M4 vs T-34: which is better?

[flamingknives]

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

And if we look at the standard varients of the tanks some years down the line, you have M51s holding their own against JS IIIs.

I'd be interested to know which the standard issue model of the M4 was in May '45 though.

[rexford]

Sherman 75mm gun is much better than T34 76.2mm in terms of face-hardened and homogeneous armor penetration (if T34 does not have alot of APCR at the time), and the U.S. HE is really good.

T34 76.2mm might have a slightly better accuracy edge on paper given the higher muzzle velocity, but Sherman APCBC is heavier and carries better with range, and that three man Sherman turret crew results in a more efficient and effective command capability.

And Sherman turret rotation is really fast, while T34 turret motor is not the most dependable thing around.

[Pzman]

Were those Russian built T-34/85s or North Korean built? Anyway by that point the T-34 was over (although not the 85 model) was almost 12 years old. The design of the T-34 came out in 1938-39 (or earlier?) I don't know much about Shermans design; when was the M3 Lee design it was based on introduced? The Sherman used in Korea was much better, but then the T-34/85 only had 90mm of armor on the front (was increased between 45 and 49-50?) Wasn't the T-44 an upgrade of the basic T-34 design? If so how did it do in Korea if it was used?

[Tank Ace]

M3 lee came out in 1943 i believe.

[Razgovory]

Just a note. Cost should not be included into the equation. American labor was much more expensive then Soviet labor. If they wanted too, the Soviets didn't even have to pay their workers.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Razgovory:

Just a note. Cost should not be included into the equation. American labor was much more expensive then Soviet labor. If they wanted too, the Soviets didn't even have to pay their workers.

That does not mean there was no cost to the tank. Even in Communism there are value streams.

The M3 Lee must have had its combat debut in 1942, since it was used in Afrika before El Alamein.

Flamingknives' comment that the M4 and the T34 can be compared because they were used at the same time I do not agree with. That is the same as saying that the Hetzer and the German Jagdpanzer Kanone can be compared because they were in service at the same time for some of their service life. The T34 was a 1939 or 1940 design, if not earlier. It was in production two years before the Sherman, and unlike the Sherman did not benefit from any wartime experience. It is hardly surprising that even upgraded and upgunned it had fundamental design flaws that made the Sherman the better overall tank. In the same way as the Panther is overall much better than the Panzer IV.

[Cpl Carrot]

Lee debut was 27 May '42 IIRC

[flamingknives]

The T34/76 had different models, so it was upgraded in line with the wars demands.

Comparing an early model M4 with an M1942/M1943 T34 would be about right, as you are comparing battlefield contemparies.

In the same way, you can compare the Hetzer and the Jagdpanzer Kannone to see which is the better vehicle, or any other pair of vehicles that see service at the same times, simply because that you are comparing their capabilities at that time. Just because one is an older design doesn't render it irrelevant.

[Andreas]

You are right Mike, and I did *not* word it quite correctly. I think it is an unfair comparison. You can of course make it, but it is a bit senseless, since you are, to a degree, comparing apples and oranges.

Comparing the early M4 against the M42/43 T34 still does not get you around the issue that the upgraded T34 was held back by a basic design that at this stage was three years old, if not older (this is really showing in the turret design), while the M4 designers were not encumbered to the same degree, and could use a lot of directly relevant war experience to design their vehicle. A luxury the Soviet designers did not have, since they did not start from scratch.

Edit: Ahem...

[ July 15, 2003, 07:31 AM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

[Joachim]

I'd like to group the factors, with several features in more than one group:

Mobility:

Weighing speed and cross country performance on different ground conditions. Must be weighed for phases like march, breakthru and explotation.

The weight applied to the ground condition may change with region or season - a T34 in Korea's rain (mud) season may beat an M4, during dry weather it may be another matter.

Survivability:

Speed (not just in reverse gear ), armor, vision (or lack thereof), crew survivability, turret speed, ease of recovery after a hit, even a smoke discharger counts, as it allows to reverse and fight the other day.

Killing power:

AT: I'd measure this with the "to kill" percentage at a given distance from different angles. Optics, penetration, turret speed, speed, effect of gyrostabilizer.

AP: Optics, blast, speed, turret speed, gyrostabilizer.

Judgement day:

To judge who's better you need to specify the region, the weather - and the enemy (which in this discussion is "the other tank").

To judge who's better overall, you need to weigh the region and the season and the types of enemies you encounter.

After you've done all of that, there will be one grog who tears apart your conclusion by picking on one weigth - and he may be right.

Personally, I'd fear the T34 more - but that's just because I'm in the early war fan club, where you can't kill it. Once the M4 arrives, the T34 is less of a problem.

Gruß

Joachim

[ July 15, 2003, 07:33 AM: Message edited by: Scarhead ]

[urefinger]

the m4 fired solid shot the t34 didnt. if you look at late war models of both you'll see that the m4 had better penentration out to 500m but that the t34 had better pentration further than that because its shell (while having a large HE charge) weighed more and so carried more energy with it. if were talking killing power NO-ONE could say other than the t34

also with regards to korea - who can tell? maybe the n.korean commader was one of the old-school dikheds who just rushed his t34s straight at the enmy line, in the manner of a cavalary charge....we just DONT know the full situation...after all, there were incidents when panzer III's knocked out wasves of t34's (early) JUST because the crews were badly trained and badly led.

