Soviet Vs American Armor pissing match.

[Gelgoog]

Thats right lets have it out.

Pershing vs IS-2

sherman M4A2 vs T-34/76A

Sherman M4A3E8(76)W vs T-34-85 (T-34/85)

X variant vs X variant.

[Oklop]

Let the pissing begin . JK, but this will be one incredible pissing match just about as great as other VS themes. Salute +1

Anyway, here is my opinion if the crews are about equal in training and experience but stupid enough to go one on one fair fights, knights style.

Pershing vs IS-2 - draw. IS has better armor but is slower in loading, however if it manages to get one shot on target with its overkill 122mm gun it is over for the target. But Pershing also had respectable gun and could fire faster so it is a draw.

Sherman M4A2 vs T-34/76A - tricky one, but leaning towards t34. Assuming equal crews, the Sherman has advantage of commanders cupola and thus better vision and crew comfort, but I beleive t34/76 has better sloped armor, better mobility due to wide tracks and a shade better gun and the later versions of the T34/76 had the commanders cupola so assuming a single shot and hit by each on the other there is a better chance for t34 to kill early Sherman than vice versa.

Sherman M4A3E8(76)W vs T-34-85 (T-34/85) - t34/85 by a margin. The best match up, and pretty equal, as easy 8 Sherman had good armor and gun especially with hyper velocity AP shot, but this shot appeared I think near the end of the war and the t34/85 had sub caliber shot, again appearing near the end of the war.
And the 85mm was I think better gun and the armor was better sloped on the t34.

T55 & T62 are equal to M48 & M60 (Pershing's son and grandson) and had lower silhouette but it all comes down to first shot on target and M60 had 105mm gun (better than 90mm on previous versions).

And here is where I must stop the comparing as when M1 enters it masters T55, T62 & T72, but these tanks are previous generations and intended to fight M60s to which they are equal (at least T62 & T72) and early M1 had 105mm gun so it was not quite the killer as with 120mm.

M1A2 and so on, and T80 & T90 are probably equalish but since both US Army and the Armed Forces of Russia refused to donate a piece each to be shot at by its counterpart (and they were mean and even laughed at me for suggesting, idiots) we can not compare.

[gsoxx]

Oh great a tank battle between SU/US! Never seen that before. The best of Asia against the best of the Americas!

I propose another duel:

The indomitable American King Tiger™

vs
The mighty Soviet Пантера

[Erwin Rommel]

Oh great a tank battle between SU/US! Never seen that before. The best of Asia against the best of the Americas!

I propose another duel:

The indomitable American King Tiger™

vs
The mighty Soviet Пантера

This. /thread



Please for the love of all that is decent and sane, before the floodgates are opened, lets just agree that the CHi-ha was good.

[hellheaven1987]

Please for the love of all that is decent and sane, before the floodgates are opened, lets just agree that the CHi-ha was good.

Ya... Perhaps when the armor upgrade to 5cm thick...

Off topic, but I just occupy Phillippine as Nationalist China in HoI3.

[Gelgoog]

Lets start by identifying some major flaws of the original T-34 design.

- 2 man turret which is horrible for command and control as well as gunnery. two man turrets drastically reduce the effectiveness of the tank.
-no internal or external communication. The germans proved how important having these were, and not having them was costly.
- very cramped ( crews fatique faster)
- engine exhaust could asphyxiate the crew

"The deficiency of our diesels is the criminally poor air cleaners on the T-34. The Americans consider that only a saboteur could have constructed such a device. They also don't understand why in our manuals it is called oil-bath. Their tests in a laboratory showed that:

- the air cleaner doesn't clean at all the air which is drawn into the motor;
- its capacity does not allow for the flow of the necessary quantity of air, even when the motor is idling. As a result, the motor does not achieve its full capacity. Dirt getting into the cylinders leads them to quickly wear out, compression drops, and the engine loses even more power. In addition, the filter was manufactured, from a mechanical point of view, extremely primitively: in places the spot-welding of the electric welding has burned through the metal, leading to leakage of oil etc. On the KV the filter is better manufactured, but it does not secure the flow in sufficient quantity of normal cleaned air. On both motors the starters are poor, being weak and of unreliable construction. "

- the placement of the fuel tank in front of the crew increased the risk of explosion when hit.
- transmissions were so bad that crew were reported to use sledge hammers to get into gear
- bad optics produced accuracy problems
- escape layout ( 1 hatch) meant that crews trying to ditch were in more danger
-suspension...the Christie system was good, but there is a reason the americans rejected it.

now the tank did have a few good spots
-good sloped armor ( although the welding was often very poor and sloppy)
- decent gun ( it had problems facing against tigers and panther)

however the problems listed above are quite significant, so much so that combat effectiveness would have been greatly hampered.

[Dr. Croccer]

Lets start by identifying some major flaws of the original T-34 design.

- 2 man turret which is horrible for command and control as well as gunnery. two man turrets drastically reduce the effectiveness of the tank.
-no internal or external communication. The germans proved how important having these were, and not having them was costly.
- very cramped ( crews fatique faster)
- engine exhaust could asphyxiate the crew

"The deficiency of our diesels is the criminally poor air cleaners on the T-34. The Americans consider that only a saboteur could have constructed such a device. They also don't understand why in our manuals it is called oil-bath. Their tests in a laboratory showed that:

- the air cleaner doesn't clean at all the air which is drawn into the motor;
- its capacity does not allow for the flow of the necessary quantity of air, even when the motor is idling. As a result, the motor does not achieve its full capacity. Dirt getting into the cylinders leads them to quickly wear out, compression drops, and the engine loses even more power. In addition, the filter was manufactured, from a mechanical point of view, extremely primitively: in places the spot-welding of the electric welding has burned through the metal, leading to leakage of oil etc. On the KV the filter is better manufactured, but it does not secure the flow in sufficient quantity of normal cleaned air. On both motors the starters are poor, being weak and of unreliable construction. "

- the placement of the fuel tank in front of the crew increased the risk of explosion when hit.
- transmissions were so bad that crew were reported to use sledge hammers to get into gear
- bad optics produced accuracy problems
- escape layout ( 1 hatch) meant that crews trying to ditch were in more danger
-suspension...the Christie system was good, but there is a reason the americans rejected it.

now the tank did have a few good spots
-good sloped armor ( although the welding was often very poor and sloppy)
- decent gun ( it had problems facing against tigers and panther)

however the problems listed above are quite significant, so much so that combat effectiveness would have been greatly hampered.

