The T34. It didn't burst into flames as easily as the Sherman. It's sloping front armour was extremely effective. The Sherman was not bad; probably more comfortable and "user friendly" than the T34: but while going to war in a tank was never safe, if I had to go I would have gone in a T34. The Sherman only beat the Tigers because the Ameicans were able to build so many of them. We would have been in a lot of trouble if we had had to fight the Russians after the war, primarily because of the T34. Adrian
Yah i agree with you 100% adrian, the sherman was mainly a light tank while the T-34 could bring the hard kick to the germans
T-34 all the way, the Sherman was no match for the German Heavies but the T-34 could and led the German's to build the Panther to counteract it as well as the heavier Tiger's and King Tiger's. Poll Added
Originally posted by Gnomey@Jun 18 2005, 08:06 AM T-34 all the way, the Sherman was no match for the German Heavies but the T-34 could and led the German's to build the Panther to counteract it as well as the heavier Tiger's and King Tiger's. Poll Added [post=35468]Quoted post[/post] i talked to a tanker and he said that a 88 shell from a tiger went through the front of his sherman turret and out the back before exploding and that his tank shot three times at the tiger with no effect.
The T-34 gets my vote. Its simplicity of design as well as ruggedness ensured its fearsome reputation on the battlefield.
The T-34 gets my vote too. With it's introduction the German tanks became "obsolete and undergunned" (until newer German models), for they were not a match for the T-34 either in speed, hitting power or protection.
Right! time to set the cat among the pigeons. I very nearly went for the T34, but I hesitated and after thinking it over I don't know if I might actually go for the M4 Sherman. Why I hear you scream! Is he nuts! Well, one, its going to be a very short thread if everyone votes for the T34 and secondly, I think this is a closer run comparison than most people think. I think the most important criteria here is exactly what versions of the T34 and M4 Sherman we are comparing. If we take the T34/76mm and compare with the M4 Sherman with 75mm (the most common variants) the usual comparisons of armour, gun, reliability and performance are all pretty similar. So what are we left to compare and what difference would this make in assessing whether one tank was better than the other. In these circumstances I would argue that the better tank was the one that allowed the crew to acquire and destroy a target the most effectively. This was the best way to survive an encounter with enemy armour. Inextricably linked to this is the crews confidence in the tanks ability to protect them while engaged in this task. The M4 sherman was undoubtedly superior in communications and fire control. Thereby giving it the edge over the T34 in terms of target acquisition. Many of the early T34s did not have radios and had very unsophisticated gun laying equipment. However, the Sherman biggest weakness was its reputation for easily brewing up, at least in the early days and so was inferior to the T34 because of the impact this has on crew survivability. Later Sherman variants were diesel powered, equipped with water lined ammunition bins and opaque armour to reduce this tendency. These modifications were effective, but this reputation was never really shaken off. So how would a T34/76 fair against an M4 Sherman 75. An interesting question and one I'm glad we did not have to put to the test, but I believe the Sherman would perform better than many suspect. I will, however, concede that the T34/85 was a work of art and was quite easily a match for any Tiger or Panther it came across. When all things are said and done, except perhaps for the Sherman Firefly with its awesome 17pdr gun, the Sherman could never claim this for an accolade. OK! OK! T34 it is then!
Head to head a T-34 would eat up a Sherman. The US Army tank doctrine was not to fight tanks head to head. When the US encountered the superior German armor, they would either call in artillery or call the "Jabo's" (P-47) which would set the German tanks on fire just like the German tank would have set the Shermans on fire. People think of Shermans as "fire boxes" but the fact is that far more Panthers and Tigers were destroyed than Shermans. Shermans were not meant to fight heavy tanks. Their strategy was to wreak havoc on soldiers, trucks, machine gun positions, 88's, etc after the support artillery and Fighter-Bombers had taken out the heavy armor of the enemy. Pretty much the same way the Panzers were used in the invasion of France. A T-34, or Tiger was no where near a match for a Sherman....uhhh...when the Shermans were accompanied by ground support aircraft. There were many variations on the Sherman. Some had armor that could withstand a direct hit on the front from an 88 at combat distances. Also, there were variations of the Sherman that had guns that could kill Tigers, Panthers, and T-34s. For instance the "Firefly" had the British 6 Pdr cannon which was quite a handful for any German tank of the day. The 90mm on the variations of the Shermans about the time of the Ardennes Offensive were equals to the German 88s. The problem is that the HE rounds of the 90s were not as effective. 90s were better suited for tank killing and we used our Shermans for an anti-personnel role and therefore a platform to fire HE was desired. The US never came up with an absolute tank doctrine that worked without support. Since the US was always on the attack (except for the Ardennes) they had different requirements for a tank battalion. For instance, the Tiger tanks were a liability to an offensive because of its reliability problems, excessively heavy weight, slow speed and was fuel hunger. The Shermans didn't suffer from these kinds of problems.
