"United States Build T34's Instead of Shermans"" Topic

The already mentioned book by Belton Cooper, Death Traps, is hugely informative about the M4 Sherman's performance at the point of the spear. He was the maintenance liasion officer for the 3rd armored division, charged with ordering replacements, which included verifying every destroyed Sherman, meaning he went to each actual damaged vehicle and pulled off its identification plate.

I don't have the exact data here to cite, and I'm not broadly informed elsewhere on this topic, but as I recall:

- The posts above about the reliability and quick repairs of the Sherman are accurate.

- The 3rd armored division had something like 250% casualties among its Shermans, including crews.

- The pre-invasion decision by Patton (in 1943?) to reject the M26 Pershing heavy tank over the M4 Sherman medium tank was based on erroneous data. Patton believed the lighter Sherman would be less likely to get hung up in mud and swampy areas. In fact according to Cooper, the M26 had a better track to ground ratio (or something like that) than the Sherman so despite being heavier it was better at navigating in mud. Also according to Cooper, the German tanks were comparable to the Pershing in this area, not the Sherman, so they were also better in mud than the Sherman.

I think the real question is, why wasn't the Sherman given sloped armor?

Granted, I'm sure they had to weigh tradeoffs, like overall width to function, but it seems like a poor decision to provide it with vertical armor on the sides and rear of the hull, and rather vertical turret armor too.

"Besides, Shermans fight infantry, M-10s fight other tanks."

This is the primary factor that the US didn't have a better tank (be it a T-34 copy or something else). US armor doctrine was flawed. Tanks were meant to charge into the enemy rear area and raise havoc there. Enemy tanks were to be engaged by tank destroyers. For the mission envisioned for it, the Sherman was a great machine. Unfortunately, as has been pointed out, the Germans didn't cooperate and US tanks often found themselves fighting German tanks.

You might also ask: why didn't the US replace the BAR in infantry squads with a copy of the German MG-34? They easily could have done so. They would have had captured copies by 1940. The reason was that the US infantry doctrine didn't call for a light machine gun with their infantry squads. Another big mistake.

Two things to note about Cooper's book are that: a) its a Memoir written long after the fact and b) being the ordinance guy, he only comes into contact with dead tanks; HE WAS NOT A TRIGGER PULLER. This last I think is very important. It's easy to build up a poor opinion of the Sherman when you're the guy cleaning the guts out of them. I wonder how he would have thought of the T-34 if he were the Soviet equivalent?

Damon.

Sherman had the upper hand with build quality, standardization of parts, decent ergonomics, better optics, a stabilized gun, long track life and the 76mm was just in the same range as the German 75mm PAK. The 75mm HE shell was extremely effective too.

T34 was a very crude design with little or no comfort, the strict minimum amount of moving parts and a diesel engine floating in an oil bath. It was a mix of forward thinking, advanced design and barebones simplicity. T34 couldn't afford any of the frills of the Sherman but it was amazing from a design point of view.

As for the M26, it was being put into production, but between D-Day (6 June) and the apparent complete collapse of the German army (August) it seemed the war would be over by Christmas and nobody wanted to be bothered to have whole parking lots full of unused tanks. So the M26 was stepped down in favour of more Shermans. By the time everybody realized the Germans were still capable of fighting back the M26 was rushed into production and reached the front lines at the beginning of 1945. So unless US industry had some kind of Star Trek like replicators and teleporters, I don't see how the M26 could have been there faster.

For all the bulldroppings being said about the infinite superiority of the German tanks, they were wiped out by the Allies, who had infinitely better combined arms and logistics. The mix of tanks, airpower, artillery etc was simply better than the Germans.

Hi

Not a tank guy, but i think the arguments do miss the logistics. When did we get T34 plans? Or a T34?

In general, the US and the USSR had different criteria for all their weapons based on their pre-war prejudices.

One example is that when the Russians bought a french or american aircraft engine, they redid the boost systems to give great power, but only briefly, and broken aircraft got shoved off the ramp. US aircraft were almost designed for peacetime flying giving hundreds of hours of flying on basic maintaince and built for repairs.

The russians assumed that as the average life in combat was 25 hours, 25 was enough, the americans wanted value for the money, even if it was shot down in 25.

