Jump to content

M4 vs T-34: which is better?


Recommended Posts

A debate over which tank was better, M4 or T-34 started in a previous forum. It was an interesting discussion, and I'd like to continue it.

But just so it doesn't denegerate into a full scale name-calling contest, I'm thinking we should set parameters on judging tanks. I'm no armor expert, but I'm guessing a few would be:

- Speed

- Mobility

- Armor/Protection

- Armament/killing power

- Targetting/Optics

- Maintainability

- Production

- Cost

- Crew Survivability

- Reliability

- Looks (ok, that one is subjective)

- Features (plows, close-in defense systems, snorkels, etc)

Feel free to add any characteristics you think is important in judging a tank.

Opinions?

Phemur

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll have to choose the T-34 because I like the way it looks. Also Russian tank design in general appeals to me somehow. I'll quote my army buddy: "Russian tanks look sexy". The M4 instead looks like a fat man with a small head. :D

Maybe I'll return to this topic later when I have something more intelligent to say. smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Sherman had the greater ability for upgrades than the T-34, so it had the potential to be a far superior tank.

The Sherman, without massive redesign, could be (and was): Uparmoured on all plates, upgunned, with either ATGs or arty pieces

The T-34 was up armoured twice and upgunned once, twice if you include totally redesigning the turret.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- Speed - Off road T-34, on road Sherman

- Mobility - Until the HVSS suspension, T-34, after probably a wash.

- Armor/Protection - Front Sherman, sides T-34

- Armament/killing power - Sherman. 75 Sherman's gun is slightly better than T-34's 76. Sherman's 76 is slightly better than t-34's 85mm. Sherman's machine gun armament (the real infantry killer) is much better.

- Targetting/Optics- Sherman.

- Maintainability - Sherman.

- Production - Probably T-34, but I'm not sure.

- Cost - again, probably T-34

- Crew Survivability - Not sure. Sherman was known for cooking up prior to introduction of wet ammo storage, but so was the T-34.

- Reliability - Sherman. Not only more reliable, but also much longer expected engine and track life.

- Looks (ok, that one is subjective) Hellcat.

- Features (plows, close-in defense systems, snorkels, etc) - Sherman (Smoke, gyro, AA mg, auxilary generator, radio (compared to the early T-34), three man turret, more comfortable)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What was the Shermans top speed? I seem to remember it being less than the T-34s 34MPH, but I could be wrong... I haven't played CMBO for over four months so I cannot remember. As for Shermans being better able to deal with StuGs... I wouldn't say that. In CMBO yes, in CMBB no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The interesting things about these tanks is how similar they are in most respects. The tactics we learned to used with Shermans in CMBO readily transfer to T34s in CMBB. Although the tanks look and feel very different, they fight suprisingly alike. So were talking about a fairly narrow range of differences, and those differences Marlow has summarized very well, above.

I think, overall, I'd take the Sherman/75 over the T34/76. It's mostly, for me, the anti-armor qualities of the gun. The Sherm75 can kill a Stug or PzIV (the most common midwar AFVs) a bit better than the T34/76 because of its slightly better gun and optics, and that little bit of superiority can make the difference between life and death. The Sherman also has smoke, which can really aid survival. Also, all the Sherms have radios and 3 man turrets. I'd miss the T34s greater off road mobility a lot, but on the whole I'd have to go with the Sherm75.

On the other hand, I feel the T34/85 is superior to the Sherm76 version we get in CMBB (I forget which specific model but it lacks HVSS). This time its mostly the mobility. W/o the HVSS, the Sherm lacks the T34s low psi. Instead, its something like 15.1. The Sherm76 gun may have slightly more penetrating power, but I find them functionally equivalent as tank killers--whereas that slight edge for the Sherm75 was crucial. The T34/85 also has a much better HE blast than the slightly wimpy Sherm76 (which is weaker than the effective Sherm75). The other key factor is availablity--the Russians converted all their T34 production to the 85mm, once they committed to that gun. So you get whole platoons of T34/85s and they make really effective fighting teams. But the US made only a partial commitment to the 76mm and they were always a bit rare, even on the western front. Typically you'd get only one or two 76mm guns per platoon. So what I'm really voting for with enthusiasm is that T34/85 PLATOON. If we were talking HVSS Sherman 76 platoons vs T34/85 platoons at identical cost, then that would be almost a tossup, but think I'd still slightly favor the T34/85.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Marlow:

Mobility - Until the HVSS suspension, T-34, after probably a wash.