Well... Several Russian units that used the Sherman preferred it to the T-34... Possibly due to the better optics, the gyro-stabiliser and the better ergonomics. One of the Russian tank aces had a sherman with a 76mm gun.... Both have faults and advantages over the other. Personally... I'd sit in a Tiger I.
Several Russian units that used the Sherman preferred it to the T-34... Possibly due to the better optics, the gyro-stabiliser and the better ergonomics. One of the Russian tank aces had a sherman with a 76mm gun.... Can't agree with that one. Unlike the planes provided by the lend-lease, which the soviet airman liked, Allied tanks as overall were far inferior to the russian ones.The most un-loved one was the "Matilda", which was nicknamed by the russian tankists as "torch" and such... The M4 very often broke down in the conditions of the Eastern front, especially during the winter or in the spring's "mud seas". And as jimbotosome noted, M4's weren't designed to fight enemy tanks, while in the planes of russia most of the tank battles were simply head-to-head engagements. As for the gun- the Sherman indeed had better optics, though by 1942 that problem with the T-34's was mostly solved. But the soviet 76mm was far far more effective against armor than the Sherman's. The best advantage of the M4 over the (early) T-34's was the radio. By the way, correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the gyro-stabiliser invented after the war (I think the British "Chieftan" was the first tank with it) ?
I'd go with the T34 as well... It would have been very interesting to see how the Pershing would have fared against the german armor.
In all actuality the T-34 was only superior to the PzKpfw IV and below. While the T-34 did give quite a shock to German tankers in 1942 it was outclassed by the PzKpfw V. The most common T-34/42 version was highly mobile due to its high thrust to weight ratio provided by its powerful engine and also its Christie suspension but that's where the superiority ends. While the T-34's 30 degree sloped 47mm frontal armor could give the 50mm gun of the PzKpfw III and 75mm of the PzKpfw IV trouble, it was not nearly thick enough to stop rounds from mid war German AT guns. The 76.2mm F34 gun could only penetrate 75mm of armor with the BR-354A HEAT ammo and with standard APCBC ammo could only penetrate 50mm of armor at 1000m. The KwK 42 75mm/L70 of the German PzKpfw V could make swiss cheese out of the T-34 at all ranges while the Panther's thick sloped armor was impervious to the T-34 except for at extremely close range. It was only susceptible to a flank or rear shot. As stated before the T-34 also lagged behind the M4 Sherman in communications as only command vehicles were outfitted with radios until mid to late 1943. Fire control was another weak point as American vehicles had superior optics and a gyrostabilzer which allowed them to fire on the move. Fire control and optics were never solved completely by the Russians and consistently lagged behind American equivalents. Reliability wise, the Sherman and T-34 were equals. Breakdowns were few and both tanks could be repaired easily in the field by their crews. The Sherman did brew up much easier, but the frontal armor was 50mm at a 34 degree angle, actually superior to the T34/42 model. The low silhouette of the T-34 was an advantage as was mobility. The M3 75mm gun of the Sherman was also superior to the F34 of the Soviet tank. The M3 using M61 APCBC ammo could penetrate 93mm of armor at 1000m, and with standard APCBC ammo could penetrate 68mm of armor at 1000m. Either ammo was superior to the Soviet gun. Either the Sherman or T-34 was equal or superior to the PzKpfw IV that they were most pitted against. The Sherman's other advantage was crew comfort. The American tank was less cramped than the T-34, which was very, very uncomfortable to man. The main strength of both the Sherman and T-34 was the ease of manufacture and large numbers in which they were deployed. All in all the Sherman was a better fighting vehicle in my opinion.