Thus, even if we had the drawings, I doubt we would have built T34s. Just like we didn't build Yaks.

R

Yeah, there seem to be a lot of undecided facts here.

I'm going to respond to the original question by saying, doctrine, retooling, and stay out of the "which is better, apples or oranges" argument.

The US was still building P-40s as late as November 1944, even though the P-51 had been in production for a year and the P-47 for nearly two years, because to shut down a production line and start it up building a different plane probably takes six months, which costs you about six hundred fighters, maybe more. The army instantly responds to this with "I'd like a P-40 now rather than a P-51 in six month."

I'm also going to say that given Stalin's methods and information management, T-34 production may not have been what it seemed.

Finally, the Sherman was supposed to be a "medium" tank, and infantry support tank, not an anti-tank tank. This was completely the wrong idea, but that's the idea they were trying to execute. For that purpose, the Sherman looked better than the T-34.

As for Not Invented Here, I'm certain that if the T-34 were the better choice for the American army, which it wasn't perceived to be, and if it were easy to start building them, which I'm sure it wasn't, NIH would have carried the day, no question. We helped the Soviets, we weren't accepting help from them.

I have not read nearly enough to want to wade into the WW2 tank argument, since its one of the more emotional areas of military history (along with ACW generals and Bonaparte v. Wellington),

And the Shermans, while not a stand-up match to the panzers, were not bad tanks. Oops, I just did what I said I wasn't going to do. Ah, well, too late now.

<Submit…>

Andrew

Disgusted, she replied: "I hope they printed that on the telegrams they sent to the thousands of American tankmen that probably would not have died if they were in T34's.

I think that's over-simplifying things. Granted, she's got a wargamer's point of view, so don't discourage her!

Just as many Soviets died in T-34s as did Allies in Shermans if not lots more.
--
Tim

The wastage rate quoted among Shermans is similar, I think, to pretty much most armoured units – our local tank unit (1st Hussars) landed after D-Day equipped with Shermans, and exactly 1 of the entire regiment survived the campaign – it was an HQ tank and it's sitting in a park just down the road – I suspect, as noted, that Russian tank units had wastage rates just as high – certainly, the Germans and Brits were always re-equipping their armoured units – imagine how many tanks 2nd Panzer must have gone thru!

Regarding the T34 rather primitive – OK, non-existent – driver's seat

What nonsense. Where on earth did you find that nugget?
--
Tim

"I think the real question is, why wasn't the Sherman given sloped armor?"

Last time I looked the big armoured plate on the front looked pretty sloped to me.

I just think the basic premise is wrong, in what ways can the T34 be considered significantly superior to the Sherman?

As for vehicle losses, high levels of wastage were inevitable amonsgt all nationalities. 200% losses pa were fairly light – where did Germanys 25,000 tanks and SP guns produced in 1944 all go?

Panzerfaust, the Christie suspension is quite different from the torsion bar suspension. Christie had large road wheels, indvidually sprung – beacause he wanted a vehicle that could operate with or without tracks. These roadwheels are attached to arms that are pivoted to the hull side. Large springs provide the damping action.

In the torsion bar suspension, each road wheel is attached to an arm that has a high tensile-strength steel rod attached to the other end. This rod runs under that tank and is secured on the far side. The twisting of the bar provides that damping. The two systems LOOK similar, but are not.

I am not sure why everybody thinks that the "Tanks fight infantry, anti-tank guns fight tanks" doctrine is "totally wrong". If it is, then everybody in WW2, including the Germans and the Soviets, was wrong. Yes, tanks sometimes fought tanks. But that was by accident. A PBY shot down a Japanese flying boat in a dogfight, too – that doesn't invalidate the idea that PBY's do recon, F6F's and F4U's shoot down enemy airplanes.

There have been some humdinger (to use an americanism) pointless threads here over the years, but this is turning into a top 5 contender…
forget the popcorn, pass the gin.

@rmaker, I stand corrected. @christot, I do not agree that this is a pointless thread. No doubt much of what people think they know about a subject is shallow oversimplifications from random books and internet postings but so what. By discussing it anyone with an open mind will learn something. Many posters are in fact not responding to the actual original question of course, and others sit back and make smug comments as if they know better, while offering nothing but so what.

CRAPOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF WW2 ARMOUR
The t34 was crap. But it was better than the German crap. Then the Germans made some good stuff based on the Russian crap. This meant the Russians had to update their crap and it became almost good but they invented some OK-stuff just to supplement it anyway. Meanwhile the Allies started with crap all round and rapidly produced some semi-crap. This was modified to become half-ok-stuff which was used until victory. Victory was achieved using half-ok stuff and a little good-stuff supplemented by lots of crap.
(but the half-ok stuff still held a reputation for being crap)

The strange thing is victory was achieved despite the Germans, after a poor start, using neat stuff, fantastic stuff, cool stuff and whooaaayy stuff.

Victory seems to have been achieved independently of the crappacity of each side's stuff.

Ergo discussion of relative crapaciousness of stuff is irrelevant. More interesting is 'How was stuff used ?'

"Perhaps the reason (stand by for correction) that no nation in the industrial age has copied a weapon system and put it into production with almost zero modification isn't entirely a matter of national pride, but also because it's just unfeasible to do on a mass scale."

Not an exact case responding to your point, but the U.S. modern modular bridging system is almost an exact copy of the Soviet system. I think the U.S. only got away with it because it wasn't a weapon system, which would have attracted a lot more attention.

plasticviking2,

That is possibly the greatest post in the history of TMP. You are my new hero.

DittoBird

I was referring to the non-existent seat springs in the T-34 driver's seat as opposed to those found in the Sherman's driver seat. I understand the spring system in the Sherman's driver seat allowed the seat to be raised or lowered as well as providing some cushioning. This was not a matter of driver comfort as much as providing him some protection against being bounched around overmuch and possibly losing control of the tank over rough terrain.

As for the T-34, I was able to get a look in the interior of a T-34 in the restorer's shed a few years ago at Saumur. It looked to me like it was indeed an I-beam directly welded to the tank's chassis. One restorer confirmed that a simple wooden, usually plywood, driver's seat was installed directly on the i-beam; must have made for a miserable ride unless modified.

Do you have different information?

link

link

link

picture

Tuscaloosa,
""Perhaps the reason (stand by for correction) that no nation in the industrial age has copied a weapon system and put it into production with almost zero modification isn't entirely a matter of national pride, but also because it's just unfeasible to do on a mass scale."

Oh I wouldn't talk too soon. Try to look up the Tu-2(?) bomber. The Soviets went on a buying spree of measuring equipment in North America so they could copy it exactly.
"But comrade, the over bomb bay crawl space is painted green two thirds its' length and black the remainder, what do we do?"
"The same."

I wonder where alot of people get their facts from. I dont even know where to start on this thread. Myabe it is not even worth it.

Alright Coopers book is good and gives you a good idea of how easy it was to get a tank back in service, if and only if you have a first rate maintence unit. Very few armies in WWII actually had units dedicated to recovering tanks like the US did. For a much better account of what it was like to serve in an M4 and M26 is the book by John Irwin, "Another River, Another Town. Great book on the late war as a tank gunner in both an M4 and M26.

Now for M26s in Korea the book by Oscar Gilbert, "Marine Corps Tank Battles in Korea." Everything you need to know about tank battles in Korea.

If you want any book on Shermans. then get R.P. Hunnicutt's book, "Sherman A History of the American Medium Tank." Almost 600 pages of everything you need to know on the Sherman. Lots of photos and facts. Not a cheap book by the way. I paid almost a $100 USD for it, but worth every penny.

I have lots of stuff on the T-34 also if you want to do the research. Dont have time now to post since I have to go to work. But until you have climbed over these vehicles and read the accounts, dont post 3rd hand rumors.

Doug

The modern US Army uses lots of foriegn stuff they just change the name and don't go out of their way to admit it in case any rednecks get shirty.

1-How many T-34s did the Germans destroy in battle in WW2?
2-mosby65- I hope you point the girl to this thread.

Of course the Sherman had a sloped glacis, proving my point that the designers knew that was an advantage.

Sadly, they didn't see fit to incorporate sloping armor around the rest of the vehicle, probably due to a concern on the loss of usable interior space if they did so.

