Sherman vs T-34 debate thread.

[BarettaBoi]

Which is better boys, T-34 or Sherman. All variants are allowed. Also, if anyone has rare photography please share!

 

[BarettaBoi]

i'd have to pick the T-34(100) or Sherman(76) with gyroscopic stabilizer

 

[William Tell Underpass]

The entire premise of the question is flawed.
They were both exactly what they needed to be for the situation their respective militaries were in.
You might as well be asking which is better, fly spray or mouse traps.

Also, Sherman, because they miss out on the respect they deservce because of tiger dicksuckers.

Sherman can march to and from the sea lol

 

[BarettaBoi]

The entire premise of the question is flawed.
They were both exactly what they needed to be for the situation their respective militaries were in.
You might as well be asking which is better, fly spray or mouse traps.

Also, Sherman, because they miss out on the respect they deservce because of tiger dicksuckers.

Sherman can march to and from the sea lol

Yeah, I agree 100%, with stabilizer and 76mm APCR a Sherman could kill T-34 while moving from probably 500 yds or further ( I dont have sources on APCR, if you have some please share ! )

 

[Damocles_Sword]

The answer to this question is bob semple.

 

[Mister Qwerty]

The Soviets opinion on the "Emcha".

http://www.theshermantank.com/lee-and-grant-tanks/soviet-shermans-the-soviet-union-used-and-liked-the-sherman/

Fun fact: The Sherman was one of the first tanks to fight in the Battle of Berlin.

 

[Spamy the Bot]

If the contest was purely about the design, I would pick the T-34 if we consider the build quality I would pick the M4 Sherman.

The T-34 was born from the lessons of the Spanish Civil war. The problem were the quality of steel, optics etc. Didn't allowed it to reach the potential of the design.
Having to spam them because half the country is already overran while you were living in feudalism 20 years ago didn't help much either.
A very big positive side would be the Diesel Engine that is very reliable.

The M4 is not as optimal considering it's pretty much an impovisation because the US didn't took tank development seriously for a while. I mean they had to use the M3 in the early parts of the war which would have been a cool interwar parade queen like the T-35 and it's other continental cousins.
But I think the design itself is good for the upgrades which the US industry could deliver.

Of course with gear debate one has to ask, at what tasks and roles should it be good for? The Sherman was great as an universal tank for a country and later alliance that fought on 3 continents at the same time. While the T-34 was great as a plains zerg rush tank.

 

[Curt Sibling]

The T-34 is best tank of WW2.
End of debate.

 

[LeanHaydur]

Some people don't know the difference between WoT and military history any more, which is pretty sad.

Some others should double-check their damn sources.

 

[William Tell Underpass]

For me I always look at this stuff through the economic / supply chain lens. And through that, both tanks are prettymuch perfect.

A good supply chain ticks the quality (good enough), cost (cheap enough), serivce (support it enough), and delivery (getting enough at the right time). Both tanks were good enough in all of these respects. Doesnt need to be the perfect. just good enough.

modern warfare shows us example after example of the 'warrior prince carrying the blade steel folded 10000 times by master craftsman being brained by a peasant carrying a stick with a rock tied to the end of it' issue.

 

[Lonely Grave]

Some people don't know the difference between WoT and military history any more, which is pretty sad.

Some others should double-check their damn sources.

Even a cursor check on wikipedia shows how much fail the T-34-100 was. One produced, experimental model, surprise surprise, 100mm gun is too fucking heavy and compromises the entire chassis. By the time they fixed the issues, the T-44 is coming online making the T-34-100 (and the whole T-34 main line) completely obsolete.

 

[Wilhelm Bittrich]

Also, Sherman, because they miss out on the respect they deservce because of tiger dicksuckers.

That's actually quite funny (the part with the Tiger dicksuckers) alone for the fact that numerous versions of the Sherman were captured and evaluated by the Wehrmacht at the Kummersdorf proving ground. While the M3 Lee/Grant was found obsolete, the Sherman was deemed as a reliable and dangerous platform who could take on every German tank except the Tiger II (King Tiger).
But that's the problem with dudes who have their knowledge of tanks by playing Warthunder/World of Tanks, I guess.
Units who used captured Shermans albeit in limited numbers on the eastern Front were e.g. 3rd Panzer-Grenadier Division, 10th SS-Panzer Division Frundsberg, 14th Panzer Division.
3.Kompanie of PzJagAbt 346 had the following eqipment on May8th, 1945: 5 Stug III and 3 Sherman tanks (including 1 Firefly)