The history channel did a head to head comparison of the Sherman versus the Tiger. The Tiger had the advantage of heavier armor and fire power except for some of the upgraded models like the British Firefly which had the famous 17 pounder. Though the Americans deployed 90mm on Sherman chassis it was called the M36 Jackson Tank Destroyer instead of an M4 so they didn’t include it in the comparison. The US modified its Shermans to a 76mm using AP rounds which were effective against the Tiger’s armor but switched back to the 75mm because it was more effective using HE rounds and since the US doctrine was to fight enemy tanks with artillery and air strikes and use the tanks to rout the infantry and light armor left when the armor was destroyed, the HE accuracy was preferred. The Shermans had better optics and a better radio system, and used the same engine that was the same as a popular model of car (I forget which model) which could changed out in 3-4 hours, and a radial 50 caliber machine gun that could protect it from infantry 360 degrees. In the comparison, the Sherman was more effective against the Tiger because it was cheaper to make, could be shipped across the ocean easily and in numbers, could go over virtually any terrain or bridge, and could get behind a Tiger and take it out before the Tiger could rotate its turret to attack the Sherman. It took the Tiger one whole minute to rotate its turret 360 degrees IF the engine was running. Other disadvantages of the Tiger was that it was so heavy that it got bogged down easily and could not go over many bridges, the engines were very unreliable, it had a tendency to throw tracks if it was not brought stopped when turning, it was four times as expensive to make than the Panzer IV, it was too complex and unreliable, had a cooling system that was susceptible to small arms fire, and extremely poor visibility when “buttoned up”, and very difficult and time consuming to manufacture. The documentary gave the nod to the Sherman. It said the Germans would have been better off to produce a lot more Panzer IVs than Tigers. However, all of the tankers (US and German) that were interviewed said they would have rather have been in a Tiger in a battle (no surprise there).
I agree with a sherman because to me there both the same but if yall think that a T-34 is better then i'm with yall.
ME 109 Strela... Yup you're wrong. "Ordnance maintenance: Stabilizer Gyro Control Mechanism TM 9-1798A (30 July 1942) TM 9-1798B (18 September 1942)" Did I mention other lend-lease items? Can you name the Hero Of the Soviet Union that fought from a Sherman? Ever thought the Soviet nicknames may have a little tinge of coldwar propaganda...?
Actually Jim the U.S. never "switched back" to the 75mm M3, they just never made enough Shermans with 76mm M1A1 guns to supplant the earlier models. Pretty much the same thing as the Russians did with the later T-34/85 models. The Sherman HVSS 76mm was an excellent medium tank that stacked up quite well against the T-34 and German tanks even speed and manueverability wise. The 76mm gun was also highly effective against German tanks even at long range when using the HVAP (high velocity armor piercing) round. However due to U.S. Army armor doctrine, only tank destroyer units were issued the HVAP round as it was supposedly their duty to fight opposing armor while tanks were supposed to be used for infantry support. Americans are quite the scroungers though and would trade for or steal HVAP ammo from the tank destroyers. Another point I forgot to make about the Sherman was its incredibly fast turret. A Sherman could speed around the less manueverable PzKpfw VI and fire on the move while the Tiger would still be trying the track the Sherman.
Gents going slightly off topic here. I read that German tank crews were told to take out the Russian tank with the pennant as this was the troop commanders tank and had the radio, in effect take this tank out and the troop loses all communications to squadron level and above. Does this come across as logical. It crossed my mind there might be a grain of truth in it when I heard individual Russian tanks didn't have radios. At Kursk the Russian armour charged head on into the Germans fighting among them which would have caused havoc for fear of hitting one's own tanks. Do you believe this was down to negate the fact that the Germans were better trained, a lot of the Russians had no training and the free for all cancelled out the German advantage, or do you believe it was because they wanted to cancel out the superior 8.8cm and be close enough for their guns to cause maximum damage. A combination of the two - or another reason. Your thoughts..