Tuscaloosa wrote:

"Finally, when the Sherman first appeared at El Alamein, it was clearly the best tank on the battlefield."

Well, that's worth a good laugh…

It wasn't? Which tank was better?

Based on the responses so far on this thread, I informed her,

That the popular notion she came across many times in her research that the T-34 was the superior tank of WWII or, conversely, the Sherman was an inferior tank does not stand up to closer scrutiny.

Though issues of national pride and reluctance to openly adopt a foreign weapons design are certainly present, in the final analysis no government is going to reject a weapon and put its soldiers in increased jeopardy just because the weapon was NIH.

Rather, the United States never seriously considered replacing the Sherman with the T-34 for sound economic reasons and because

1. The T-34, although it had some features superior to the Sherman, these were not sufficient to outweigh the cost and delays of abandoning Sherman production in favor of the T-34.

2. The T-34 did not fit into the United States' tank warfare doctrine, which designated the Sherman as primarily an infantry support tank with some anti-tank capability as opposed to the T-34, which was primarily an anti-tank tank. United States tank doctrine relegated primary anti-tank responsibility to

A. Separate "tank buster" motorized battalions with very fast, lightly armored, open-turreted tracked vehicles with a large gun built to respond quickly to enemy tank threats.

B. Tank buster aircraft armed with rockets and bombs and flown by pilots trained to hunt and destroy enemy tanks.

C. Concentrated effort to destoy German tank manufacturing and tank support (fuel) capability and the transportation infrastrucure needed for the Germans to deploy the tanks in battle. If they can't get to front, then you don't have to destroy them.

She said she now understood the economic reasons more clearly, but she still did not understand
why the popular notion – as espoused in numerous History channel WWII programs – of the strengths and weaknesses of the T-34 and Sherman seem to be so at odds with many of the views found in this thread.

Crazy theory…US designers and military planners thought the war would continue…against the Soviets. If both the Soviets and US and Allies had most of their tanks in the field that looked alike, the hoped for air superiority of the US and it's allies would not be as effective, nor would those on the ground be able to as easily distinquish friend from foe. ID'ing units from the air is difficult enough, as is in the heat of battle on the ground, so the planners turned out Shermans by the tens of thousands, continuing even when it was clear there were more than enough to defeat Germany…because the war might not stop there. See, anyone can come up with a crazy theory.

"She said she now understood the economic reasons more clearly, but she still did not understand
why the popular notion – as espoused in numerous History channel WWII programs – of the strengths and weaknesses of the T-34 and Sherman seem to be so at odds with many of the views found in this thread."

Tell her the History channel is designed to entertain, not really educate. Thus, it will support preconceived notions because that's what people want to hear.

Damon.

Very interesting thread. My two cents:

To simply copy a tank design is difficult: "simple" re-engineering takes time, tooling to produce the different parts (and this could be tricky, just ask some Far East engineers) , different technologies used during production (just think of different welding methods). Also to copy, you either need an original, or the blueprints. During WWII both were not available for reasons of national pride, politics, etc. like others already pointed out. Therefore the question, why T-34īs werenīt produced by the US is easily answered.

So how bad was the M4 compared to his counterparts?

Certainly it wasnīt much worse than opponents. Reasons: The M4 had a good protection value (ok others had better), a sufficient armarment and good mobility. All this points are still of value in modern times tank/armor philosophy. So why was it often outclassed? Other nations, especially Germany and the USSR made the experience, that a longer gun combined with the right ammunition (longer rounds!) can fight opposing tanks at longer ranges (thatīs why the T-34/76 is at an disadvantage in a head-on-head confrontontation with a PzKpfw IV H). Also sloped armor makes for a better protection. Why? Because the angling of armor increases the basic thickness and the chance of a deflection of enemy shells without increasing overall weigth compared to straight armor. And for mobility: the broader your tankīs tracks are, combined with a good Horse power/weight ratio, the better a tank will perform in difficult ground conditions. And here the M4 was certainly not so much worse compared to the PzKpfw IV

And why did sovjet tankers like the M4? IMHO simple: the commander was freed of the duty of loading the gun (an aspect the T-34/85 turret had "automatically" built in), more comfort (good link, something the sovjets still donīt consider in their most modern designs) and already radios built in. And radios not just take up space, but also extra time to operate. Thatīs why most german panzer designs were constructed to take up a crew of 5 instead of 4 or less. A not to underestimate combat advantage, since every crew member has only a limited function to fullfill to make a tank an efficient combat vehicle.

