T-34 no better than the M4 Sherman.

To be fair to the M4, it was used successfully across the globe, from Jungles to Deserts and from Steppes to Bocage. As did the T-34. This is like splitting hairs!

 

I consider both to be successful tanks in their own right.

The T34, was after all the precursor of the modern day fighting tank with its sloping armour and therefore influenced all that followed.
The German version was the Panther, then look at the King Tiger.

Regards
Tom

 

To be fair to the M4, it was used successfully across the globe, from Jungles to Deserts and from Steppes to Bocage. As did the T-34. This is like splitting hairs!

I agree, what is the point of this thread after all, eh?

 

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

Kev

UN armor prevailed all the way over the "Caviar Cans" Uncle Joe fielded; the mere fact that Coalition forces were able to kick back the invasion all the way to the Yalu, understrength and everything, points out to that, and since the Pershing wasn´t majority in the Allied inventory, at least during that fluid stage of the war, the Fireflys involved end up with the credit of being the better coffin.

However, crew training is an important factor in this consideration, much as in the Arab-Israeli Wars, in which Super-Shermans decimated the Russian-built opposition, T-34´s as its main component like in Korea.

Now, going back to WW2, shouldn´t the principle of the slopped armor be enough to make the T-34 the better tank, at least over early model Ronsons, taking into consideration that both shared the shortcomings of mass production?

 

UN armor prevailed all the way over the "Caviar Cans" Uncle Joe fielded; the mere fact that Coalition forces were able to kick back the invasion all the way to the Yalu, understrength and everything, points out to that, and since the Pershing wasn´t majority in the Allied inventory, at least during that fluid stage of the war, the Fireflys involved end up with the credit of being the better coffin.

However, crew training is an important factor in this consideration, much as in the Arab-Israeli Wars, in which Super-Shermans decimated the Russian-built opposition, T-34´s as its main component like in Korea.

Now, going back to WW2, shouldn´t the principle of the slopped armor be enough to make the T-34 the better tank, at least over early model Ronsons, taking into consideration that both shared the shortcomings of mass production?


Warlord,

Thanks for the Korean war update, its certinally a big gap on my knowledge.

The M4 has nearly the same degree of sloped armour as the T34. I dont beleive the hull side be sloped inward accomplishes anything except make the crew compartment smaller and reduce ammo stowage. I think I have some penetration figures for hull side somewhere. I'll dig them out.

Kev

 

I agree, what is the point of this thread after all, eh?


I though you wernt comparing......

Dont think the T34 has the same CV as the Sherman. Ice/desert/bocage/atoll/steppe all in the days work for the 1 size fits all tank.

Kev

 

ok side armour comparision

M4A1 (sherman 1?) side armour - 38mm
T34/85 side armour - 45mm

and in real life compared to a common Panzer gun, the 7.5cm Kw.k penerates (m)

T34/85
Side at 1300m and side turret at 700m

M4A2 (Sherman 2??)
Side at 3500m and Side turret at 1300m

Yep the Sherman is defo weaker, but then its a bit thinner and if you count common combat ranges between 500-800m then both are easily penetrated.

whatdoyourthink???

Kev

 

Well, according to this, the sloping did provide for better thickness, "bounce-factor", and other armor measurements, without the penalty of added weight, which coupled with the better performance of the Christie suspension, I guess make the T-34 a somewhat better piece of hardware overall...

 

Yep the Sherman is defo weaker, but then its a bit thinner and if you count common combat ranges between 500-800m then both are easily penetrated.

whatdoyourthink???

Kev

That was my point, I believe that in the USSR the combat ranges were frequently far in excess of 500 to 800 m. I think the T-34 did amazingly well after 1943 when the Russians were attacking all of the time against German long range weapons usually positioned to take advantage of their superior range. Also I don't believe that the Soviets had the same quality of air umbrella that the Western Allies had which also help to compensate for some of the deficiencies in Allied armor.

One of the disadvantages that I recall reading about with the T-34 was that it, in addition to originally only having a 4 man crew, it also lacked a turret basket. The ammunition was stored in the floor of the turret under rubber mats. The loader had to scamper around in the turret avoiding the breech of the gun as the turret rotated and at the same time lifting these mats to get at the ammo.

 

Well, according to this, the sloping did provide for better thickness, "bounce-factor", and other armor measurements, without the penalty of added weight, which coupled with the better performance of the Christie suspension, I guess make the T-34 a somewhat better piece of hardware overall...


Sloped armour again..

The bounce factor is only part of the advantage, the actual mathmatical advantage is that the armour is effectivly thicker as a projectile fired horizontallly now has to penetrate more of the material the more sloped it is.

None of this of course was wasted on the Germans, who built a whole range of armoured cars with sloped armour. Where weight was maybe more a factor I dont know and pathetic protection was the main drawback of such vehicles.

Of cource the big disadvantage is that that it makes a horrible awkward interior space (not to mention makes turret ring smaller). Secondary disadvantages of its heavier for given thickness (the shortest distance between two point is a straight line not a sloped one), but maybe not for effective thickness and its more costly and complicated to make.

Modern tanks dont have sloped sides. Normally a sloped glacis, turret front and vertical sides.

Its all swings and roundabouts

Kev

 

That was my point, I believe that in the USSR the combat ranges were frequently far in excess of 500 to 800 m. I think the T-34 did amazingly well after 1943 when the Russians were attacking all of the time against German long range weapons usually positioned to take advantage of their superior range. Also I don't believe that the Soviets had the same quality of air umbrella that the Western Allies had which also help to compensate for some of the deficiencies in Allied armor.

One of the disadvantages that I recall reading about with the T-34 was that it, in addition to originally only having a 4 man crew, it also lacked a turret basket. The ammunition was stored in the floor of the turret under rubber mats. The loader had to scamper around in the turret avoiding the breech of the gun as the turret rotated and at the same time lifting these mats to get at the ammo.


Stig,

Wouldnt disagree with any of that.

Kev

 

I assume thats a shot of Russian troops in Austria??

 

F*ck me Ger, you're quick tonite.
Quiet a few pics of Soviet Shermans in Vienna, 1945 out there too.
Well I do try mate, I do try.

 

I agree, what is the point of this thread after all, eh?
Well, to an infantry oriented man like me, it gives a lot of insight between the two AFV's in question there Za my friend! I have been following this thread for some time now, in order to learn more about tanks.