T34 vs. Sherman Question

[The ol one eye.]

OK, right off the bat - I'm not an Armor Grog - so what I have to say is just my observations based on what little I've read ( mostly on this here forum) and playing CM, so here goes.

From everything I've heard previosly about the T-34 I was expecting some do-all kill-all tank but really, lack of radios, poor armour quality and a so-so gun ( at least the m40) really made me wonder if the T 34 is just a more glorified Sherman. I know they both had thier strengths and weaknesses, Shermans were reliable and had radios, had more crew ammenities and so on, but what did the early T34s have going for them? Yes it was a good design, but along the way to the front, some things were skimped on, optics, trannys, radios ect. Maybe its the new pentration algorythms or the crew morale, but I rarely see a Sherman bail from a couple 37mm hits.

Maybe those of you who know alot more on this than I do could tell me how well these two compare, the M4A1 and the T 34 M40, which one will you pick for early war QBs?

Thanks in advance,

One Eye.

[gunnergoz]

Well, apart from the issue of the M-4A1's inherent radio, 3-man turret and the doctrine that those imply, my question to you is: who would be fighting in them?

Crew quality is the other big joker in the pack, you see. Inexperienced Sherman crews will bail too.

Don't forget that CMBO didn't model tank unit cohesion (tanks were always in command radius). US Shermans will do better under such circumstances.

Keep in mind that Russians would not receive M-4A1's, they'd get A2's and A4's for the most part, with diesel engines, IIRC without looking it up. Maybe some A6's as well if memory serves correctly.

The T-34 wowed the Germans at the time, but they quickly learned how to deal with it in the coming months. The Russians produced prodigious quantites of them, though, and "quantity has a quality all it's own."

[ARRPEEGEE]

I'd say the T-34 got better treatment, but, a better tank is a matter of conjecture. The Russians listened to their armor cheifs, and got the nessecary modifications made. The Yanks and Brits, by and large, did not..claiming tactics and training were faulty.

I'd still rather have the T-34, even the crappy M40..Knowing that if you're going to burn if hit would undoubtedly change your tactics in battle

[ September 14, 2002, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: mch ]

[Reichenberg]

gunnergoz already mentioned the crew quality.

Don't forget the M4A1 went into production by March 1942, but the T34/M40 2 years earlier. T34 had a way superior cross country performance and a diesel engine. When the Germans came along the first M4A1, they nicknamed it "Thommy-Kocher" (Brit Boiler free translation) because of its tendency to catch fire easily.

I think the main downpoint of the T34 in the game is really the quality of its crews.

[The ol one eye.]

Yes, there is alot of variables to consider when deciding which one to choose, and I think crew experiance/morale effects are huge factors too. Since the flaking and spalling inside a tank are modeled I think a Sherman would offer better protection to the crew\morale because it would be more likely to hold up to repeated small caliber hits (right?)

For examples sake, lets say its a dry ground summer moderate hill modderate trees 2000 pt combined arms QB ME in late 41'regular crew (whew!). Which would you choose?

I guess we'd need to know how much each tank is first, thats a major deciding factor isn't it?

Anyone want to hint to the price differances between the two tanks?

These kinds of questions just lead to more questions......

[gunnergoz]

Price differences are almost imponderable considering that they came from countries with different economic models. Think Ford and Lada. Both get you there, both cost an equivalent year's wages (or did at one point in their national histories.)

The key is that both suited their respective production regime quite well. They were the best tanks that could be produced at the time, given that the introduction of superior models would have come at a sacrifice in the essential numbers that would reach the battlefields in time. (A fair tank delivered in time is better than a great tank delivered a day late...)

[Nippy]

Don't forget that Soviet Tanks could stand up much better to the harsh Russian winters than their German counter-parts.

(Didn't some Soviet tanks have special motors that could be turned over and started with compressed air when it was really cold? I heard about that feature once on the SU-76, from what I understand, the Soviet crews loved it.)

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by Nippy:

Don't forget that Soviet Tanks could stand up much better to the harsh Russian winters than their German counter-parts.

(Didn't some Soviet tanks have special motors that could be turned over and started with compressed air when it was really cold? I heard about that feature once on the SU-76, from what I understand, the Soviet crews loved it.)

AFAIK all soviet tanks had compressed air bottles to get things going, nifty low-tech feature that saved a lot of hassle in the cold.

[Andrew H.]

The Sherman was the better tank, because it was - as someone pointed out - developed much later. The problem with the Sherman was not its initial design, but the fact that the tank wasn't upgraded.

The Sherm beats the T-34 due to better quality armor, a better gun (the 75mm gun in the Sherm is better than the 76mm gun in the T-34), the three man turret, and the radios. It was also much more reliable than the T-34, although the T-34 had better flotation.