I reckon for me it'd have to be a late war t34 every time. thicker armour, more forgiving, better cross country and better gun. which i reckon are the most important factors...but its a close match my next choice would definately be a sherman

[Bastables]

Originally posted by urefinger:

also with regards to korea - who can tell? maybe the n.korean commader was one of the old-school dikheds who just rushed his t34s straight at the enmy line, in the manner of a cavalary charge....we just DONT know the full situation...after all, there were incidents when panzer III's knocked out wasves of t34's (early) JUST because the crews were badly trained and badly led.

No they were not the N.Korean tankers used Post war modified T-34-85s. The NK tankers themselves were vets of either the Great patriotic war versus Germany and Nationalist China + Japan, these are not "dikheads." Both sides were also constrained in head on tank attacks because of the terrain again the T-34 came off second best versus M4s.

Please stop making banal pronouncements backed by personally held fantasies based on your lack of knowledge of the conflict.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Andreas:

You are right Mike, and I did *not* word it quite correctly. I think it is an unfair comparison. You can of course make it, but it is a bit senseless, since you are, to a degree, comparing apples and oranges.

Comparing the early M4 against the M42/43 T34 still does not get you around the issue that the upgraded T34 was held back by a basic design that at this stage was three years old, if not older (this is really showing in the turret design), while the M4 designers were not encumbered to the same degree, and could use a lot of directly relevant war experience to design their vehicle. A luxury the Soviet designers did not have, since they did not start from scratch.

Edit: Ahem...

Yes but Andy, this is just another point in the M4s favour in a comparison with the T-34, which is the point of this thread. With this line of thinking the T-34 can't actually be compared with the PIII and PIV chassis since they were much earlier designs.

But that being said one could make an indirect comparison of the T-34 and M4 by comparing them to their WWII opponents. For example did the initial design objective of creating a Medium tank impervious to the PaK37 met in Spain find completion in the T-34?

[rexford]

Originally posted by Bastables:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andreas:

You are right Mike, and I did *not* word it quite correctly. I think it is an unfair comparison. You can of course make it, but it is a bit senseless, since you are, to a degree, comparing apples and oranges.

Comparing the early M4 against the M42/43 T34 still does not get you around the issue that the upgraded T34 was held back by a basic design that at this stage was three years old, if not older (this is really showing in the turret design), while the M4 designers were not encumbered to the same degree, and could use a lot of directly relevant war experience to design their vehicle. A luxury the Soviet designers did not have, since they did not start from scratch.

Edit: Ahem...

Yes but Andy, this is just another point in the M4s favour in a comparison with the T-34, which is the point of this thread. With this line of thinking the T-34 can't actually be compared with the PIII and PIV chassis since they were much earlier designs.

But that being said one could make an indirect comparison of the T-34 and M4 by comparing them to their WWII opponents. For example did the initial design objective of creating a Medium tank impervious to the PaK37 met in Spain find completion in the T-34? </font>

[tools4fools]

Originally posted by Andreas:

You are right Mike, and I did *not* word it quite correctly. I think it is an unfair comparison. You can of course make it, but it is a bit senseless, since you are, to a degree, comparing apples and oranges.

I'm with Andreas here; T-34 (and PzIV) were simply older designs. Newer designs were improved upon experience learned from those older designs (pros and cons).

Looking at this point the Sherman actually looks pretty bad in my opinion.

Improved designs of both oldies (T-34 and PzIV) could still go up against the newer design (Sherman) until the end of the war (except for a the Jumbos of course).

[Bastables]

Originally posted by tools4fools:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andreas:

You are right Mike, and I did *not* word it quite correctly. I think it is an unfair comparison. You can of course make it, but it is a bit senseless, since you are, to a degree, comparing apples and oranges.

I'm with Andreas here; T-34 (and PzIV) were simply older designs. Newer designs were improved upon experience learned from those older designs (pros and cons).

Looking at this point the Sherman actually looks pretty bad in my opinion.

Improved designs of both oldies (T-34 and PzIV) could still go up against the newer design (Sherman) until the end of the war (except for a the Jumbos of course). </font>

[tools4fools]

Originally posted by Bastables:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tools4fools:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andreas:

You are right Mike, and I did *not* word it quite correctly. I think it is an unfair comparison. You can of course make it, but it is a bit senseless, since you are, to a degree, comparing apples and oranges.

I'm with Andreas here; T-34 (and PzIV) were simply older designs. Newer designs were improved upon experience learned from those older designs (pros and cons).

Looking at this point the Sherman actually looks pretty bad in my opinion.

Improved designs of both oldies (T-34 and PzIV) could still go up against the newer design (Sherman) until the end of the war (except for a the Jumbos of course). </font>

[tools4fools]

Originally posted by Bastables:

Sort of, the PIV and III were older designs than the T-34, so the "efficiency" of the T-34 is pretty poor when an older chassis is able to keep up with and at time surpass it in protection and firepower. [/QB]