Certainly the T-34/76 was at itīs most prominent time (1941/42) the best fighting vehicle of all nations (considering the basic values of tank combat abilities), in 1944 it was outdated to a certain degree (and yes Red Army units still fielded them in large numbers, and not just the 85 variant). And what most people forget: The Sherman was already planned before anything about the T-34 was known!

So to end my post, I just have one little question: when the german Tiger became known, why didnīt the allies simply copy that? My personal answer: To complicated to produce and maintain (Or didnīt anybody wonder why the oh so superior Panther should have been replaced by the E-series?)

Greetings

The US could have won their part of WW2 building no tanks other than the Renault FT-17. Quantity does have a quality of it's own, and no one could beat the US on quantity in WW2.

I really hoped I would not have to translate something again, but this discussion has gone for so long…
This is from memoirs of General-Leitnant Popelj tanki povernuli na zapad. On page 224 (of the Serbian edition) he compares T-34 an Sherman. In the end are particularly interesting notes.

In my military life I have sen many different tanks – foreign and of our own produce, which had different positive characteristics, but were not without shortcomings. Some were reliably protected with armour but of poor mobility, others, on the contrary, distinguished with great speed, but their thin armour feared encounters with even low caliber guns. There were huge tanks which reminded of land dreadnoughts. Because of their large dimensions they were best in the role of targets. The tall American Sherman was created to be a target to artillerymen, whereas the English Matildas and Vallensteins often became mass graves to their crews unless they managed to use the inappropriately placed reserve hatch.
T-34 I would call a tank-poem. And tankers will understand me. In it was achieved an astonishing harmony of characteristics necessary for combat: firepower, armour and mobility. It is not afraid of roadless terrain, it clears it's way through sand and mud. It fires both from stop and in movement. Its motor is powerful and simple.
Also one must add the harmony of lines. The sloping of the armour, roundness of the turret, low silhouette -all is rational, all breaths of will, strength and purposeful concentration.
T-34 has to a greater measure than any other tank type influenced the construction of tanks of all countries. Not one constructor created his tank without keeping the dimensions and qualities of the T-34 in his mind.
Perhaps I am biased? Then let speak their opinion those whom we can't doubt.
Here is what the English say:
T-34…High maneuvering capability and relatively spacious interior make the tank a favourite of the Soviet tankers… Its maneuvering capability, firepower and quality of the armour are exceptional. Additional positive characteristic of the construction is the sloping of the armour plates.
Here is what the Americans say:
In its basic solutions T-34 is a very good construction.
The acquaintance with the T-34 in 1943 forced the English to develop an analogous construction of the Cromwell tank. In the same year the Americans, after studying the T-34, achieved a capital modernization of the MZS tank and begun the production of the M4A2 General Sherman tanks.
But perhaps the most interesting is the opinion of the German experts, who observed our T-34 with scrutiny. In December 1942. the commander of the Kumllerdorf testing ground colonel Esser, at the meeting of the military-technical section of the society of German engineers claimed that:
Of the new tank types particularly distinguishes the tank T-34, which achieves the speed of 54 km/h and has 18 horse powers per tonne of weight. The Russians have created tanks which in construction and production without doubt deserve attention and in some elements surpass the tanks of our other adversaries.
And at a lecture in March 1942. in the tank school of Winsdorf it was stated even more openly:
Of the tanks that are at the disposal to the Red Army the most terrible is the T-34. Its efficient armament, skillfully used sloping of the armour and great mobility make combating it a difficult task.
Without saying, the most interesting is the acknowledgment of general Guderian, the ideologist of tank warfare, one of the most industrious creators of armoured troop of Wehrmacht. In his book, Memories of a soldier he writes the following:
In November 1941. the distinguished constructors, industrials and officers of the command for armament came to my tank army to see the Russian T-34 tank, which was stronger than our tanks. They wanted to come to an understanding on the spot and, based on experience from combat operations, determine measures which would assist us in regaining technical superiority over the Russians. Recommendations by the officers from the front to produce the same tanks as T-34 to mend the unfavourable situation of the German armoured forces in the shortest possible notice were not supported by constructors. Among other, the constructors were troubled not by the distaste to copying but also by the inability to produce the most important parts of the T-34 in the necessary timeframe, particularly the aluminum diesel engine. Besides, our alloyed steel, whose quality was also deteriorating because of the lack of necessary raw materials, was inferior to the Russian.