...

Crew Survivability - Not sure. Sherman was known for cooking up prior to introduction of wet ammo storage, but so was the T-34.

Before HVSS the Sherman had bad floatation. In the interviews done at the behest of Eisenhower there was one by a Sherman crew that stated that King Tigers were seen operating over ground too muddy for Shermans. The Sherman also could not neutral steer. Definate mobility edge for the T-34.

According to Dmitry Loza, the HE filler in Russian rounds invariably detonated some time after the tank brewed up, turning the T-34 into a giant bomb that would kill crew that had bailed but were pinned down close to their tank. Loza expected to die when he was pinned underneath one of his Shermans that brewed, but he survived becuase US HE filler was insensitive. So the edge here goes to the Sherman, even before wet stowage (though it is more an ammo issue than inherent to the tank).

T-34s often were seen blowing their turrets into the air ("A T-34 always tips its hat to the Tiger!"), is that the ready ammo going off, filler and all, at once upon the hit?

[ July 10, 2003, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: Shosties4th ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sherman gun wasn't better than T34 gun, in fact 75mm on M4 fired AP and APCBC at 619 m/s versus 655 and 662 m/s for T34.

Difference was projectile hardness and the armor piercing caps on APCBC. It was better Sherman ammo.

Sherman fired uncapped solid shot AP at 619 m/s with 55 Rockwell C nose hardness, and it penetrated 115mm vertical homogeneous armor at 0m.

With armor piercing cap on APCBC, Sherman round penetrated 105mm face-hardened and 91mm homogeneous at 0m and vertical.

T34 76.2mm APBC penetrated 84mm face-hardened at 0m with typical round and 81mm homogeneous due to softer nose than Sherman even though muzzle velocity was 655 m/s.

T34 solid shot uncapped AP round, which was very rare, defeated 106mm homogeneous and 92mm face-hardened at 0m and vertical, which makes it better than Sherman 75mm APCBC and close to 75mm AP M72.

Russians loved Shermans cause they could penetrate Tiger side armor, 76.2mm APBC could not do it on a consistent basis.

With APCR a T34 gains a little, but round is not the most accurate and not plentiful.

U.S. armor plate very poor till late 1943, T34 uses brittle high hardness armor throughout war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

any one can find these gems through the search engine

Rexford:

A few notes on M4A2 vs T34/85:

1. Gun Penetration

76mm APCBC outpenetrates 85mm APCBC during Russian tests against Tiger II, as noted on Russian Battlefield site. Difference in ranges is significant.

U.S. ammunition is harder than Russian, and APCBC holds penetration better with range than blunt nose APBC.

2. Armor Resistance

When 75mm German APCBC hits T34/85 front hull, 45mm at 60 degrees from vertical, high hardness brittle plate acts like 93mm of good quality vertical plate. 2.5" glacis at 47 degrees on M4A2 resists like about 120mm of good vertical plate. M4A2 wins hands down against a 75mm Pak 40.

U.S. plate quality improves starting 10/43 when quality control and heat treatment gets ALOT better, Russian armor on T34/95 stays about the same throughout war.

BUT, M4A2 has rubbish nose armor and a nice. big and flat 89mm mantlet, while T34/85 has all that curved mantlet and turret front armor.

3. Sights

German sights much superior to American and Russian cause they had better light gathering properties.b Stories from Russian front have Tigers shooting up T34 formations through fog, and Russians cannot see where shots are coming from.

