flaws in the tank.

The most noticeable is in armor. The Armored Board (specifically different from the Tank Destroyer Board) got a few of these to trial as a potential light tank/reconnaissance vehicle to be used instead of the in development T24 (which would become the Chaffee). To make their point on how laughably unarmored the vehicle was, they brought out a man with a M1903 with steel core ammo, and had him shoot at the turret side from 100 yards. All bounces. They moved him to 50 yards. All pens. They moved him to 75 yards. About one in 3 went through. And that is all that needs to be said about that.

The gun is the same 76mm from the Sherman's and 90 percent the same as the gun on the vehicle it was replacing, the M10. As such, it was suitable to destroy anything but the big cats from the front at range, and perfectly capable of getting them from the sides. combined with the fact that the M18 was at its heart a defensive vehicle and would be the one doing the ambushing, and it's unparalleled ability to move into a firing position, this really was the most effective anti tank weapon in the US army inventory, a fact borne out by its kill to loss ratio against tanks.
It even had some anti infantry ability, with its 75 mm gun being called into service most often as a makeshift artillery piece, good for anti infantry work and for softening up positions without completely destroying the terrain.

But its mobility was the selling point of the tank, and it did not disappoint here. After the first 650 or so models which had phenominal speed but mediocre torque to navigate snow, hills, and other things the gear ratios in the final drive were reduced, dropping its top speed to a measly 45 mph. however, It did give it greater mobility in timed trials than every other tank in the US inventory. It is the most mobile tracked vehicle of the war, with only Cromwell and Chaffee able to contest it.

Reliability and Repairability were top notch as well, but the ergonomics suffered from numerous drawbacks that were pointed out multiple times but never addressed in the incredibly comprehensive trials. finally, Production was only around 1800, with the first 650 being converted into the M39 Armored Utility Vehicle. plans were for something like 12000 to be made, but because the vehicle was so tailored to a very specific doctrine, and because all the trial vehicles sent to the allies for lend lease were of the less mobile high ratio final drives (convincing them that the vehicle was worse than it was) they were never made.

It is not exceptional all things considered, but for what it is it's great.

6866157

Point of fact, Rommel was a tactical and strategic genius. He is by far the best and greatest general of WWII. The problem lies not with Rommel, but with Hitler. Hence why most of his late ideas before Hitler had him killed (the only general he killed whom he gave a choice as to manner of death; now that says/shows how much Hitler respected him) was mainly damage control for Hitlers crazy, idiotic, and dumbass plans.

Moving on to a different big cat, the Tiger I

Armor: ***** (**** in '44)
Anti Tank Armament:***** (**** in '44)
Anti Infantry Armament:***
Mobility:***
Reliability: ***
Repairability:*
Ergonomics:****
Production:***

Overall:27/40 (25/40 in 1944-45) or 68% (63% in 1944)
Individual:24/35 (23/35 in 1944-45) or 69% (66% in 1944)
Scariness: 16/20, or 80% (14/20 or 70% in 1944 or 45)

While the numerical score may be pretty pathetic, close to the Panther, I think that this tank is far better. Those 3 extra stars in reliability go a long way. Also, there are lots of mitigating factors that smooth out the rough edges. the armor is always quite good, and in 1943 neigh untouchable. The gun remains potent throughout the war (though its HE shell is a bit lacking) and it is reasonably mobile. It's reliable enough for the tank to carryout out breakthroughs (its whole purpose) but just as terrible (if not worse) to repair than the Panther. Its ergonomically decent, and good enough for the train crews of the heavy tank arm to get the most out of it. The final holdback is the production, constrained by a litany of constant changes that slow output as parts are adjusted. I'll have to see, but this is probably going to be in the top 3 of German vehicles, with the PZ IV G-H and the Stug III being biggest competition.

Lets finish these German tanks, or the ones that I have taken care of so far.

The Tiger II.

Armor: *****
Anti Tank Armament:*****
Anti Infantry Armament:**
Mobility:****
Reliability:
Repairability:*
Ergonomics:****
Production:**

Overall: 23/40 or 58%
Individual:21/35 or 60%
Scariness:17/20 or 80%

This is late war German tank design taken to the point of farce. The armor is the thickest of the war, able to kinda bounce a 122mm shell from the front (however its sides are alarmingly vulnerable by mid 44). The gun is the penultimate anti-tank weapon of the war, even if it is a average at best HE slinger. With great flotation and decent speed, this is also a rather mobile tank in the vein of Panther.

