Matrix Games Forums

I believe that the T34 was a superior tank for the following reasons:

1). Better sloped armor
2). wider tracks equaled better weight distribution for better cross country mobility
3). diesel instead of gasoline so that there was less danger of catastrophic fires

The Sherman had a faster turret turn speed and an underpowered main gun that was later corrected when it got the 76mm long 54 later in the war

Otherwise the Sherman was a better tank for breakthrough follow-ups rather than tank v tank warfare.

Im a fomer Armor officer so i have a basic idea of the merits of tanks.

ORIGINAL: spartanwarrior

I believe that the T34 was a superior tank for the following reasons:

1). Better sloped armor
2). wider tracks equaled better weight distribution for better cross country mobility
3). diesel instead of gasoline so that there was less danger of catastrophic fires

The Sherman had a faster turret turn speed and an underpowered main gun that was later corrected when it got the 76mm long 54 later in the war

Otherwise the Sherman was a better tank for breakthrough follow-ups rather than tank v tank warfare.

Im a fomer Armor officer so i have a basic idea of the merits of tanks.

The quality of the T34 armor was generally poorer than that of the M4. The M4 was more road-mobile (important in Western Europe). Agreed, diesel was a better choice. The main armament of the T34/76 and the M4/75 were almost exactly equivalent in armour penetration. The ergonomics, target acquisition rate, and reliability of the M4 were much superior. The M4 could fight from hull-down positions better.

If you were involved in AFV and IFV development during 1975-1985, you may have seen some of my systems studies. 8)

ORIGINAL: spartanwarrior

I believe that the T34 was a superior tank for the following reasons:

1). Better sloped armor
2). wider tracks equaled better weight distribution for better cross country mobility
3). diesel instead of gasoline so that there was less danger of catastrophic fires

The Sherman had a faster turret turn speed and an underpowered main gun that was later corrected when it got the 76mm long 54 later in the war

Otherwise the Sherman was a better tank for breakthrough follow-ups rather than tank v tank warfare.

Im a fomer Armor officer so i have a basic idea of the merits of tanks.

Good point about the gasoline engines, hence why Sherman's were nicknamed 'Ronson Lighter'.

ORIGINAL: Shark7
Good point about the gasoline engines, hence why Sherman's were nicknamed 'Ronson Lighter'.

Actually I'm pretty sure they were named Ronson lighters because the early models had dry ammo storage, thus it was very easy to set off the internal ammo stocks with even a minor hit near the ammo storage area. Later models used a wet storage system and there were far fewer catastrophic fires after that.

Of course the gasoline meant the engine area was still vulnerable to fire, but gasoline fires were not as catastrophic as the early ammo fires.

Jim

I'm sorry, but I can't believe that ANYONE here would actually rather be in a Sherman in battle than a T34.
 
 
 
 
 

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

I'm sorry, but I can't believe that ANYONE here would actually rather be in a Sherman in battle than a T34.

I would prefer the M4. Of course, any tank was only good for about two engagements, and a moving foxhole attracts the eye.

I'd rather be in a Tiger......unless there's a P-47 buzzing around....in which case i'd rather be in Disneyland.

Well it is arguable on the armor quality because they both used tempered steel but the 34 had better sloping armor and a lower profile, which equates to better protection. The T34 also was an american invention (Christie) who couldnt get it sold to the USA so instead sold the base design to the Soviets. The optics were slightly better on the Sherman and the guns were largely equivelent. The offroad handling of the T-34 was far superior to anything the Allies or Germans had. The T34 had very poor gun deflection though due to the turret design being smaler profile. Therefore it had inferior hull-down capabilities if the angle of attack was blow horizen. I had a change to get in a T34 at the Army armor museum back in 86 and it is a very tight fit in the turret. I might take an M4E8 though with the improved gun but the T34 with the 85mm gun was also a pretty good, albeit low velocity gun.

I didnt get involved in AFV design but rather was an officer of M1A1's in 3/63AR in 3ID in germany 88-91. Im sure that I might have benefited from your designs in real life!

The early T-34 was facing Mk II and III and early Mk IV tanks, which its 76mm gun could penetrate with ease.
 
The early Shermans were facing uparmored and upgunned Mk IV tanks, Mk III TD's, Tigers and Marders, which its low powered gun could only reliably penetrate the latter.  I'd say the advantage goes to the T-34/76 in this situation; even late in the war many Shermans had the same 75mm gun they had in 1942.  The 76mm AA gun converted to the later Sherman gun wasn't in but about a third of all total US Sherman tanks even by the end of the war.

Perhaps a better question... if you were a German, would you rather fight against a T34 or a Sherman?
 
