RE: Sherman vs. T-34

Matrix Games Forums

A look through the keyhole #10!

The Age of Shadows on Distant Worlds starts now!

Paypal System Update

Distant Worlds: Shadows Final Teaser!

Distant Worlds: Legends gets Updated!

Recruiting Testers for Commander: the Great War on Mac!

Armageddon invasion starts in 2014

Command Rommels Panzers in Battle Academy!

Servers Update

The Deal goes Fourth!

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Sherman vs. T-34

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: Sherman vs. T-34

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Sherman vs. T-34 - 2/26/2010 4:06:07 PM

lolz

Posts: 149
Joined: 11/22/2004
Status: offline

hmmm,i'd take easy eight

(in reply to Mark Weston)

Post #: 31

RE: Sherman vs. T-34 - 2/26/2010 5:12:35 PM

AW1Steve

Posts: 12018
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: ME-FL-NE ? "Cloud Coo-coo land"
Status: offline

I'd like to bring up the point of apples to oranges. The Sherman (especially early Sherman's) was not designed as an anti-tank weapon. American doctrine called for tanks to break up infantry (the machine gun initially was considered it's main weapon), if necessary by running them over. Anti-tank was to be handled by tank destroyers and AT guns. Had the USA wanted to use the tank as a anti-tank weapon , they would have concentrated production on the Pershing or other "heavy tanks". As it was , the Germans and Russians (at least by late in the war) used their tanks as anti tank weapons. And the T-34 was , an all around good , sturdy , usefully tank. The Panther and Tigers were great for their intended doctrine , but limited by production,weight and over engineering.

And of course , eventually all the nations of the war would decide that the absolute best tank killer was an airplane. The Typhoon,P-39 and P-62, the P-47, the Stuka (tank killing variant) and the IL-2, all showed their superiority to ANY tank.

_____________________________

"Don't hold yourself up as an example of what community members should aspire to. You have a long history of rude behavior, and you overract to the slightest provocation."
Amoral

(in reply to lolz)

Post #: 32

RE: Sherman vs. T-34 - 2/26/2010 6:04:44 PM

crsutton

Posts: 6203
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

You guys get hung up on armor and guns. There was more to these two tanks that that. Sherman has a very fast turret and a faster rate of fire. In close (city or restricted visability) this was a bigger advantage. Sherman had more dependable radios. Sherman was not as good off road but track life was 3-4 times better than T34, so it was better in Western Europe where tanks used the road net more. Sherman engine was better with about twice the operational time before needing overhaul. Most shermans had electric turrets that could be traversed with the engine off. All in all, I would call it a toss up between the two. Sherman was much more suited for Western Europe and the T34 better suited for the steppes.

_____________________________

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." Godwin's Law

(in reply to Mark Weston)

Post #: 33

RE: Sherman vs. T-34 - 2/26/2010 6:11:48 PM

Q-Ball

Posts: 5266
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

One of the difficulties in looking at German tank production, not just the tank v. SP guns, but also the conversions.

I wonder if, for example, the Marders are counted TWICE in those numbers; first when they were built as a tank, and second when they were converted to an SP gun.

Althought the Germans wasted alot of effort building obsolete PzII and PzIII, at least they salvaged some value by converting them to SP guns.

And crsutton has good points. Really, in just about every aspect EXCEPT tank on tank combat, the Sherman was an excellent tank. And it is true that it wasn't designed anyway for an anti-tank role.

The real design shortfall wasn't the Sherman, it was the whole US Army TD concept, which was flawed.

< Message edited by Q-Ball -- 2/26/2010 6:13:32 PM >

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 34

RE: Sherman vs. T-34 - 2/26/2010 6:28:59 PM

AW1Steve

Posts: 12018
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: ME-FL-NE ? "Cloud Coo-coo land"
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

One of the difficulties in looking at German tank production, not just the tank v. SP guns, but also the conversions.

I wonder if, for example, the Marders are counted TWICE in those numbers; first when they were built as a tank, and second when they were converted to an SP gun.