Its reliability is comically bad though, from everything I have seen a drive of even 30 miles is a existential threat to the tank. And it is just damn impossible to recover or repair. Its ergonomics are what you'd expect from German tanks at this point, comfortable enough but requiring a trained crew to be able to overcome some of the design shortcomings (no gunners periscope, turret traverse tied to the main engine, etc). But the pathetic production run is what dooms this tank to the worst score so far.

Let's move from the ultimate big cat to one of the ultimate big cat killers.

The Sherman Firefly.

Armor:***
Anti-Tank Armament:*****
Anti infantry armament:***
Mobility: ***
Reliability:*****
Repairability:*****
Ergonomics :*** (**** for ARV cupola)
Production:***

Overall:30/40 (31/40 for late war) or 75% (78% for late war)
Individual:27/35 (28/35 for late war) or 77% (or 80% for late war)
Scariness: 14/20 or 70%

The Sherman Firefly is often looked at as the best Sherman, and while I do not agree with that assessment, it is by far the best British Sherman. Obviously the big changes are with the gun, and the 17 pounder is definitely one of the great anti tank guns of the war, with a last ditch APDS round that could theoretically penetrate Tiger II from the front (with in 500 yards or it will miss, but still, it is the only gun with a chance in the allies arsenal) and a fantastic regular round. The HE round is lacking in Normandy, but by the time of the Battle of the Bulge a new round was introduced that is more powerful than the 75mm's excellent HE ( I will discuss this more when we get to Comet).

The ergonomics are where the tank takes another hit, but aside from cramped loading conditions, a inexplicably placed elevation gear, and flashback problems, it really is not horrid, and gets improved when the all around vision cupola begins to be introduced in late 1944.

My initial thoughts on the Firefly was that it was a overrated tank, but the more I dig the better it looks. In 1944, it was a tank that fulfilled its main purpose superbly, and in 1945 it had evolved into a capable and well balanced design in all respects. Not bad for a kit-bash.

On a bit of a British kick here, so let’s look at the Cromwell’s.

We're going to cover all of them that merit it, so below see the scores for the Cromwell IV-V, Cromwell VI, Cromwell VII, and Cromwell VIII.

Cromwell IV-V

Armor:**
Anti-Tank Armament:***
Anti-Infantry Armament:****
Mobility:*****
Reliability:*****
Reparability:***
Ergonomics:***
Production:***

Overall: 28/40 or 70%
Individual:25/35 or 71%
Scariness:14/20 or 70%

In all, the 75mm Cromwell's IV and V are fine enough tanks. Their high mobility and high reliability combine to make them movement warfare specialists, but weak armor and an acceptable but not exceptional main gun make them something of a poor choice as an all-rounder medium tank. Thought of as a better light tank, in similar vein to a Chaffee perhaps, and they make far more sense.

Cromwell VI

Armor:**
Anti-Tank Armament:*
Anti-Infantry Armament:*****
Mobility:*****
Reliability:*****
Reparability:***
Ergonomics:***
Production:**

Overall: 26/40 or 65%
Individual:24/35 or 69%
Scariness:13/20 or 65%

The Cromwell VI with the 95mm howitzer is an interesting case, but I'm not convinced that it's a good trade. Yes it does put down much more bang on target, much more war crime adjacent smoke if you want, and a heavy field of base emitting smoke as well, all far in excess of the 75mm. But in the antitank department it just comes up short. Without any evidence of the HEAT being issued this is a mediocre anti-tank weapon.

Cromwell VII

Armor:**
Anti-Tank Armament:***
Anti-Infantry Armament:****
Mobility:*****
Reliability:*****
Reparability:***
Ergonomics:****
Production:***

Overall: 29/40 or 73%
Individual:26/35 or 74%
Scariness:14/20 or 70%

Cromwell VIII

Armor:**
Anti-Tank Armament:*
Anti-Infantry Armament:*****
Mobility:*****
Reliability:*****
Reparability:***
Ergonomics:****
Production:**

Overall: 27/40 or 68%
Individual:25/35 or 71%
Scariness:13/20 or 65%

Cromwell VII and VIII do only one thing different from their predecessors. They are actually kinda ergonomic. The commander gets the ARV cupola, the driver gets the Comet’s hatch (and is pleased about it!) removing two of the main issue of the tank. It’s cozy, but it ain’t bad.

In all, these are solid tanks, great at some things, mediocre at others, and middling at the rest. At the end of the day, they're average.