T-34 no better than the M4 Sherman.

The Sherman's always been a fav of mine, however, I've always been concerned by it's lack of protective armour. I'm not totally clued up about tanks, but I know that the Sherman stored it's ammo in the front part of the tank, where the armour was weakest??????? Go figure that one out.

 

Was the T-34 a Diesel engine as opposed to the Shermans Gasoline??? Owen I'll try and dig that quote up for you.

 

....but I know that the Sherman stored it's ammo in the front part of the tank, where the armour was weakest??????? Go figure that one out.

I'm no expert on WW2 tanks, but I would be almost certain that the frontal armour on any tank of that period wouldn't be it's frontal armour. It may not have been as thick as the crews would have liked, but they would always have liked more anyway..... but the weakest?

The belly and rear should be the weakest but then only in a bid to save weight in order to improve mobility. Anyone have the definitive answer to this as it seems to fly in the face of both tank doctrine and logic if it is true.

 

I can't remember where I heard that about the front being the weakest. I'll have to dig up the source and post it here.

 

This isn't the original source but I've just found this on Wiki:

"It was this deficiency in its frontal armor that made the Sherman very vulnerable to German high velocity 75 mm and 88 mm tank guns that equipped the German Tiger (PzVI series) and Panther (PzV) series in 1944"


It then goes on to say, "This vulnerability increased crew casualties and meant that damaged vehicles were less likely to be repairable. US Army research proved that the major reason for this was the use of unprotected ammo stowage in sponsons above the tracks".

And finally, "Progressively thicker armour was added to hull front and turret mantlet in various improved models, while field improvisations included placing sandbags, spare track links, helmets, wire mesh, or even wood for increased protection against shaped-charge rounds. Patton forbade the use of sandbags and instead ordered tanks under his command to have the front hull welded with extra armour plates, salvaged from knocked-out American and German tanks".

It's just what I've read. Here's the full lot from Wiki:
M4 Sherman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marcus

 

So just to clarify, because I've always thought this was correct. So is it true that the front armour on a Sherman wasn't infact the weakest part of the tank?

 

On the ammo issue:

The problem in the Sherman was that the ammunition was stored high in the hull. The locations of the ammo boxes meant that when the tank was penetrated it frequently occured through ammunition storage. This resulted in many of the catastrophic fires that occured. Two solutions were implemented to try and fix this problem.

The first was providing additional patches of armor over the vulnerable areas. In later cast models the actual castings were thickened in these areas to eliminate the need for the add-on armor.

The second was wet storage. The ammunition was now inside boxes that contained water that would burst on a penetration and put out the fire before it could get going. Wet storage Shermans were far less, far less, likely to burn than ANY German tank. As a note, the Jgpz VI was particularly prone to ammunition fires. Its ammo was stored primarily in the superstructure, consisted of two part shells leaving the powder exposed and, had no extinguishing system. Of course, getting a penetration was difficult so it went largely unnoticed.

The T34 by comparison had virtually all of its ammunition stowed very low in the vehicle in three round 'suitcases.' This made the ammunition very unlikely to cook off from a hit leading to a very low probability of the tank burning catastrophically. On the other hand, this stowage meant that the rate of engagement for the T34 was going to be very low as the loader scrambled about trying to retrieve rounds from these suitcases in a moving vehicle with uneven flooring, spent shell casings and empty suitcases bouncing about.

That said, the T-34 and Sherman are very similar in capabilities and both improved as at about the same rate as the war went on. Each had some superior qualities and some weaknesses. For example, the T34/76 was severly handicapped by its two man turret. It had a low engagement rate as a result and poor visibility for the crew. The Sherman until some of the later models was a poor "mudder." That is, its mobility on soft ground was poor. Note how both early models lacked cupolas but how these were later added as another example of improvement.

 

"It was this deficiency in its frontal armor that made the Sherman very vulnerable to German high velocity 75 mm and 88 mm tank guns that equipped the German Tiger (PzVI series) and Panther (PzV) series in 1944"



Another misleading quote. Practically everything was vulnrable to a 88mm gun, from a B17 flying at 34 thousand feet to two tommies in a foxhole 3 miles away. The gun could destry virtually every AFV on the field from a distance.

 

Was the T-34 a Diesel engine as opposed to the Shermans Gasoline??? Owen I'll try and dig that quote up for you.


The T34 engine was based upon a German design I think. If I remeber right the Gemans like the pommes and Yanks didnt like diesel as the navy had first dibs on the horrid stuff. This is typical and the story of the T34. it had a lot of features borrowed from other people (often rejected).

One of the greatest things, so little mention about the T34 is was years ahead of its time. The Russians spent a lot of time working out how to mass produce large sections of armour plate. (Armour plate is very hard to make, and people forget that mass production of steel plate was really quite in its infancy in 30's, Steel is ony just over 100 years old!).

The Sherman did come in a very successfull Diesel varient (M4A3 or 2 is it VP?), most these went lend lease though, I think the British got most of them???. I havent seen any evidence the diesel shermans where any less likely to brew up first time than the gas ones.

T34 vs Sherman? I dunno, what happened in Korea??

Kev

 

The V-2 T-34 engine was based on a French Dirigible engine design dating back to the early 20's.

The Sherman diesel variants (M4A2 and M4A5) were used by the British and Soviets under lend-lease, the USMC because of their compatability with US Navy fuel sources, and on a few occasions some found their way into US Army service from depots.

 

So just to clarify, because I've always thought this was correct. So is it true that the front armour on a Sherman wasn't infact the weakest part of the tank?

I think that was just a feature of Italian tanks where the thickest armour was naturally at the rear

 

Another misleading quote. Practically everything was vulnrable to a 88mm gun, from a B17 flying at 34 thousand feet to two tommies in a foxhole 3 miles away. The gun could destry virtually every AFV on the field from a distance.


Beat me to it. The chief deficiency of the Sherman and the T-34 was in fact the German 88.

 

If I remember correctly, although I can't remember where I read it, the big deficiencies for the T-34 were its engine/transmission reliability (not unususal for Soviet war time production) and its knack in slipping off it's tracks (one reason most tank designs didn't use Christie suspensions back then).

The armour was supposed to be quite good and the sloped turret help deflect more than a few shells. Unfortunately, the turret was too small to the point of it hindering the crews abilities.

 

If I remember correctly, although I can't remember where I read it, the big deficiencies for the T-34 were its engine/transmission reliability (not unususal for Soviet war time production) and its knack in slipping off it's tracks (one reason most tank designs didn't use Christie suspensions back then).


Don't recall Crusaders and Cromwells as being notorious for shedding tracks.

 

No, Crusaders and Cromwells did not readily shed tracks. The T 34 did due to a looser tensioning, the single pin design and, the use of a center guide tooth on just every other link.
Instead, the British tanks were notorious for their engine unreliability much as were British sports cars....eg., if it ain't leaking oil from every pore something is seriously wrong with the engine!

 

Don't recall Crusaders and Cromwells as being notorious for shedding tracks.

My statement was one reason most tank designs didn't use Christie suspensions back then.

Last time I checked, Crusaders and Cromwells were in the minority.