Report to Eisenhower on German-vs-U.S. equipment says German sights great in all light conditions, U.S. sights only good in bright light. I believe M4A3E8 has sight which was great improvement on earlier stuff.

M4A2 with 75mm and 76mm probably not as good a sight as Germans, and maybe comparable to Russian.

4. Many Shermans rot on soft ground, Tigers, Panthers and even Tiger II's race over mud that bogs or slows down Shermans. T34/85 has fairly good tracks.

5. Typical Combat Ranges

Alot of German reports list combat at 3000m to 5000m for guns like 88L71 and 75L70. M4A2 76mm probably better than 85mm at these ranges (not too good).

6. Blast Problems

Didn't early 76mm Shermans without muzzle brakes have big difficulties with smoke and dust obscuring the view?

I'd like to point out that when T-34 85 met M4A3E8 in Korea the M4 came out on top.

"T-34 July Nov 1950 Dealing with 223 T-34 Hulks

Armour=89 Destroyed 8 damaged (the M4 destroyed 41)

Air=27 Destroyed 2 damaged

Arty/Mortar=20 Destroyed 8 damaged

Infantry Weapons=24 Destroyed 15 Damaged

Captured/unknown=63."

It should be noted in German comparsions with captured AFV the T-34 christes suspension pourpoused so badly that it could not achive top speeds over 10cm bumps, even the early M4s and PIV managed this during the trials.

"The T-34 Christie suspension had greater problems with maintaining low pitch motion in cross-country test at Kummersdorf than both the Sherman and the PIV with their more conventional designs. Pitching was so bad for the T-34 that the speed cross-country was restricted to 26km/h during the tests, things would have progressively worsened as the T-34s added better armour/turret/gun. The Panther was markedly superior to all of them: with a 10cm ground undulation was able to maintain 44km/h. (1993 Spielberger pg 71)"

Also "Nevertheless this plan failed. Moreover, in summer 1940 the clouds were gathering over the T-34. The point is that two Pz-IIIs were bought in Germany and delivered to Kubinka for comparative tests. Soviet documentation does not clarify the exact modification of the Pz-III, in all cases it was named as "German T-III". The results were unfavourable for the Soviet T-34.

The T-34 was superior in terms of protection and firepower, but that's all. The Pz-III had a cosy three-man turret with a commander's cupola. Each crewman had an internal communication device at his service. In contrast, the T-34 had a very cramped two-man turret without a commander's cupola. Only the tank commander and the driver had internal communication.

The German tank had a very smooth motion and wasn't as noisy as the T-34: moving with maximum speed the Pz-III could be heard from 150-200 metres while the T-34 could be heard from 450-500 metres.

Soviet engineers were surprised by Pz-III's maximum speed. It was far superior and could run up to 69.7 km/h whereas the T-34's best result was 48.2 km/h. The BT-7, which was used as a standard model, could run on wheels at only 68.1 km/h. The report of those tests indicates that the Pz-III had better suspension, a high quality of German optics, a handy layout of ammunition and radio, and a reliable engine and transmission.

More here:

http://www.battlefield.ru/t34_76_2.html"

None of the previous "talks" on this board have proved the T-34 as the better tank.

Grisha has said:

"I don't know how many know this but here's how many Shermans made it to the Soviet Union:

2,007 M4A2 w/75mm gun

2,095 M4A2 w/76mm gun

According to Charles Sharp here's what the Soviets had to said about it compared to a T-34/85:

Faster turret traverse and better sights.

Could carry far more ammunition for main gun.

Better protected ammunition storage.

More mechanically reliable (T-34/85's engine life, measured in running hours, was shorter than a Sherman's track shoes).

76mm gun had better armor penetration than the 85mm gun.

The mechanized corps was considered the premier operational-tactical armor formation of the Red Army, and in 1945 there were 9 with Guards designations (out of a total of 14 mech corps). Guards units usually had first consideration for equipment, a Guards mech corps especially. Out of the 9 Guards mech corps, three were completely equipped with M4A2 Shermans, and one even turned in all their T-34/85s for Sherman tanks. Now, I have a great interest in Soviet military forces, as well as admiration for their military art, so when 3 Guards Mech Corps are completely equipped with Shermans, that tells me something."