"Victory seems to have been achieved independently of the crappacity of each side's stuff."

Which seems to a point missed by many people. Operations Research by the War Office just after the war demonstrated that the principle determinant of the outcome of tank battles (based on analysis of 60+ engagements of batalion size or larger) was numbers of vehicles at the point of contact with a 20% tactical edge to the Germans – in line with Dupuys CEV rating. This was no doubt terribly depressing for NATO planners after the war who decided to ignore it and go for victory through quality.

"to the T-34, which was primarily an anti-tank tank"

Where on earth did the idea that the T34 was designed as an anti-tank tank come from? It was designed to be fast, 'shell proof' and to mount a dual purpose gun. Its main use was as an ersatz assault gun in support of infantry attacks.

I too think plasticviking's last post is both very funny, and as far as I understand it, true as well.

Pat

"She said she now understood the economic reasons more clearly, but she still did not understand
why the popular notion – as espoused in numerous History channel WWII programs – of the strengths and weaknesses of the T-34 and Sherman seem to be so at odds with many of the views found in this thread."

John Ford (the American Director) once said, given a choice between facts and myth, he would print the myth.

plenty of material for him here then

It's no simple thing to re-engineer an industry to mass-manufacture an all new vehicle type. Look at the problems Americna car makers are having trying to produce a hybrid vehicle to compete with the Prius and the Civic. These cars have been out for three years now.

"So to end my post, I just have one little question: when the german Tiger became known, why didnīt the allies simply copy that? My personal answer: To complicated to produce and maintain"

This is the critical issue to me…if we're going to steal a design, let's take the superior one, in terms of combat effectiveness, and then let's solve the issues of complication and maintenance through out superior engineering and manufacturing…that is our real talent, adding value to ideas that have fundamental flaws…a tiger that wasn't underpowered and breaking down every 3 miles…Think about the possibilities.

db

Troopwo, you attribute a quote to me which someone else posted.

This is the critical issue to me…if we're going to steal a design, let's take the superior one, in terms of combat effectiveness, and then let's solve the issues of complication and maintenance through out superior engineering and manufacturing…that is our real talent, adding value to ideas that have fundamental flaws…a tiger that wasn't underpowered and breaking down every 3 miles…Think about the possibilities.

We did do that – it's the M1.
It just took a few years to get it into production…
-Kle.

I was referring to the non-existent seat springs

Ah, I misinterpreted your post and thought you were saying there was no driver's seat.

It didn't need to be able to be lowered or raised unlike a seat in a tank with a roof hatch.
--
Tim

"Where on earth did the idea that the T34 was designed as an anti-tank tank come from? It was designed to be fast, 'shell proof' and to mount a dual purpose gun. Its main use was as an ersatz assault gun in support of infantry attacks"

I mistakenly compared the T-34/85 to the Sherman's 75mm. The T-34's original 76.2mm gun with a muzzle velocity of 2007 ft/sec was in fact not significantly superior to the Sherman's 75mm's 1,924 dt/sec muzzle velocity. Local WWII gamers advise me, however, there's more to it than muzzle velocity. They tell me the Sherman's ammunition was more reliable, the gun could be loaded faster, and the Sherman's turret could rotate faster which, if anything, would give the Sherman's 75mm gun an edge over the T-34's larger 76.2mm gun. Better?

The T-34/76 is probably the most overestimated AFV of the entire war.
On the upside it had a big gun (at the time of its introduction), low ground pressure (which is mainly needed in Russian mud, which exists about two months a year) and sloped armour on al sides (the importance of which is generally overestimated).
On the downside it was unreliable, lacked decent communications equipment, blinded it's crew once buttoned up, needed it's commander as part of it's gun-crew, lacked decent gun-laying equipment and was generally a death-trap on tracks.
It's over inflated image is mainly based on the Germans not being prepared for it and the Soviets managing to produce them at a slightly higher rate than the Germans managed to blow them up in.
The Sherman, on the other hand, could have benefited from a lower profile and lower ground pressure but was otherwise a much better piece of equipment.