For a while after the Sherm arrived in North Africa, it was the best tank available.

Remember that the German main battle tank in '41 was the Pz III with the 37mm gun. The main battle tank of the Germans in '42 was the Pz III with the 50mm (long) gun, although a couple of Pz IV f2s were available in smaller numbers, becoming more numerous toward the end of that time period.

[WWB]

Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

Remember that the German main battle tank in '41 was the Pz III with the 37mm gun. The main battle tank of the Germans in '42 was the Pz III with the 50mm (long) gun, although a couple of Pz IV f2s were available in smaller numbers, becoming more numerous toward the end of that time period.

Not quite. Most of the Panzer IIIs deployed in 41 had a 50mm gun. One division, 18th, had almost all the 37mm IIIs.

WWB

[Tarquelne]

For examples sake, lets say its a dry ground summer moderate hill modderate trees 2000 pt combined arms QB ME in late 41'regular crew (whew!). Which would you choose?

Germans with captured t-34s, Soviets with lend-lease Shermans?... I'm looking forward to trying that out (I'd use more points, though), but it's going to feel wierd.

[gunnergoz]

Compressed air starts are a feature almost unique to diesel engines. No battery power is required for cranking or ignition.

A magneto can perform ignition functions on aircraft round engines (like the Wright cyclones in the early Shermans), using a starter cartridge (think of a shotgun shell whose explosive discharge pushes up one cylinder and starts the cranking cycle going.)

As to the issue of the Sherman never being upgraded, that is just not true. The same chassis was turned into the M-10 TD (with better armor layout, though thinner plate unfortunately) and even made it through the Sherman Jumbo version with very heavy armor indeed. The suspension was upgraded to the HVSS version with wider tracks, improving traction and floatation. The major constriction to the Sherman was the basic issues of height of it's hull (a legacy of that big round engine) and the narrowness of its turret diameter, limiting the size cannon it could carry comfortably.

Of course, if you upgrade something enough, it becomes another thing entirely...

[The ol one eye.]

I never thought of using captured T34s against Russian Shermans!! That is going to be so cool! Have a battalion of German T34s and a battalion of Soviet Shermans, good way to see whos best at what. Yeah, wierd too, but what fun! Sept 20th cant come soon enough.

Just as a small question, Did the Germans ever capture Shermans and use those, or were they looked down upon and considered too weak/lame/ un-uber?

[Nippy]

Originally posted by gunnergoz:

Of course, if you upgrade something enough, it becomes another thing entirely...

Here T-34 T-34 T-34, come out come out where ever you are...

[Nippy]

"Did the Germans ever capture Shermans and use those, or were they looked down upon and considered too weak/lame/ un-uber?"

I remember seeing a pic of a captured Sherman Firefly in German service. I imagine they put all captured tanks to good use. Heck, they were still using captured French tanks from 1940 during the Normandy invasion.

[ARRPEEGEE]

captured Sherman Firefly

Sounds like the captured the only kind worth capturing

[Nippy]

Here's a bunch of allied tanks (Shermans and Fireflys included) in German service.

Captured Allied Tanks

[gunnergoz]

Regarding the German use of captured Shermans, or for that matter, anybody's use of capured materiel, we should look at whether the use was done at the unit level (extemporaneously) or at the command level (by design.)

I can see photos of a lot of captured materiel that seemed to be a spontaneous, local adaptation of enemy tanks (whatever) for practical as well as emotional/propaganda reasons. For instance GI's loved to tinker with schwimmwagens, panthers, kubels, SD-251's, kettenrads, whatever. They also liked to mess with MP-40's and -44's but often found to their chagrin that colleagues would mistake the fire signature for that of the enemy and would open up on them!

The more unusual situation is when the utilization of capured material is ordered by the upper echelons, and is accompanied by plans, organization, logistical support, whatever. The best example is the German's use of French, Czech and Russian materiel, but we also see the Russians using Pz-III's and the postwar French using Panthers en mass.

Another way to look at this is to as the question: is the use of this particular enemy materiel going to appreciably enhance my fighting ability? When the answer was "yes", you could be resonably expect the stuff to be put to use at both the individual and command level.

American command levels never for a moment (that I'm aware of) considered using captured German materiel on the battlefield as a matter of doctrine. They might turn a blind eye to casual, localized exploitation of some asset, but would have not condoned the diversion of resources towards the rehabilitation and issuing of such weaponry.

The only exception that I can think of, regarding the US, anyway, was the retention of captured material for training and demonstration purposes. This was most common before D-Day in England, but the practice continues to this day (remember the original OPFOR running around in exotic AFV's?).