Althought the Germans wasted alot of effort building obsolete PzII and PzIII, at least they salvaged some value by converting them to SP guns.

And crsutton has good points. Really, in just about every aspect EXCEPT tank on tank combat, the Sherman was an excellent tank. And it is true that it wasn't designed anyway for an anti-tank role.

The real design shortfall wasn't the Sherman, it was the whole US Army TD concept, which was flawed.

While I might agree that the TD concept was unwieldly (like American football, two teams, one defensive and one offensive) it was not a bad concept. The two problems were 1) On this doctrine , like most American doctrines, the people in the field seldom followed their own rules.

2) the USA started with 105mm on the backs of white scout cars, a definate "Rube Goldberg" situation. Had they employed more of the M-36 , like they did later in the cold war , you might have seen a different result. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M36_tank_destroyer

_____________________________

"Don't hold yourself up as an example of what community members should aspire to. You have a long history of rude behavior, and you overract to the slightest provocation."
Amoral

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 35

RE: Sherman vs. T-34 - 2/26/2010 7:17:33 PM

John Lansford

Posts: 2638
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline

First off, the Pz II and III designs were hardly obsolete when they were built. The later III models carried a high velocity 50mm gun which could knock out a T-34 at close range, and was better than any tank gun the Allies had until the Grant and Sherman began appearing. They had to continue building the Mk III into 1942 and 43 because if they had converted all their factories to Mk IV or Tiger/Panthers, they would have had very few tanks built at all in 43. The book "Hitler's Panzers", which just came out, goes into detail over the Germans' problem with tank production. Basically they never had enough to fill out all their divisions, and even when they started building assault guns/tank destroyers the production still wasn't enough. The obsession with quality over quantity meant they were always switching designs, which further hampered them being able to build enough tanks to match the Soviet numbers.

Had they gone with an upgraded Mk IV design (more than capable of dealing with the T-34's) and a single TD/AG design, they would have had a chance, but trying to build Mk IV's, Sturmgeschutz III's, Marders, Hetzers, Panthers, Tigers, King Tigers, Jagdpanthers, Jagdtigers, Sturmgeschutz IV's, Mk III's, Luchs, Brummbars, etc, meant they never had enough of any of them.

(in reply to AW1Steve)

Post #: 36

RE: Sherman vs. T-34 - 2/26/2010 11:24:52 PM

arras

Posts: 186
Joined: 9/7/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

You guys get hung up on armor and guns. There was more to these two tanks that that. Sherman has a very fast turret and a faster rate of fire. In close (city or restricted visability) this was a bigger advantage. Sherman had more dependable radios. Sherman was not as good off road but track life was 3-4 times better than T34, so it was better in Western Europe where tanks used the road net more. Sherman engine was better with about twice the operational time before needing overhaul. Most shermans had electric turrets that could be traversed with the engine off. All in all, I would call it a toss up between the two. Sherman was much more suited for Western Europe and the T34 better suited for the steppes.

If life expectation of tank in field is 2 weeks, engine which needs overhaul after 2 months is complete waste of resources. If 80% of combat is going to happen at less than 500 meters, then outfitting tank with optics which allows hits at 2000 meters is another waste of resources as it is in case you have raw recruits manning that optics who can't use it at more than 500 meters anyway. (those are arbitrary values, set up just as an examples, not real ones)

If your industry is working with plenty of resources and manpower at the safe distance from battlefield and at no risk of attack, you might give your tankers comfort of leather covered seats. On the other hand if half your country was just overrun by enemy and you just erected your tank plant in the middle of taiga after hastily evacuating it in front of advancing enemy miles away, then crew comfort is not going to be your first priority.

If I would want my tank to drive me in to office and back each day, then Sherman is the choice. If I want to stop Wermacht on the other hand...

In general those two machines are probably not too different from each other in combat efficiency (both are medium tanks with similar armament, agility, weight, fuel consumption), so other factors would probably prevail. Like crew training, leadership, doctrine... and so on. I would say, t-34 was better tank as it was t-34, not Sherman which influenced tank design around globe in years to come. Just look at post war US tanks and tell if they were influenced more by one or second (if by second at all).

