Questions about Russian MGs.

[The Commissar]

Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

I am not sure about the slope comparison of the front plates - but the Sherman in CM is something like 60 mm 47 degrees IIRC.

I would be interested just how much slope difference there existed between these two machines and how it contributed to their protection.

Just looking a t pictures of the two tanks it would appear to me that the T-34, being a lot better sloped, would thus have much better armor protection even though its armor thickness itself was comparable to the Sherman.

Other comparisons will show that things we do not always compare because we deem them irreleveant can may make one machine superior to the other in terms of use.

Like say, the effective range T-34 was almost half as much as the Shermans, allowing for more operational maneuver. The speed of the T-34 likewise outmatched the Shermans. Yes, and I do know that many times the T-34 could not exploit these superiorities due to extremely rushed production. I dont feel it is fair to 'deduce points' based on this, however.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

Originally posted by Tanaka:

A toast to the best all around tank of the 2nd WW, the T-34 !!! :cool:

Best all around tank was the Panther, i'd rank the T-34 number 2.

[offtaskagain]

45mm@60 degrees for the T-34. 51@56 degrees for the Sherman. Essentially the same armor but T-34's armor was generally extremely brittle and was lost alot of resistance when struck by 75mm and up projectiles. I would give the Sherman an edge for frontal armor but T-34 has actual slope on the sides winning that part.

[JasonC]

ASL vet is quite right when he said - "the Sherman 75 is the rough equivalent of the T-34/76 and the Sherman 76 is the rough equivalent of the T-34/85". Other than slightly better HE blast from the T-34/85, that is substantially correct. The T-34 was regarded as revolutionary because it was that good in 1941.

The Sherman was an excellent medium tank when first fielded, and indeed proved as much in the western desert. It was a fine medium tank through mid 1943, even. And if Easy Eights had been available from early 1944 on, that would have worked fine. Instead the Sherman 76s mostly took until late 1944.

The other aspect is that the Russians did populate the higher end of the tank spectrum, as well as having tanks as good as the Sherman about a year earlier. This was a late war development, however. Mid 1944 on, really, when the ISUs and such showed up.

From the Kursk era to only a little before Bagration, the Russians had only T-34/76s in numbers, some new 85s, supplimented by modest numbers of large guns SUs. The Germans had already fielded Panthers and Tigers. The overall match up was thus quite similar to that the US faced in the west a year later, though more of the German fleet was still older tanks.

As it happens, that is the period in which the Russians won the decisive battles of the war. With "Shermans", and against the first German heavies. Tank spec dominance just isn't what some crack it up to be, in terms of operational outcomes, as has been discussed at great length here before.

The fact is, the major operational swings of the war are quite independent of who had the better tanks, and if anything swing against the guy with the better ones. The Germans conquered half of Russian with 50mm guns against T-34s. The Russians took it back with T-34s against Panthers and Tigers. The western Allies took France with Shermans against Panthers and Tigers.

It is also worth noting that just as the T-34 and Sherman models were quite comparable, so were the StuG (Pz III chassis) and the Pz IV. Which were, between them, the majority of the German armor force. The "vanilla" tanks were comparable right round, with the Pz IIIs standing out as undergunned. Both the Germans and Russians had higher end vehicles, but not anything like the majority of their fielded forces. The Panther was more common than other heavies, though, and fielded somewhat earlier.

[JasonC]

antarsqc said of Russian tanks "Reliability didn't seem to be a problem". This is laughable. The Russians often lost half of the initial tank strength committed to a major operation to mechanical breakdowns, in a matter of a couple of weeks. That is why you find "tank corps" running around with 15 operational tanks late in a campaign.

It was definitely a serious problem. It limited the strategic reach of successful breakthroughs, and the length of time the same formation could continue to fight. The Russians tried to make up for it with echelon procedures, when they could afford them. As in, when mobile group A wears itself out and stalls, launch group B.