I'd doubt that too many Germans would want to fight T34's if they could fight Shermans.  I wouldn't.  So I'd rather be in a T34.
 
Cuz I'd chew up that Sherman like a hot knife through buttah!
 
 

I think that the Panzer forces most certainly wanted to avoid the T34. The Panther design was a copy to some degree of the T34 but with poor manufacturing throughput. The key advantage for the Sherman was numbers. Other than that, in virtually all T v T angagements on the western front, the german tank was superior in gun and armor but less so in manueverability. Many American tankers were stunned and dismayed at the pronounced disadvantages they faced against the germans.

The early M4 faced PZ III H's, J's, and L's. The PZ III was the backbone and muscle of the PZ Div until 1944 - and the M4 was superior to any of these.
The M4 also successfully fought all variants of the PZ IV, despite the better gun of the PZ IV, and it was the PZ IV that provided heavy gun support to the PZ III until the mass replacement of the PZ III with the PZ V in 1944.

The M4 was so successful against German armor in 1942 & 1943, the US Army saw no need to up-gun the tank prior to Normandy...where it's reputation for being under-gunned began.

The only boogey man the M4 faced prior to 1944 was the Heavy Tiger I and the Flak 88 - but those were few, and dispatched all T-34's with equal ease.

As far as any match up with a late PZ IV, the 75mm gun could and did penetrate that German tank's armor at the same ranges the Mk IV could do the same to an M4, so neither had any advantage there...

It all depends on the tactical situation really. The T-34 has an advantage over the Sherman in a long range duel in open terrain, because of its low silhouette vs. the Sherman's much higher silhouette. However long range duels means the shell fire is plunging at a steeper angle upon impact, so the range somewhat mitigates the T-34s better sloped armor.

Strangely enough the Sherman’s low velocity gun is what makes that last part matter. A higher velocity gun would not have such a steep angle of plunging fire at range and the sloped armor would still add a lot to the T-34s protection.

In a close terrain fight, the Sherman has a decided advantage. Higher silhouette means it can see over and shoot over a lot of intervening terrain that would obstruct the T-34s view and shot trajectory. Also the better turret performance on a Sherman gives it an advantage in a gun duel where the two tanks stumble upon one another unexpectedly requiring turret traverses to fire.

So for me in an open country fight I opt for the T-34, but in a close fight I’ll take the Sherman.

Jim

ORIGINAL: spartanwarrior

I think that the Panzer forces most certainly wanted to avoid the T34. The Panther design was a copy to some degree of the T34 but with poor manufacturing throughput. The key advantage for the Sherman was numbers. Other than that, in virtually all T v T angagements on the western front, the german tank was superior in gun and armor but less so in manueverability. Many American tankers were stunned and dismayed at the pronounced disadvantages they faced against the germans.

The dismay was real, which explains the anger expressed in Belton Cooper's book on the "survival of an armored division in Europe." The American troops had been told repeatedly in training that their equipment was the best in the world, and essentially not to worry about the Jerries or anyone else. It did therefore come as a shock to find that this was not the case. However at least at the time of the M4's debut, it was one of the best mediums fielded in general stats. It had decent protection and firepower and decent mobility (on solid terrain). Steven Zaloga in his recent work "Armored Thunderbolt" (The U.S. Army Sherman in WWII), went so far as to suggest that in late 42 the M4 was the best medium deployed in the West during the Alamein fighting. There were kinks of course. Early M4's suffered from armor flaws and combustability and the high silowette could be disadvantagous. Overall though....it was an excellent tank.....for 1942.

Problem was, as Zaloga well documents (I highly recommend the book as it goes into great detail on the behind the scenes polices for US Army procurement and weapons development), was that the parties in charge of R&D, rested on their laurels and didn't put enough stock into how future developments on the battlefield might impact things. There were more than enough warning signs as in late 42 the first Mark IV specials were deploying as well as 75mm AT guns, both more than capable of defeating the M4's armor. Perceptions of "Battle need" were distorted and max production won out with only incremental improvements being forwarded. By the time of Normandy, the battlefield had changed signifigantly and the primary adversary of the M4 was that same 75mm AT gun vs. the older 37 and 50mm weapons. On top of that you had the same gun equipping the older Mark IV and the Panzerfaust. This led to excessive casualties. The M4 still "got the job done" but this misses the point that Zaloga and Cooper make, that lives could have been saved had more attention been paid to developing the M4's successor.

Ultimately Zaloga concluded that the M4 had been an successful if increasingly obsolecent weapons system that as part of a greater Industrial-military machine....gained victory in Europe. In all the stat counting and comparisons though it's easy to lose sight of the human cost though.