There is actually interesting book:
Panther vs T-34 Ukraine 1943 by Osprey

I don't like books like this normally as these kind of comparisons are totally useless from historical point of view. But this book is quit good, full of interesting info. For example unit combat readiness statistics shows that Panther units readiness was quit low. Means Panther was very good tank ...at times when it was actually running and not broken. Which it was all the time. As many Panthers were lost to their own mechanical failures as to enemy fire, if not more.

German war production was big failure of course. That's not because Germans can not produce things effectively. At the outbreak of war, Germans believed in short, quick war. Generally design, development and research projects which would take more than year or two to finish were postponed for after war period. Many aircraft designs were stooped for example. For first few years of war, Germans were producing at prewar levels! Fully mobilizing their industry only at the end of war, when it was too late. From industry capacity point of view, Germans were in better position than Soviets. Especially after fall of France when most of continental Europe was under German control. If I remember right, they were producing more steel than Soviets for example. Yet Soviets outproduced Germans in most of the military equipment at last 2:1 and more. Also manpower difference was not that great, many big battle statistics shows 1:2 ratio or similar.
Kursk for example: 435,000/1,087,500 men, 3,155/3,275 tanks, 9,966/25,013 guns (Wikipedia).
If you take in mind that half of European USSR (best developed and most densely populated part of USSR) was overrun by Wermacht in few months, you can safely say that German industry failed miserably and that Soviets pulled miracle.

< Message edited by arras -- 2/27/2010 7:41:37 AM >

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 37

RE: Sherman vs. T-34 - 2/27/2010 1:49:22 AM

Mynok

Posts: 12069
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

Speer's book makes it eloquently clear that the German high command grossly failed to get on a war footing early enough.

_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to arras)

Post #: 38

RE: Sherman vs. T-34 - 2/27/2010 3:13:14 AM

Feinder

Posts: 6582
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline

On topic: T-34 was better (than the M4).
Off topic (and because I like the quote): The German Tiger ace (can't remember his name), has been attributed to saying, "Sure, we could knock out a dozen of the American tanks. The problem was, there was always 13!"

And here is identicle thread (T-34 vs. Sherman), and has a interesting (if not long, I haven't even gotten far reading it) story on America's top Tanker ace (in a Sherman no less):

US Army tanker ace

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

(in reply to Mark Weston)

Post #: 39

RE: Sherman vs. T-34 - 2/27/2010 3:44:20 AM

Fishbed

Posts: 1620
Joined: 11/21/2005
From: Beijing, China - Paris, France
Status: offline

I fail to understand how so many of you can talk about so obviously choosing the T34/85 over the Sherman 76 while a Soviet crew, who tried both, and their common battle history in the early 50s show that none was clearly better than the other for different reasons (if we still want to give the T34/85 credit and ignore the Korean & Middle-East engagements, because of xp disparity between the crews).

In 1944-1945, a panzerfaust was a "one-shot, one-kill" against any allied medium tank. A german 75mm or 88mm frontal hit could disable them the same way, and both the Soviet 85mm and US 75mm (and 76mm without special ammunition too) would have had problems dealing with Panther or Tiger front armor. Seriously, if you're better armored, it only matters if the number of enemy weapons that can penetrate you makes a difference. When you are a crew, the facts that you could actually hit with better accuracy, that you had a radio to coordinate your wingmen, or that your ammo would not cook are things that DO matter when it comes to talk about the merits of each tank. Again, this kind of things are not in the specs, while they do matter when crewing this tank is what your life is about.

< Message edited by Fishbed -- 2/27/2010 3:52:19 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 40

RE: Sherman vs. T-34 - 2/27/2010 8:25:19 AM

arras

Posts: 186
Joined: 9/7/2004
Status: offline

You should be careful at evaluating what crews likes or not as it does not always make effective weapon. Think of Japanese pilots preferring light, nimble planes ...until enemy thought them to like different ;)

(in reply to Fishbed)

Post #: 41

RE: Sherman vs. T-34 - 2/27/2010 8:58:32 AM

Sardaukar

Posts: 5493
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/now in Malta
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

I fail to understand how so many of you can talk about so obviously choosing the T34/85 over the Sherman 76 while a Soviet crew, who tried both, and their common battle history in the early 50s show that none was clearly better than the other for different reasons (if we still want to give the T34/85 credit and ignore the Korean & Middle-East engagements, because of xp disparity between the crews).