[The ol one eye.]

OK, so the rough impression Im getting is that we can expect T-34s to perform about the same as a vanilla sherman against German heavies?

Does anyone think , at least with break-down-prone AFVs like the T34, that a random 'break down' could happen, like a bog, but mechanical?

Dont jump down my throat if this is a dumb question, Im just trying to get a feel for this whole thing.

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by The Commissar:

Crew comforts: If this is a category which is supposed to elevate a tank above the rest, then sure, Americans and even the Germans were above the others.

However, while I do understand that crew comfort would place the crew in a better atmosphere, perhaps even making them fight better to a degree, I would rather take thicker armor or perhaps a larger calibre gun opposed to, say, a roomy turret and a clean interior.

Dmitri Loza (Hero of the Soviet Union and commander of Shermans in the Great Patriotic War) seemed to think comfort was important... also reliability, ease of maintanance, better gun (US 76 out performs the Sov 85) and greater maneuverability over poor ground (Sherman has lower ground pressure than T34). One point he made against the Sherman... it can't pivot (seems the damned thing turns like a car)

[Bastables]

Originally posted by gunnergoz:

My 2 bits (I know you all await breathlessly for it ):

If I were alter the question a bit, I'd ask: "Which country produced the best tank it could come up with AT THE TIME."

.

One name then Mark IV, British World war one.

[lcm1947]

Could someone confirm I'm understanding this right that the 34/76 was comparable to the 75mm Sherman and the 34/85 comp to the 76mm Sherman? If this is correct I'm confused. Now I'm strictly talking about the performance of the guns. So this means that the 85mm pretty much sucked? I mean if it was only just as good as the 76mm - something doesn't make sense. I don't really have a problem that the 76mm on the Russia tank wasn't that much better then the 75mm on the Sherman but it really surprises me that a gun that much better wouldn't just be that much better then a 76mm. Anybody actually know why it wasn't very good?

[Marlow]

Originally posted by The Commissar:

Like say, the effective range T-34 was almost half as much as the Shermans, allowing for more operational maneuver. The speed of the T-34 likewise outmatched the Shermans. Yes, and I do know that many times the T-34 could not exploit these superiorities due to extremely rushed production. I dont feel it is fair to 'deduce points' based on this, however.

OK, if we can't take into account the crude manufature of the T34 because of the situation Russia was in, then we should also discount the limitations forced on US tank design because it had to ship its tanks halfway around the world in sufficient numbers to arm a large part of three armys. Without space and size limitations, it is fair to assume that a tank like the Pershing would have been fielded much earlier. What about the limitations faced by Germany? Material shortages and strategic bombing hampered the quality of their tanks. Should we discount that as well?

The point is that when discussing the "best tank," we must examine them as they were, not as they theoretically could have been.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

[snips]

You may have a point about doctrine - British MMG and HMGs were usually set up behind the front line, to provide interdiction fire, thicken barrages, or for defensive purposes. If the Russians were really making use of those wheels instead of dismantling the guns, I would suggest they were employing them farther forward than the other Allies....anyone care to provide more than simple speculation?

It's not much more than speculation, but my dear old Jane's Infantry Weapons for 1975 says that the SG-43 does not have a dial sight. This would presumably mean that it could not be used for indirect fire, or given multiple Defensive Fire (DF) tasks in a defensive layout, as the Vickers or sMG-42 could (the Vickers, with the Mk 9Z boat-tailed bullet, could and did deliver area fire up to 4,500 yards). If Soviet MGs were used only for direct fire, this would seem to conform to the stereotype of the Red Army preferring simple methods. Mind you, I can think of only one wargame I've ever met that allows for indirect MG fire, so I doubt that any such difference would show up in CM:BB.

Come to think of it, were American MGs after the M1917 equipped for indirect fire?

All the best,

John.

