Matrix Games Forums

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

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. [:D]

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.

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

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.

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"

People never read what I write. [:D]

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.

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).

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.

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!

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
 

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).

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

Beaten to death, though. [:D]

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.

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.

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

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.

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

People never read what I write. [:D]

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.

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

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

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.

ORIGINAL: arras

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.

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....

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.