Considering the opposition, I'd rather have T-34/85 than Sherman 76 when facing German Panther tanks. US 76 didn't have spectacular record against Panther compared to T-34/85 (that had blunt-nose round that coped with sloped armour better). Against Tiger, Sherman 76 fared bit better, but Tiger was rarer beast than Panther. Lesser Panzers were not problem for either.

Additional problem for Sherman 76 were sloped armour JagdPanzers. So based on ability to KO opponents, I'd go for T-34/85 vs Sherman 76. I would not like the ride, though..ergonomics were not Soviet style.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von B�lov, 1870-

(in reply to Fishbed)

Post #: 42

RE: Sherman vs. T-34 - 2/27/2010 10:50:56 AM

Fishbed

Posts: 1620
Joined: 11/21/2005
From: Beijing, China - Paris, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: arras

You should be careful at evaluating what crews likes or not as it does not always make effective weapon. Think of Japanese pilots preferring light, nimble planes ...until enemy thought them to like different ;)

Well yeah, but coming from a Guard unit commander (again, there's also a reason why Guard units would get lend-lease stuff first) who actually went through the war, I find it funny that the fact that he's basically saying that he'd rather ride a Sherman than a T-34 seems so crazy to all of you. Basically, he's been put against Tigers, Panthers & Panzerfausts, and we didn't, and still "it's about until enemy thought them to like different"? Come on!

Are you even reading the text that are being submitted, or do you want to keep believing otherwise just because it sounds cooler?

To people I though were so found of rebuking uncalled myths when it comes to the PTO, where's your critical eye once we start talking about another theater? Do you need some kind of shattered sword book to start questioning those legends? Again, it's not like Shermans had never faced T-34... You'd rather all drive a T-34 around than be in a Sherman? Nice, but then go tell it to those North Korean or Egyptians tankers who fell victim to the said tincan, Im not sure they're gonna share your opinion...

People talk about how useless "better optics may be under 500m". They just forget to add that this applies to armor too (if not much better)

Guys, on the paper, a P-39 is a crappy plane against anything it was put against in Europe. Then you have to wonder how comes he was put in service in Guard units and became a jerry killer in the hands of Pokryshin and Co. Remember, a radio in itself was already an improvement for a Soviet pilot or tanker, and this alone explains a lot.

< Message edited by Fishbed -- 2/27/2010 10:53:00 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to arras)

Post #: 43

RE: Sherman vs. T-34 - 2/27/2010 11:07:39 AM

castor troy

Posts: 12000
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

quote:

ORIGINAL: arras

You should be careful at evaluating what crews likes or not as it does not always make effective weapon. Think of Japanese pilots preferring light, nimble planes ...until enemy thought them to like different ;)

Well yeah, but coming from a Guard unit commander (again, there's also a reason why Guard units would get lend-lease stuff first) who actually went through the war, I find it funny that the fact that he's basically saying that he'd rather ride a Sherman than a T-34 seems so crazy to all of you. Basically, he's been put against Tigers, Panthers & Panzerfausts, and we didn't, and still "it's about until enemy thought them to like different"? Come on! Are you even reading the text that are being submitted, or do you want to keep believing otherwise just because it sounds cooler?

To people I though were so found of rebuking uncalled myths when it comes to the PTO, where's your critical eye once we start talking about another theater? Do you need some kind of shattered sword book to start questioning those legends? Again, it's not like Shermans had never faced T-34... You'd rather all drive a T-34 around than be in a Sherman? Nice, but then go tell it to those North Korean or Egyptians tankers who fell victim to the said tincan, Im not sure they're gonna share your opinion...