[Scott B]

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

Dmitri Loza (Hero of the Soviet Union and commander of Shermans in the Great Patriotic War) seemed to think comfort was important... also reliability, ease of maintanance, better gun (US 76 out performs the Sov 85) and greater maneuverability over poor ground (Sherman has lower ground pressure than T34). One point he made against the Sherman... it can't pivot (seems the damned thing turns like a car)

Loza says something else against the high center of gravity of the Sherman. I contest the assertion that the Sherman had lower ground pressure than the T-34. In general the T-34 had lower ground pressure, although by the end of the war they were comparable.

From OnWar.Com:

T-34 M1940 - 9.1 psi

T-34 M1941 - 9.7 or 10.7 psi (depending on number of tracks used)

T-34 M1942 - 10.4 psi

T-34 M1943 - 10.7 psi

T-34/85 - 11.1 psi

M4, M4A1, M4A3 Sherman - 13.7 psi

M4A1(76) Sherman - 14.5 psi

M4A2 Sherman - 14.4 psi

M4A2(76) Sherman - 15.1 psi

M4A3(75)W Sherman - 14.3 psi

M4A3(76)W Sherman HVSS - 11.0 psi

Anyone able to confirm these numbers via a second source? I thought HVSS shermans actually had it better than T-34/85s by a wider margin, but the 'run of the mill' T-34 should still be more mobile than the 'run of the mill' Sherman.

As far as guns and armor go, they're relatively equal. They both die to the same things at similar ranges, and they both seem to kill the same things at similar ranges. Where's Rexford when you need him? And wasn't this a machinegun thread?

Scott

[MajorBooBoo]

Originally posted by JasonC:

The fact is, the major operational swings of the war are quite independent of who had the better tanks, and if anything swing against the guy with the better ones. The Germans conquered half of Russian with 50mm guns against T-34s. The Russians took it back with T-34s against Panthers and Tigers. The western Allies took France with Shermans against Panthers and Tigers.

.

Bagration

"When this buildup was completed in the Soviet offensive zone the Russians had amassed over 1.2 million troops, against Army Group Center's total strength of 700,000. The total Soviet strength ready to participate in the attack, including reserve forces held back from the front, was nearly 2.5 million. 4,000 tanks, 24,400 cannon, and 5,300 aircraft gave the Soviets upward of 10:1 odds at the designated assault points. Even when German intelligence began to detect the scope of the buildup, OKH remained convinced that the main effort would remain in the south. This was wishful thinking on the part of the Germans for this was the one place where they could amass considerable combat power to meet any threat."

http://www.warfarehq.com/After%20Action%20Reports/TOAW%20AAR/bagration_berlin_aar.htm

I would say that the swing wasn't AGAINST the guy with better tanks but WITH the guy with MORE tanks. Tigers and Panthers were not the majority tanks considering the Tiger/Panther/MkIV/StuGs/Etc fleet. Up till Early 1944, pzIII still were part of that fleet also.

The germans had maybe a few hundred panther and a similar (maybe less) amount of tiger I on the WHOLE eastern front (total) at the end of May 44. About 2/3 operational to boot. PIv strength was about double the panther strength.

They got swamped and stomped.

[Stormhouse]

You guys are comparing sherman's to T-34's with armor penetration this and comfort that. Here's a idea how about comparing the T-34 to the tanks avaible when it went into production. Is is just me or a tank created after the T-34 would and should be better then the older tank. Even with does lesson the Shermans where crap when it came to it's gun and crew protection. You gusy should compare the T-34 to the PZ IV not the panthers.

There was also a total lack by the americans to talk to the russians to see what kind of german tanks they where facing. The sherman's gun was to weak and it's armor to thin period. The T-34 already existed for about 5 years. The T-34 was the best all around tank.

Why did Germans lose the battle of Kursk, simple Panthers, Elephants where very new tanks and didn't even fight in the battle. Most of them broke down, also stupid tactical mistake was done and most of the new super duper german tanks ended up in mind fields unable to participate in the battle.