Greetings, Frans.

Something to consider on the re-tooling side, why did the british keep producing the 2pdr after the 6pdr was developed? Because it was decided that it was better to have lots of inferior anti-tank guns now than a few slightly superior ones in a couple of months.

"The T-34/76 is probably the most overestimated AFV of the entire war.
On the upside it had a big gun (at the time of its introduction), low ground pressure (which is mainly needed in Russian mud, which exists about two months a year) and sloped armour on al sides (the importance of which is generally overestimated).
On the downside it was unreliable, lacked decent communications equipment, blinded it's crew once buttoned up, needed it's commander as part of it's gun-crew, lacked decent gun-laying equipment and was generally a death-trap on tracks.
It's over inflated image is mainly based on the Germans not being prepared for it and the Soviets managing to produce them at a slightly higher rate than the Germans managed to blow them up in.
The Sherman, on the other hand, could have benefited from a lower profile and lower ground pressure but was otherwise a much better piece of equipment."

of course, Frans, if either of them had been suffixed "Panzer" that would have vastly improved their capabilities

or should that have been prefixed?..I think you get my drift

I was being cheeky..Frans, I apologise….but, then again, the piece of poorly engineered junk that was the T-34 was almost certainly the single weapon system that destroyed more German AFV's than any other in the entirety of WWII

"We did do that – it's the M1."

We did too, it was called the Chieftan. Even managed to copy the Tigers legendary reliability.

"of course, Frans, if either of them had been suffixed "Panzer" that would have vastly improved their capabilities"

"or should that have been prefixed?..I think you get my drift"

"I was being cheeky..Frans, I apologise….but, then again, the piece of poorly engineered junk that was the T-34 was almost certainly the single weapon system that destroyed more German AFV's than any other in the entirety of WWII"

A dozen men armed with sticks managing to clobber one man armed with a revolver, after he shot half their number, doesn't make the stick a great weapons system.
The T-34 only "prevailed" because the Soviets managed to produce them slightly faster than the front consumed them.
I'm not interested in how many German AFV's got destroyed by T-34's, I'm only interested in how many T-34's had to become funeral pyres for every German AFV they killed.

And yes, I do get your "drift", it really defines you character.

Greetings, Frans.

'And yes, I do get your "drift", it really defines you character'.

Blimey Frans, haven't heard from you in a while, and a thread with no uber-cool Zen big cats, is the last place I thought you'd turn up, I thought the above post was rather beneath your usual humour, a nasty little barb, uncalled for, I'm not angry…… just a little disappointed. Now go away to the naughty step, and think about what you've done.
;-)

John

I think this is an interesting discussion. If I were in charge of U.S. tank production I would have copied the better aspects of a beg/borrowed/stolen T-34 tank. I would have had thicker\ sloped armor all-around, wider tracks, a better gun, and better suspension. That being said, hind-sight is 20/20. Also, it's true U.S. tank doctrine didn't include the idea that M4's would go against the German panzers, as was said before.

Also, the T-34 lacked a radio! What's up with that? Yes, they were produced fast and dirty, but the Panzers would knock out the lead Soviet commander's tank and the other red tanks would be confused and disorganized. Unfortunate, and easy targets.

Ultimately, I think the U.S. Army generals, designers, and war planners showed an amazing lack of imagination and foresight in reference to later german panzer developments, the Tiger, the Panther, the King Tiger, the Stug, and even the Hetzer, etc. The U.S. and Brits were stunned, and surprised by the "sudden" entry of the Tiger in the North African campaign. The U.S. had no M4 tank well armed enough to take out a late german tank from the front arc. It took an average of 5 knocked out M4s to kill a late war panzer, what a terrible waste of good soldiers. The Brits at least gave their tankers a fighting chance to brew up a panzer with the Firefly version of the M4. The U.S. generals and supply officers forbid the Firefly conversion in the U.S. forces. What a shame. It is too bad we can't time travel to correct this situation.
Cheers,
peterx