People talk about how useless "better optics may be under 500m". They just forget to add that this applies to armor too (if not much better)

and coming from a WWII German tank commander (my grandpa), he said that until the end the German soldiers always thought to have superior equipment, especially superior tanks and artillery. And he never commanded anything bigger or better than a Pz-IV. Now should I say the Pz-IV was the uber tank just because my grandpa said they always felt superior to anything they met? He said the only thing they really feared were air attacks, of which he directy suffered 4!! (or 5 IIRC) during years of fighting and they suffered from too few fuel, too few spares. They never suffered from lack of ammo though. He was wounded in late 44 so he didn�t fight through the last couple of months. And if it�s surprising for people that he only suffered a couple of air attacks during years of war it may also be surprising that the tank vs tank engagements weren�t daily business either. He was fighting in a support tank btn of an infantry division, not in a tank or mot division though. My grandpa died nearly 16 years ago when I was 18 and at that time I wasn�t as interested in WWII as I�ve become some years later so I neither took notes nor do I exactly know where and when he was fighting, it was more of a trivial talk to him, well knowing at the time what a Pz-IV, Panther, Sherman or T-34 was. But would these talks to a person who fought for 4 years qualify me to say the Pz-IV was superior to the tanks it had to face? I guess not. But that�s what my grandpa and his comrades thought, even 40 years after the end of hostilities.

And of course I can�t offer an interview with my grandpa on an internet site stating that they always felt superior to their enemies and it was kind of an unbelievable thing for them that they lost in the end. My grandpa wasn�t a hardcore Nazi, nevertheless most of the soldiers actually fighting long thought there�s a chance to achieve the "Endsieg". Hard to believe nowadays but that�s how it was.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 2/27/2010 11:08:36 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Fishbed)

Post #: 44

RE: Sherman vs. T-34 - 2/27/2010 12:21:09 PM

Apollo11

Posts: 21618
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

Over the years we had similar threads like this one here (for example: "Zero vs Wildcat", "Pz-IV vs. Sherman", "Bismarck" come to my mind) but, unfortunately, almost every time those threads ended up as "spoiled" due to personal antagonisms... I hope this one will not be like those...

BTW, one thing I think no one mentioned here....

The early T-34 (and this includes the T-34 M1942) had rather small turret with, again, rather narrow turret rim and it had just two (2) men inside it. The loader and commander who also had to fire the gun.

The Sherman (and German tanks as well) had 3 men turret that enabled commander to use commander's cupola for situational observation and actual command!

Add to this fact that early Russian tanks lacked the radio (except for command tanks) and one can easily see why Germans had good early success against, on paper, better Russian equipment (T-34 and KV-1). IMHO the whole package (including command and control) must always be in mind when talking about certain weapon systems!

The T-34 85 is, of course, something else...

Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to fbs)

Post #: 45

RE: Sherman vs. T-34 - 2/27/2010 1:56:44 PM

Sardaukar

Posts: 5493
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/now in Malta
Status: offline

People never read what I write.

One of the MAJOR factors in WWII tank combat was same as in fighter combat in air. It's called "situational awareness".
T-34/76 had none of that except towards front. Tank commander was busy trying gunnery. No wonder German PzIII tanks often outperformed them.

What you cannot see, you cannot kill.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von B�lov, 1870-

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 46

RE: Sherman vs. T-34 - 2/27/2010 2:23:19 PM

arras

Posts: 186
Joined: 9/7/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishbed
Come on! Are you even reading the text that are being submitted, or do you want to keep believing otherwise just because it sounds cooler?

I was reading that interview long time ago. You can find it and some other Soviet soldiers interviews here:
The Russian Battlefield
Lots of other info including lend and lease equipment. Site underwent some rework recently, before there were much more translated memoirs than now. They will probably add them back later (or so I think).

If you were reading carefully my previous posts than you know I don't think there is much difference between two in combat performance. I just think T-34 was better based on its revolutionary design which influenced next generations of tanks to come. You can't really say the same about Sherman. Also bear in mind that T-34 was earlier design than M4 and it was still serving in near past. Wars in Balkans comes to my mind as one example.

