Sherman or T-34

[Alejandro_]

Hello Everybody.

I am a new member in this forum but I have been reading it for a while.
In many of your posts german vs allied tanks are compared, but what about a direct comparison between the most common allied vehicles of WW2?
All versions can be included, in my opinion the T-34 is superior, specially the one with the 85mm gun. It also has a diesel engine which is harder to ignite...

Best regards

[ChristopherPerrien]

The T-34 was a better armoured tank and more manvuerable, than the Sherman.

This being said, just about everytime Shermans have met T-34s they have won. So obiviously when it comes to these two tanks crew quality is more important than tank quality.

[Alejandro_]

Christophe:

That's correct but the times both have met together have been in very one sided conflicts such as the Middle East or Korea, where one side had a clear training advantage over the other.

Best regards

[ChristopherPerrien]

Seeing your reply made me give it some more thought.

Yes in the middle east that is /was very true,

I really don't know about the North Korea tanker's. I have never heard anything "bad" about them, And American tankers in Korea were fairly "green". It is possible that they performed poorly by just using Soviet tactical ideas.

Thinking about it more, this may also apply to many of the Arab - Israeli conflicts.

[Harri]

I think Sherman would have won T-34 simply because of its better gunsight and better fire control. In T-34 the distance to the target was estimated (not measured) which explains why T-34 was usually first knocked out. Also the turret turning mechamism of T-34 was inaccurate. An experienced gunner could take into account that turret didn't stop at once when the pedal of the electric turning motor was released. Usually it turned about 15cm over the point.

76.2mm Soviet tank gun was without doubt better than the 75mm of Sherman's. Soviet 85mm tank gun was only a rather meaningless improvement. Sherman's 76.2mm tank gun was the best of all.

T-34 was perhaps the best tank in the world in 1941 and 1942 but not anymore after that.

[Alejandro_]

Harri:

In your message you are only considering firepower and optics. The T-34 had better mobility, protection and it's engine was diesel. This was very imprtant because it wouldn't burn after 1 shot.

By the way could you prove that the Soviet 85mm was inferior to the US 76.2mm? from what I have read the Soviet gun had a good chance of taking out a Tiger tank (SU-85 used a similar gun) while the Us model could not.

The optics are a very important factor, but in Central Europe the combat distances between tanks were most of the times within 1000 meters due to the high density relief (this means loads of places to hide & take cover)

I would say the T-34-85 is still superior.

Best regards.

Alejandro.

[Darrin]

The US 76 mm gun and the rus 85mm gun both had similar penetration. Many of the late war 76mm shermans had HVSS suspension which gave as low a groud pressure as the T34.

The sher with the 75mm gun gave slighly better Arm Pen then the rus 76mm. But the 75mm sherman had the larger turrent with an extra crew that even the rus evetually adopted. The sherman was also the first tank to have a primative stabilization.

Wile the diseal eng certainly helped they burned too just not as easy but once they started they were more difficult to put out. The gas eng can be improved by adding add to the gas and any fire can be put out easily. One report shows that for each des sherman with a crew of 5 about 2 become cas. Many of them would not be dead as well but just wounded.

A late war sherman and T34 were almost the same weight. The T34 had more speed but many of shermans aparently had thier govenours modified to run faster then the stated max. Something the T34 was unable to do.

The british firefly was a 75mm sherman they up gunned with a 17lb. It had the best arm pen of any sherman or T34 it was roughly equal to the panther gun in penetration.

[Harri]

Thanks Darrin, I agree with you.

All Soviet guns were without doubt very good designs but their performance was reduced because of the other problems like poor optics and ammunition which were better in Sherman. Perhaps T-34/85 could knock out a Tiger I but 76.2mm Sherman could also knock out all T-34s and all T-34s could knock out all Shermans except Jumbos.

Like I said it depends at what moment we compare these tanks. Only in 1942 T-34/76 was better but since 1944 the things are more equal and I think Sherman was improved more than T-34.

My knowlegde on T-34 is largely based on Finnish experiences in the summer 1944. Finns used both captured 76.2mm and 85mm models. Finnish StuG IIIG crews didn't consider T-34/85s any more dangerous than T-34/76s. Usually the one that was quicker scored a kill, and in most cases it was not a T-34. So if Sherman was poorer than StuG IIIG then I'll change my opinion.