[ July 10, 2003, 08:23 PM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that's a super response, Bastables. Great work in summarizing just about everything.

Thanks for working so hard.

"I'd like to point out that when T-34 85 met M4A3E8 in Korea the M4 came out on top.

"T-34 July Nov 1950 Dealing with 223 T-34 Hulks

Armour=89 Destroyed 8 damaged (the M4 destroyed 41)

Air=27 Destroyed 2 damaged

Arty/Mortar=20 Destroyed 8 damaged

Infantry Weapons=24 Destroyed 15 Damaged

Captured/unknown=63.""

Does the report have any details as to penetration ranges against T34 armor by particular rounds?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by rexford:

Now that's a super response, Bastables. Great work in summarizing just about everything.

Thanks for working so hard.

"I'd like to point out that when T-34 85 met M4A3E8 in Korea the M4 came out on top.

"T-34 July Nov 1950 Dealing with 223 T-34 Hulks

Armour=89 Destroyed 8 damaged (the M4 destroyed 41)

Air=27 Destroyed 2 damaged

Arty/Mortar=20 Destroyed 8 damaged

Infantry Weapons=24 Destroyed 15 Damaged

Captured/unknown=63.""

Does the report have any details as to penetration ranges against T34 armor by particular rounds?

Unfortuntly not, I'll send you a copy of the report nonetheless.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Sherman also could not neutral steer. Definate mobility edge for the T-34.

[/QB]

Neither the T-34 nor the Sherman could neutral steer. The T-34 (much like every other tank in the world) could lock up one track while throwing power to the other, meaning a pivot on that track. The Sherman was idiosyncratic with its transmission in that it was impossible to lock one track.

The only Tanks with neutral steering capability, (having one track moving forward and the other in reverses) are the Tiger, Tiger II, Panther, Cromwell, Churchill, Comet and Char B (plus AFV based on those chassies).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prior to having duckbills installed on the Sherman tracks, that tank was not very good on soft ground.

Report to Eisenhower notes that Tiger, Tiger II and Panther drove easily over soft ground that caused Shermans all sorts of problems.

Russian cross country driving test showed that PzKpfw IIIG was much faster than the T34 with a four speed transmission, and slightly faster than the five speed tranny T34.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by TANK ACE:

tracks are larger on Tigers and panthers less pressure.

True, but T34 track is also wider than Sherman. Ground pressures follow:

T34 Model 1943, 10.7 psi

T34/85 Model 1944, 11.1 psi

M4A2 Sherman, 14.4 psi

M4A2(76) Sherman, 15.1 psi

Sherman track is kind of narrow for the weight. PzKpfw IVG and IVH have ground pressures of 11.9 and 12.6 psi, considerably less than M4A2's.

If the Russians needed to get somewhere fast in snow, mud or other soft ground conditions, Shermans might not be the tank of choice.

I also believe that Shermans were more prone to tipping over on side slopes, something the Russians may have commented on and which occurred quite a bit in practice.

Some time ago it seemed to me that the Tiger and Panther had less longitudinal track length between wheels, which might provide better flotation. With more wheels, the pressure points directly under the tracks would not be as peaked and might be reduced. That was one of my misconceptions that was never pursued very far.

While the height of the Sherman is usually treated as a drawback, makes it a better target, in high wheat fields the Americans found that the greater turret height made it easier to see over the fields (while making the tank easier to see in return).

Didn't the Shermans have an advantage over T34 in terms of better ventilation or heating for the crew?

And finally, German tankers noted that T34/76 (models 41, 42 and 43) was virtually blind to the sides and rear due to:

1. two man turret where commander is very busy

2. large main turret hatches on Models 41 and 42 which discouraged unbuttoned observation on the move

3. bubbly vision glass on sides of turret without magnification

Eventually a German POW explained the problem to the Russians and they put cupola's on T34 Model 43.