Guard units of Soviet army had priority in regard of all equipment, not just lend and lease. Remember that not just guard units were equipped with Shermans and many guard units were equipped with Soviet weapons. I was not making any special research on this but I think most of the guards were equipped with soviet tanks. Remember that Red Army Sherman units were equipped with British tanks before US entered war, so units equipped with lend and lease tanks simply kept them no matter of country of origin. And most of those were not really praised by their crews (this apply to fighter units as well). So to make direct link between superiority of Shermans over T-34s and Guard Units equipment is bit shaky in my opinion.

Apollo11 >> Comparing early models of T-34 with M4 is bit unfair as M4 is later design. Also at the start of war, standard crew of most of the tanks anywhere except Germany was 4 (with exception of some light tanks which might have even less). Soviet tanks were not really exceptional in this regard. look at the French tanks for example. Soviets were aware of their turret deficiencies. From 1943 they were working on replacement for T-34 which should have been T-43 tank. But it newer went in to large scale production (read that article for more info).

< Message edited by arras -- 2/27/2010 8:47:41 PM >

(in reply to Fishbed)

Post #: 47

RE: Sherman vs. T-34 - 2/27/2010 2:38:22 PM

castor troy

Posts: 12000
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: arras

If you were reading carefully my previous posts than you know I don't think there is much difference between two in combat performance. I just think T-34 was better based on its revolutionary design which influenced next generations of tanks to come. You can't really say the same about Sherman. Also bear in mind that T-34 was earlier design than M4 and it was still serving in near past. Wars in Balkans comes to my mind as one example.

yeah, there were some still in service, due to lack of other tanks. If you have a Leopard II on hand you wouldn�t use a 40 year old tank that underwent some modernization 30 years ago. They sure weren�t used because they were still excellent tanks.

_____________________________

(in reply to arras)

Post #: 48

RE: Sherman vs. T-34 - 2/27/2010 2:48:21 PM

PaxMondo

Posts: 4427
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

This is a question about the merits of specifications.

I think that some people argue that the T-34 M1942 is a better tank than the M4A1 (M1942) in terms of speed (34 mph vs. 21 mph), armament (76.2mm F-34 with 2,200 ft/s vs. the 75mm M3 with 2,000 ft/s) and armor (45mm hull all-around, 70/52mm turret vs. 51/38mm hull, 76/51mm turret).

My question is: is that right (the T-34 was a better all-around tank for the same production years)?

If so, and considering that both weighted 30,000 kg, where did the Sherman put the weight it saved from using a less powerful gun, less powerful engine, less shells, thinner tracks? The only thing I could see the Sherman clearly having more is fuel, although their ranges are about the same.

For record, I know some people love the Shermans in their garage - I'm not trying to get anyone mad, just come and defend your M4.

Thanks,
fbs

fbs,

Basically, and I'm sure some treadhead will pipe in here to confirm, these are not the specs that really differentiate the two. The T-34's advantage was in profile and armor slope design, which has been essentially copied and improved on every tank design since. Someone else mentioned the Sherman sat tall, and that is pointing at the correct issues.

Slope of the armor is very important is deflecting some of the kinetic energy away. It requires AP shells to have much higher kinetic energies (speed or weight) to penetrate the same thickness. In the case of the T-34 .vs. Sherman the sloping gave the T-34 something like 50% bonus to armor thickness.

In modern era, this is what has lead to SABOT rounds and depleted Uranium penetrators. U is about the densest material you can get (highest Element number), so for the same size it will have higher weight => higher kinetic energy. SABOT allows the actual penetrator to be smaller, but fired from a much larger gun to give it higher speed, also higher kinetic energy.

This is just the short version, but I beleive essentially correct. Where are the treadheads when you need them? Oh yeah, in the WIR forum!