According to Finnish sources T-34/76 and T-34/85 were about the same in performance. As far as I know 76.2mm Soviet tank gun was very close to penetrating the frontal armour of Tiger I and 85mm gun was better enough to penetrate. 85mm gun was not a very good weapon in performance and their 100mm gun was a way better. The only other significant improvements in T-34/85 were its more roomy turret and slightly longer maximum range of the gun.

I agree Sherman was not so "agile" than T-34 but in tank vs. tank combat it is not so important. Tactics and training are more important and US had an advantage in these too.

[Second try]

From,Oktober 1943, late cast hull (M4A1(76W) and welded hull Shermans had better quality armor plates and 64/47 glacis Shermans with max. 110mm nose armor had better frontal protection than the T34s with russian high hardness cast armor.Gun shield was measured up to 98mm.

Gunsights with dual,interchangeable magnification (1X for finding targets,5X for long range fire in M71C telescope)were clearly better than the monocular sights of the T34.None of WWII tanks had a rangefinder,the size of the target was compared with the distance of reticules,small drawnings etc.

[Harri]

None of WWII tanks had a rangefinder,the size of the target was compared with the distance of reticules,small drawnings etc.

That's what I actually meant but this method was much better than pure estimation without any other help like in T-34.

[Alejandro_]

'The sher with the 75mm gun gave slighly better Arm Pen then the rus 76mm.'

Darri, I simply don't understand this statement, as far as I know the russian 76.2 mm had better AP capabilities than the us 75, but less HE capabilities.

Harri:

You say that there wasn't that much difference between the 85 mm gun and the 76.2 one, but then what's the point in changing if the capabilities of the tank are almost the same and by Jan 1944 the war was almost won?

According to Russian tankers, the 85 mm was far better than the 76.2 and they used the tank's greater mobility against the German heavy tanks such as Panther.

Finally the power to weight ratio of a T-34 was higher than in other tank of it's class, 18 hp per ton followed by the Panther with 15 if I remeber correctly.

Best Regards

[Harri]

Harri: You say that there wasn't that much difference between the 85 mm gun and the 76.2 one, but then what's the point in changing if the capabilities of the tank are almost the same and by Jan 1944 the war was almost won?

That opinion was not originally mine, it was the opinion of the Finnish tankers. Finnish Army used both T-34/76s and /85s and according to Finnish sources there was no major differences in their gun performance. The point of chaging the gun was that 85mm gun was slightly better and gave the additional performace needed. Germans had of course designed the Tiger I so that it was immune to T-34/76s. 85mm gun was only an interim choice.

According to Russian tankers, the 85 mm was far better than the 76.2 and they used the tank's greater mobility against the German heavy tanks such as Panther.

Of course it was considered better because it could knock out a Tiger I at front, which was not the case with the 76.2mm gun.

Finally the power to weight ratio of a T-34 was higher than in other tank of it's class, 18 hp per ton followed by the Panther with 15 if I remeber correctly.

Panther was a much heavier tank than T-34/85 comparable to KVs and especially JS (= IS) tanks. PzKw IV is more closer to T-34 although Finns considered T-34 better. PzKw IVJ was called "the shaker" in Finland due to its poor suspension. German 75mm tank gun with good optics was its only advantage.

[Von_Mannteufel]

IMHO T-34 would have kicked Sherman A**, it was better armoured, more manuveable and had more punch. It was a match even for panthers. I belive on 1 on 1 combat with crews with the same training the Sherman had no chance at all.

[Darrin]

IMHO T-34 would have kicked Sherman A**, it was better armoured, more manuveable and had more punch. It was a match even for panthers. I belive on 1 on 1 combat with crews with the same training the Sherman had no chance at all.

Yet the rus even late in the war when they were not hard up for tanks used them in thier elite guard mech corps. Hardly sounds like the same tank you are talking about. You seem to have an inflated view of T34 performance if you think its a match for a panther.

[Von_Mannteufel]

I inflated it a little bit I assume, but it was far better than the sherman and was better than any early war german tank. Almost every german gun could pierce sherman frontal plate at 200m what they could not do with T-34s.