Speaking about the T-34, the T-34 was a good and extremely dangerous tank, who could also take on anything except the King Tiger. A T-34/85 could penetrate the front plate of a Tiger I without problem.
The early T-34 models were not bad either, they could take on the Panzer III and Panzer IV anytime, problems of the soviet tank force were more of the logistic/training/leadership kind.
The main problems with the soviet tankforce were:
1. Lack of skilled tank commanders, higher echelon officers due to Stalins purges.
1a. Officers in important positions were chosen because of political reliability instead of skills to do the job.
2. Early in the war an extreme Lack of modern radio/communication equipment.
3. Specially early in the war extreme shortages of spare parts and ammo due to insufficient supply chains.
4. Insufficient repair capabilities for the new T-34, mainly almost no ARV's.
5. No real concept of Tank warfare beyond a Divisonal level which lead to horrendous numbers of lost tanks in the first 1-2 years of the war.
5a. Officers who had being trained in combined arms doctrine/ tank operations of Corps/Army level fell victim to the purges.
6. Absolutely no ability for Bataillons/Regiments/Divisions to react in a timely manner to developing combat situations because of the strict top to bottom chain of command.
6a. Freedom of operation was a unknown concept in the red army, which led to extreme losses of men and materiel due to encirclement operations by the Wehrmacht in the opening stages of the war.
7. Almost paranoid levels of secrecy (need to know basis) which means units sometimes didn't even got informed of neighboring units falling back/retreating or being overrun.
I could go on and on, but I think you get the picture.
By late 1942/early 1943 most of these problems were solved but it cost the red army millions of men and thousands of tanks.

 

[Son of Odin]

There are countries that still use the T-34:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34#Current_operators

 

[millais]

In anti-armor capacity, probably negligible difference.

In comfort of ride and ease of operation, advantage to M4.

In anti-infantry capacity, advantage to M4. I especially like the pintle-mounted .50 cal M2HB Browning on the M4 turret roof. Intended for AA role, but very helpful for infantry fire support. Combined with the 75 or 76mm HE shell loadout, very good for smoking out entrenched infantry. The M4's belt-fed coaxial M1919 Browning is also much handier than the drum-mag fed coaxial DT machine gun in the T-34 in the event of a sustained firefight. Same deal with the radio operator's MG. Those drum mags need constant reloading if the MGs have to lay down a lot of continuous fire.

Though I believe that some of those T-34s that got exported to Africa in the 1970s and 1980s also got a similar style roof pintle-mount AA setup with 12.7mm Dushkas.

 

[NerdShamer]

That's actually quite funny (the part with the Tiger dicksuckers) alone for the fact that numerous versions of the Sherman were captured and evaluated by the Wehrmacht at the Kummersdorf proving ground. While the M3 Lee/Grant was found obsolete, the Sherman was deemed as a reliable and dangerous platform who could take on every German tank except the Tiger II (King Tiger).
But that's the problem with dudes who have their knowledge of tanks by playing Warthunder/World of Tanks, I guess.
Units who used captured Shermans albeit in limited numbers on the eastern Front were e.g. 3rd Panzer-Grenadier Division, 10th SS-Panzer Division Frundsberg, 14th Panzer Division.
3.Kompanie of PzJagAbt 346 had the following eqipment on May8th, 1945: 5 Stug III and 3 Sherman tanks (including 1 Firefly)

Speaking about the T-34, the T-34 was a good and extremely dangerous tank, who could also take on anything except the King Tiger. A T-34/85 could penetrate the front plate of a Tiger I without problem.
The early T-34 models were not bad either, they could take on the Panzer III and Panzer IV anytime, problems of the soviet tank force were more of the logistic/training/leadership kind.
The main problems with the soviet tankforce were:
1. Lack of skilled tank commanders, higher echelon officers due to Stalins purges.
1a. Officers in important positions were chosen because of political reliability instead of skills to do the job.
2. Early in the war an extreme Lack of modern radio/communication equipment.
3. Specially early in the war extreme shortages of spare parts and ammo due to insufficient supply chains.
4. Insufficient repair capabilities for the new T-34, mainly almost no ARV's.
5. No real concept of Tank warfare beyond a Divisonal level which lead to horrendous numbers of lost tanks in the first 1-2 years of the war.
5a. Officers who had being trained in combined arms doctrine/ tank operations of Corps/Army level fell victim to the purges.
6. Absolutely no ability for Bataillons/Regiments/Divisions to react in a timely manner to developing combat situations because of the strict top to bottom chain of command.
6a. Freedom of operation was a unknown concept in the red army, which led to extreme losses of men and materiel due to encirclement operations by the Wehrmacht in the opening stages of the war.
7. Almost paranoid levels of secrecy (need to know basis) which means units sometimes didn't even got informed of neighboring units falling back/retreating or being overrun.
I could go on and on, but I think you get the picture.
By late 1942/early 1943 most of these problems were solved but it cost the red army millions of men and thousands of tanks.

It's worth noting that Stalin outlawed anything that would've increased production times, Which wouldn't be a problem if it meant denying R&D for a better gun.

But all things considered, they both filled their roles as front liners.

 

[Wilhelm Bittrich]

It's worth noting that Stalin outlawed anything that would've increased production times, Which wouldn't be a problem if it meant denying R&D for a better gun.

But all things considered, they both filled their roles as front liners.

That was even worse when it came down to aircraft R&D, bascially it hindered devlopment of new aircraft, engines, weapons for almost a year.

Yes, they both filled their roles as front liners and both also were an excellent platform for their intended use.
The Sherman was well used (heavily modified tho) into the early 1980's by the Israeli Army and given how many other variants were developed on the basis of the T-34 (SU-85, SU 100 et al) I would say they both were smashing successes.