The T-34 didnt have cup holders or super comfort but guess what it got the job done, by kicking the germans back all the way to berlin. I dont care if the panther was better, it was created after the T-34, it was also rip-off of the T-34.

[Commissar]

Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

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

A toast to the best all around tank of the 2nd WW, the T-34 !!! :cool:

Best all around tank was the Panther, i'd rank the T-34 number 2.</font>

[Marlow]

Originally posted by Stormhouse:

There was also a total lack by the americans to talk to the russians to see what kind of german tanks they where facing. The sherman's gun was to weak and it's armor to thin period. The T-34 already existed for about 5 years. The T-34 was the best all around tank.

??? Where did 5 years come from? The initial T34 design was completed in 1939, and fielded in 1940 (in small numbers) IIRC. The Sherman was completed in 1941 and fielded in 1942. As far as which was a better tank, hard to say as each had points. For the Sherman: better reliability, better fire control, faster rate of fire, better as an anti-infantry tank.

Why did Germans lose the battle of Kursk, simple Panthers, Elephants where very new tanks and didn't even fight in the battle. Most of them broke down, also stupid tactical mistake was done and most of the new super duper german tanks ended up in mind fields unable to participate in the battle.

The Germans lost Kursk due to a number of factors, not the least of which being very poor intel, and Soviet anti-tank defences. The type of tanks used was not the deciding factor.

Oh, and one last thing. Earlier someone said that the Russian tanks must be better since some of them are still in service in South America. That doesn't work as Shermans, Chaffees and Stuarts are all still being used in South America. Also, didn't the Yugoslav army have a couple of Jacksons or Hellcats?

[Iron Chef Sakai]

Originally posted by JasonC:

ASL vet is quite right when he said - "the Sherman 75 is the rough equivalent of the T-34/76 and the Sherman 76 is the rough equivalent of the T-34/85". Other than slightly better HE blast from the T-34/85, that is substantially correct. The T-34 was regarded as revolutionary because it was that good in 1941.

The Sherman was an excellent medium tank when first fielded, and indeed proved as much in the western desert. It was a fine medium tank through mid 1943, even. And if Easy Eights had been available from early 1944 on, that would have worked fine. Instead the Sherman 76s mostly took until late 1944.

The other aspect is that the Russians did populate the higher end of the tank spectrum, as well as having tanks as good as the Sherman about a year earlier. This was a late war development, however. Mid 1944 on, really, when the ISUs and such showed up.

From the Kursk era to only a little before Bagration, the Russians had only T-34/76s in numbers, some new 85s, supplimented by modest numbers of large guns SUs. The Germans had already fielded Panthers and Tigers. The overall match up was thus quite similar to that the US faced in the west a year later, though more of the German fleet was still older tanks.

As it happens, that is the period in which the Russians won the decisive battles of the war. With "Shermans", and against the first German heavies. Tank spec dominance just isn't what some crack it up to be, in terms of operational outcomes, as has been discussed at great length here before.

The fact is, the major operational swings of the war are quite independent of who had the better tanks, and if anything swing against the guy with the better ones. The Germans conquered half of Russian with 50mm guns against T-34s. The Russians took it back with T-34s against Panthers and Tigers. The western Allies took France with Shermans against Panthers and Tigers.

It is also worth noting that just as the T-34 and Sherman models were quite comparable, so were the StuG (Pz III chassis) and the Pz IV. Which were, between them, the majority of the German armor force. The "vanilla" tanks were comparable right round, with the Pz IIIs standing out as undergunned. Both the Germans and Russians had higher end vehicles, but not anything like the majority of their fielded forces. The Panther was more common than other heavies, though, and fielded somewhat earlier.

The T-34 was still superior to the Sherman. All your looking at is Armor x Gun= quality of tank.

You completly left out the T-34's superior suspension and wide tracks making it a superior cross country and all terrain fighting vehicle then the Sherman. The T-34 was also alot eaiser to repair and maintain. The T-34 was also better operating in the cold as well i beleive.