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to fbs)

Post #: 49

RE: Sherman vs. T-34 - 2/27/2010 3:35:22 PM

bklooste

Posts: 1103
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline

Korea is not really a fair comparison since the crew experience was awefull , they used a lot of Pershings and the Shermans that faced them was very different from the 42 and 44 one. Jumbos are really heavy tanks so are better compared agains the IJS2

T34/85 = 90mm Frontal Armour /85 mm gun a standard 44 Sherman would be lucky to break its frontal armour

If you want to get into rarer uparmoured varients compare it to the IS2 which started in 1943 122mm/160mm

quote:

The por level of training on the part of the NK tankers showed as they repeatedly fired HE rounds against the Pershings in many encounters. While HE rounds had been sufficient to kill M24s, they were lacking against the M26s.

By September, allied forces had over 400 tanks in the Pusan pocket, facing only 40 T34/85s. But MacArthur ordered the Inchon landings to cut off the NK forces instead of making the break out of Pusan the main effort.

US Army studies concluded that the M26 was 3.5 times as effective as the M4A3E8 in offensive operations, and 3 times better in overall terms. Less then half the tanks sent to Korea in 1950 were M26/46 tanks. 309 Pershings, 200 Pattons, 679 E8s, and 124 Chaffee�s were sent. There were 119 tank v tank encounters, 104 involving Army tanks,and 15 by the Marines. The M26/46 tanks were involved in nearly half these, M26 in 38 actions, the M46 in 12. Only 24 involved more then 3 NK tanks. 34 US tanks of all types were knocked out, including 6 M26 and 8 M46. Of these 24, only 15 were totally destroyed. In return US tanks destroyed 97 T35/85s and claimed another 18 as probable. M26s were credited with 39% of the T34 kills, the M46 12%. Half the engagements took place at 350yds or less. The longest successful M26 engagement was 3,000yds.

Easy Eights killed 49 T34/85s against 20 M4A3E8s knocked out (actually probably less then 20 E8s were k/o'd, that figure may include Chaffee's as their losses weren't broken out from the rest).

_____________________________

Underdog Fanboy

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 50

RE: Sherman vs. T-34 - 2/27/2010 3:44:48 PM

Sardaukar

Posts: 5493
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/now in Malta
Status: offline

Well, one could always debate this among pros on: http://www.tank-net.org�

Beaten to death, though.

< Message edited by Sardaukar -- 2/27/2010 3:45:51 PM >

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von B�lov, 1870-

(in reply to bklooste)

Post #: 51

RE: Sherman vs. T-34 - 2/27/2010 4:00:58 PM

arras

Posts: 186
Joined: 9/7/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

yeah, there were some still in service, due to lack of other tanks. If you have a Leopard II on hand you wouldn�t use a 40 year old tank that underwent some modernization 30 years ago. They sure weren�t used because they were still excellent tanks.

Of course not, but fact that they were "still in service" and were considered worth using in actual battle is quit a combat record. There is no other tank with similar one.

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 52

RE: Sherman vs. T-34 - 2/27/2010 4:23:05 PM

HMSWarspite

Posts: 657
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Sure the Sherman was cheaper and more reliable but you can�t build 9 Shermans for 1 Panther but 1 Panther can knock out 9 Shermans.

a) yes the US could (and did) quite easily build 9 Shermans for 1 Panther, and
b) no it can't (or at least didn't.)

Sherman (and varients) production >50000, total German tank production WW2 = 47,000... Panther was 6500 ish. US could have increased tank production had it needed.

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 53

RE: Sherman vs. T-34 - 2/27/2010 6:03:53 PM

AW1Steve

Posts: 12018
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: ME-FL-NE ? "Cloud Coo-coo land"
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Sure the Sherman was cheaper and more reliable but you can�t build 9 Shermans for 1 Panther but 1 Panther can knock out 9 Shermans.

a) yes the US could (and did) quite easily build 9 Shermans for 1 Panther, and
b) no it can't (or at least didn't.)

Sherman (and varients) production >50000, total German tank production WW2 = 47,000... Panther was 6500 ish. US could have increased tank production had it needed.

The USA didn't need to. It was very good at recovering , recycling and reusing "destroyed" tanks. The Germans rarely were able to recover and recycle theirs.