[ July 12, 2003, 08:42 AM: Message edited by: rexford ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by rexford:

Some time ago it seemed to me that the Tiger and Panther had less longitudinal track length between wheels, which might provide better flotation. With more wheels, the pressure points directly under the tracks would not be as peaked and might be reduced. That was one of my misconceptions that was never pursued very far.

The interleaved road wheels, while a complex system, did a very good job of distributing weight across the track. Something you have to wonder about with the orginal M4 suspension.

Originally posted by rexford:

Didn't the Shermans have an advantage over T34 in terms of better ventilation or heating for the crew?

Dmitry Loza, on Emcha ventilation:

"Open up your mouth and the wind came out your a$$!!"

Dmitry Loza, on Emcha heating:

"Not for nothing did the Americans give us fleece-lined suits!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone want to try a pure armor QB, captured T34/85s vs. Sherm76s? I'll take either side...(obviously rarity must be turned off.)

I just tried such a battle vs the AI, taking the Shermans as Allies and won a major victory with those Shermans vs an equal number or captured Axis T34/85s. Mostly this was because of inferior AI tactics, though, I believe. A few impressions on how these tanks are modeled in CMBB:

1. MY Shermans were constantly bogging. Only one of the 14 Shermans in a 2000 pt ME actually immobilized, but at least 5 bogged in the damp conditions at one point or another.

2. My impression was that the Sherman guns were more accurate, though the observably higher percentage of hits might also have resulted from the simple fact that I often had more tanks shooting at any one time than the AI did, things like 5 vs 2 matchups or 3 vs 1.

3. OTOH, Sherman rounds seemed to bounce a bit more. Most 76mm hits were penetrations but every fourth round or so would bounce. Virtually every T34 hit led to a penetration. The Sherman 76 rounds may have slightly better penetration capabilites (though I don't see that in the CMBB stats) but the T34's curved turret seems to help it to bounce hits occasionally. Usually, though, with five tanks firing on one T34, another hit would sooner or later kill it.

It's hard to tell which tank actually performed better. Their obviously very close in a head to head matchup. I'm guessing that in a QB, most of the difference would come either from luck or tactical handling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't think it's fair to compare the T-34/76 models with the Shermans.

They were in production at least a year before Shermans were which makes them an earlier design.

It would be more fair to compare them with the M3 Grant/Lee. (Which the T34 was definitely superior to in my opinion.).

On the other hand,the T34/85 vs Sherman comparison is a fair one...since they both came out around the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by ApexOfMan:

I'll have to choose the T-34 because I like the way it looks. Also Russian tank design in general appeals to me somehow. I'll quote my army buddy: "Russian tanks look sexy". The M4 instead looks like a fat man with a small head. :D

I have to agree. The Americans built some nice cars in the fifties but they didn't know how to build a tank with nice lines until the Pershing or Patton and even those are pretty much wonder bread. The Sherman however is remarkable for its extraordinary ugliness. The former students of Bauhaus (if any survived the Nazis) must have vomitted in disgust when they saw Shermans rolling along the autoban :cool:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

with regards to korea - we dont know WHICH versions of the tanks were facing one another , it coulda been a 1941 t34 facing a sherman firely and that'd certainly swing the shermans way but if we compare the STANDARD issue models of both tanks at the end of the war you will see that the t34 had thicker armour a better gun and was faster across open ground, the three most important aspects to a tank....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by urefinger:

with regards to korea - we dont know WHICH versions of the tanks were facing one another , it coulda been a 1941 t34 facing a sherman firely and that'd certainly swing the shermans way but if we compare the STANDARD issue models of both tanks at the end of the war you will see that the t34 had thicker armour a better gun and was faster across open ground, the three most important aspects to a tank....

They were T-34-85s, they faced M4A3E8 and lost, it's that simple.

[ July 14, 2003, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...