The T-34 was a much superior tank to the Sherman since wars are not always fought on perfectly flat and dry ground and in warm weather.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

Almost forgot,........the T-34 had a much better silloute then the Sherman too.

[WWB]

One thing I am suprised I have not seen mentioned here is that, after testing the T34 against the Panzer III and IV, the Soviets themselves thought that the German tanks were far superior to the T34 in everything aside from gun and armor. This conclusion was reached after testing all three models side-by-side.

Not that Gun/Armor are unimportant, but if the TC is too busy fiddling with the gunsight to notice the Panzer III stalking him from the rear, then he is in big trouble. Possibly bigger trouble than dueling with an enemy tank that he could not penetrate.

WWB

[Marlow]

Originally posted by Tanaka:

A M-36, you are joking… what is that ? Some exotic mammal ? Ok, I agree with you… open top is good, it makes the escape easier & faster…

From the very nice Tanks website:

The M36 became very popular because of it's firepower and protection. This popularity resulted in it being often used in the role of a combat tank rather than just as a tank killer. The drawback was the open top. In the Spring of 1945, this was corrected and an add-on shield was issued.

This top armor was news to me. Here is a picture with the add on armor (looks a little goofy)

[Mr. Johnson--]

Power to weight ratio in the T-34 makes it the winner in my book.

The Germans losing at Kursk had nothing to do with the tanks. Although more German tanks would have helped the Germans. The biggest problem was lack of infantry. If Hitler had not wasted a quarter of a million men in Tunisia and left 6th army to fend for itself in the Stalingrad pocket the Germans would have had much more flexibilty during the Kursk operation. Speading the Tigers out like they did was also a major problem. Those Panthers were driven straight at the Russians with no regard for their flanks. If you send your Panthers over minefields and let the enemy shoot your Panthers in the side and rear they won't have much effect on the battle.

[Michael Dorosh]

Of course, you could use the fallacious arguments about this or that country still using this or that tank to "prove' their worth. A friend of mine back from tour in Bosnia sent me a colour postcard of an M36 Jackson in current service - I posted this picture to the forum last year. It had some kind of add on armour up top, but was still open-topped. I'll have to look at it again - it might actually have been a skate rail mount for an MG

[The Commissar]

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

Dmitri Loza (Hero of the Soviet Union and commander of Shermans in the Great Patriotic War) seemed to think comfort was important...

Of course he felt it was important! He was the little man on the ground (or in the tank, as the case may be) who had to live and fight in those things, not contemplate the fact that because his machine was uncomfortable, more of them could be produced.

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

ease of maintanance,

Uhh, not sure about that at all. The T-34 had less components and was easier to manufacture. Thus, logic states that a tank with a simpler design would be simpler to repair.

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

better gun (US 76 out performs the Sov 85)

They were very close in performance. Even Jason said so, so there! Nyuh-nyuh!

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

and greater maneuverability over poor ground (Sherman has lower ground pressure than T34).

1. It didn't have lower ground pressure.

2. Ground pressure isn't everything when you have such goofy little thin tracks as the Sherman.

[JasonC]

"...WITH the guy with MORE tanks"

Then you'd be wrong. The Russians had 4-5 times as many tanks as the Germans on the day the Germans invaded, and the Germans took half of Russia. The French had twice as many tanks when the Germans invaded, with thicker armor and larger guns, and France fell in a few weeks.

It is not numbers alone that made the difference, and tank specs made no serious difference at the strategic level. It was doctrine in the use of tanks, operational handling of them, with numbers third after those, and tank specs last after all of the above.

[Michael Dorosh]

Jason has made this argument before, actually, and I have to agree with him that it is what you do with what you have - not how much you've got - that matters.

Commisar - in addition to goofy thin tracks, the Sherman also had a riciculously high silhouette....