_____________________________

"Don't hold yourself up as an example of what community members should aspire to. You have a long history of rude behavior, and you overract to the slightest provocation."
Amoral

(in reply to HMSWarspite)

Post #: 54

RE: Sherman vs. T-34 - 2/27/2010 6:23:05 PM

crsutton

Posts: 6203
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

People never read what I write.�

One of the MAJOR factors in WWII tank combat was same as in fighter combat in air. It's called "situational awareness".
T-34/76 had none of that except towards front. Tank commander was busy trying gunnery. No wonder German PzIII tanks often outperformed them.

What you cannot see, you cannot kill.

I think he means the m1942 which had a three man turret so that the commander did not work the gun.

Still you are right. Lack of periscope or cupolas and poor radios-not to mention slow turrets put the T34 at a severe disadvantage. Like I said, there is more to a tank than just a gun surrounded by armor. t 34 was a brilliant design and led to the fine t34 85 but just an average tank in battle.

The late war sherman "easy eight" with the HVSS suspension and some tungsten ammo may have been the best medium of the war.

_____________________________

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." Godwin's Law

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 55

RE: Sherman vs. T-34 - 2/27/2010 8:07:42 PM

arras

Posts: 186
Joined: 9/7/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Still you are right. Lack of periscope or cupolas and poor radios-not to mention slow turrets put the T34 at a severe disadvantage.

All T-34s had periscopes and from 1943 on some had cupolas (I am speaking about 76mm gun variants as 85mm all had cupola). It also had observation slits on sides and back of turret.

In fact, T-34 had same periscope as British and US tanks including Sherman: Mk.4 observation periscope

< Message edited by arras -- 2/27/2010 8:19:28 PM >

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 56

RE: Sherman vs. T-34 - 2/27/2010 9:07:23 PM

mike scholl 1

Posts: 1174
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Sure the Sherman was cheaper and more reliable but you can�t build 9 Shermans for 1 Panther but 1 Panther can knock out 9 Shermans.

a) yes the US could (and did) quite easily build 9 Shermans for 1 Panther, and
b) no it can't (or at least didn't.)

Sherman (and varients) production >50000, total German tank production WW2 = 47,000... Panther was 6500 ish. US could have increased tank production had it needed.

The USA didn't need to. It was very good at recovering , recycling and reusing "destroyed" tanks. The Germans rarely were able to recover and recycle theirs.

Actually the Germans were quite good at recovering and repairing tanks. It's one of the things that kept them going for as long as they did with such low production.

(in reply to AW1Steve)

Post #: 57

RE: Sherman vs. T-34 - 2/27/2010 9:11:19 PM

crsutton

Posts: 6203
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: arras

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Still you are right. Lack of periscope or cupolas and poor radios-not to mention slow turrets put the T34 at a severe disadvantage.

All T-34s had periscopes and from 1943 on some had cupolas (I am speaking about 76mm gun variants as 85mm all had cupola). It also had observation slits on sides and back of turret.

In fact, T-34 had same periscope as British and US tanks including Sherman: Mk.4 observation periscope

Thanks, I did not know about the periscope

But the original poster was asking about the T34 M1942. I was not aware that any of this model had a cuppola. Of course, I suppose there was a lot of variations even within certain types as the war progressed so would not be surprised if it did.

_____________________________

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." Godwin's Law

(in reply to arras)

Post #: 58

RE: Sherman vs. T-34 - 2/27/2010 10:17:35 PM

freeboy

Posts: 8345
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline

yep.. the redds did some smart things.. like casting the hulls.. the germans did some really odd things.. but again we do have 20/20 hindsight to help us see the errors....

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 59

RE: Sherman vs. T-34 - 2/27/2010 11:24:10 PM

John Lansford

Posts: 2638
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline

The T34/85's gun could penetrate a Panther's front armor; it was only 80mm at its thickest except for the turret front, and the sloping only helped some. The sides were paper thin and vulnerable to nearly any Allied weapon at even moderate ranges. The Tiger didn't have that problem, even from the side.

(in reply to freeboy)

Post #: 60