The late model Pz III's (J and L) had front armor equal or better than the early model Shermans they faced, but they were undergunned against the M4.  Most Pz III H's were being converted to J's by the time the Shermans began appearing.  Against the Mk IV, they had an opponent similar to the M4 in armor but with a better gun; the L43 and later L48 were both better guns than the Sherman's early 75mm gun.  The M4's gun could knock out a MkIV but the Sherman was vulnerable to the MkIV's gun at longer ranges, so the only real advantages the Sherman had was in mobility and numbers.

I think that we are all on the same page with regards to the Sherman and T34. I also think that it is consencus that the Mk IV and Mk III (w long 57mm) were superior in most instances. The Sherman really earned its laurels in breakout situations whereby its road speed, mileage and adequate gun performance vs infantry made it useful. In any armor battles in 44 and beyond it often lost at long ranges. It wasnt until the M10 came out with the longer 76MM high velocity gun that the Americans had something to stand toe-to-toe with the MkIV and the MkV. The Tiger of course was in a different class altogether and it is unfair to compare the Sherman to it as the Sherman really only was able to survive by getting in close and flanking a tiger. It is very true that the armerican armor design was lacking in comparison to the advances in air design and ship design. It is also interesting that much of the anger of Tank troops against the army and the Sherman were largely hushed during the war. When i was in Armor school at Ft Knox we had a guest lecturer who was a company commander in 4th armor during the war. He spent a lot of time talking about the designs of the sherman and the german tanks. He said american generals liked the sherman better than the tankers did.

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

It all depends on the tactical situation really. The T-34 has an advantage over the Sherman in a long range duel in open terrain, because of its low silhouette vs. the Sherman's much higher silhouette. However long range duels means the shell fire is plunging at a steeper angle upon impact, so the range somewhat mitigates the T-34s better sloped armor.

Strangely enough the Sherman’s low velocity gun is what makes that last part matter. A higher velocity gun would not have such a steep angle of plunging fire at range and the sloped armor would still add a lot to the T-34s protection.

In a close terrain fight, the Sherman has a decided advantage. Higher silhouette means it can see over and shoot over a lot of intervening terrain that would obstruct the T-34s view and shot trajectory. Also the better turret performance on a Sherman gives it an advantage in a gun duel where the two tanks stumble upon one another unexpectedly requiring turret traverses to fire.

So for me in an open country fight I opt for the T-34, but in a close fight I’ll take the Sherman.

Jim

Reminds me of our take on the M48 versus the T55/T62, although the T62 had a really low sustained RoF.

ORIGINAL: " american generals liked the sherman better than the tankers did."

Nothing surprising here - all troops naturally want equipment so clearly superior to their enemies' equipment, that anything less will earn their equipment the reputation of being "a death trap" ...because that's the world they live in, but that isn't necessarily the best indicator of the finer points of machine vs machine.

ORIGINAL:
Problem was, as Zaloga well documents (I highly recommend the book as it goes into great detail on the behind the scenes polices for US Army procurement and weapons development), was that the parties in charge of R&D, rested on their laurels and didn't put enough stock into how future developments on the battlefield might impact things. ....

This isn't quite accurate according to Hunnicutt.
The Armored Board produced an M4A2 in late 1942/early 1943 featuring a 76mm L54 gun in a modified turret (rear counter weights were added).
The Army Ground Forces turned down that vehicle because they said it's production would only encourage tank vs tank battles (the role set aside for the tank destroyers) and would divert tanks from the mission of infantry support and exploitation of breakthroughs.

Thus it was conscious Army policy which deprived the M4 and it's crews of a better armed tank (virtually the same tank the did produce in late 1944) before the Sicily landings of 1943.

It was more a confusion of assigned roles for armored forces (tank BN's & tank destroyer BN's) rather than design shortcomings which led to the M4 being initially under gunned for the ETO in 1944.

Of course this same could be said about the T-34. The T-34/76 was just as under gunned as the 75mm M4 by 1944, and T-34/85's didn't amount to a larger production total than 76mm M4's.

To Big B's point, the problem wasn't the Sherman was a flawed design, it was an excellent design for the purpose it was designed for.

The FLAW was in the TD concept. THAT was the problem. The concept mistakes that produced the M-10 screwed up the Sherman. Blame the M-10! (Or really, the IDEA behind the M-10)

And the US never had anything like the StuGIII, Hetzer, or other armored assault guns/TDs. Too bad, a turretless 90mm gun mounted on a Sherman chassis with an armored box would have done some serious damage........