Rather one-sided this, no? The T-34 has been called the best tank of WWII, or even ever, for a reason. It was the first tank to use sloped armour, which was a massive advantage. It made it practically impervious to most German guns fired at the front. The Germans were not only forced to adapt their AT guns to combat this, but also copied it in the form of the Panther and King Tiger tanks.

The turret, originally, was ahead of it's time. It could pierce the armour of any contemporary German tank easily. Only Panthers, Tigers and King Tigers (the former being introduced in 1943) were immune to it, and not for long, seeing as a 85-mm turret was introduced in 1944.

Another advantage you fail to mention, but was incredibly important, were the wide tracks of the T-34 and effective heating of the engine and fuel. This allowed the T-34 to work effectivly in winter and the rasputitza,as opposed to German tanks.

Another was, of course, it's simplicity. It was easy to maintain, easy to repair.

Most of the problems you mention are rather trivial. Mostly about the comfort of the crew, which does not ''greatly hamper combat effectiveness''. I suggest you read books about the Eastern Front, especially the stories of the tank drivers themselves. Few complained about the T-34's uncomfort, largely because they were used to it and no other tank.

It should be noted that some problems, such as these:

'' the placement of the fuel tank in front of the crew increased the risk of explosion when hit.

- escape layout ( 1 hatch) meant that crews trying to ditch were in more danger''

were common place amongst tanks, especially American ones, like the Grant and Sherman. Especially the former (fuel tank) was a massive issue with the Sherman and Grant, largely because they had thin armour. A direct hit could easily cause the entire tank to explode or barbecue it's crew, hence the nickname for these tanks: ''Tommy Cookers''. The T-34, though it had the same problem, experienced it's nasty effects far less precisely because of the sloped armour. A direct (and lucky) hit from a Flak 88 or King Tiger could cause the ''tommy cooker'' effect with the T-34, but with a Sherman it was almost a basic happening. There have been many accounts of Tigers fighting several Shermans, and taking quite a lot down before they do themselves.

Again, what you're doing is rather unfair. You're makin hyperboles out of the drawbacks and understating the advantages. Moreover, you're forgetting the fact that most of these problems were common amongst many tanks, and were even more serious amongst many American tanks. I thought that was the point of this thread? Anyway, if you weigh the pros/cons of the T-34, and weight them against those of the Sherman, the T-34 is clearly the more superior tank. In a clash between a Pershing and a IS-2, it would be close, but I would have to say the IS-2. The firepower those things had was simply overkill. They massacred King Tigers for 's sake.

[Guderian's Duck]

Keep in mind that the M4A2 changed the Sherman design and introduced a "wet storage" system that greatly reduced the chance of fires caused by the ammo cooking off.

[patrick1191]

It was the first tank to use sloped armour,

Nope, it wasn't.

[Gelgoog]

Rather one-sided this, no? The T-34 has been called the best tank of WWII, or even ever, for a reason. It was the first tank to use sloped armour, which was a massive advantage. It made it practically impervious to most German guns fired at the front. The Germans were not only forced to adapt their AT guns to combat this, but also copied it in the form of the Panther and King Tiger tanks.

I already noted these.

besides, the when the T-34 arrived on scene it was mostly being confronted with tanks and anti-tank guns using 37mm or 50mm pak guns. The high velocity 75mm pak was enough to deal with these.

The turret, originally, was ahead of it's time. It could pierce the armour of any contemporary German tank easily. Only Panthers, Tigers and King Tigers (the former being introduced in 1943) were immune to it, and not for long, seeing as a 85-mm turret was introduced in 1944.

you mean the gun, not the turret. The turret of the T-34 was horrible. Having the tank commander act as both gunner and tank commander had already proven to be a horrible failing on french tanks, its simply to much for the tank commander to do.

Another advantage you fail to mention, but was incredibly important, were the wide tracks of the T-34 and effective heating of the engine and fuel. This allowed the T-34 to work effectivly in winter and the rasputitza,as opposed to German tanks.

yes, they were good for weight distribution

Another was, of course, it's simplicity. It was easy to maintain, easy to repair.

simplicity is good when quality control is good. The soviets rushing tanks to the front often did shotty work. If you do not weld the armor correctly ,then shells that should not penetrate might crack the armor.

Most of the problems you mention are rather trivial. Mostly about the comfort of the crew, which does not ''greatly hamper combat effectiveness''. I suggest you read books about the Eastern Front, especially the stories of the tank drivers themselves. Few complained about the T-34's uncomfort, largely because they were used to it and no other tank.

the problems I mentioned are actually very serious ones. A two man turret- critical problem, lack of communications- critical problem, lack of good optics- very serious. having a very cramped tank is also a serious problem, crews being fatigued faster can hamper operations and make crews sloppy. Will the tank work with these problems...sure, but it won't work as well and you certainly will not get the full potential out of your crews if you put so many burdens in their way. Anyone tank commander will tell you that these are serious problems, the russians fighting in them despite does not mean there is no problem.

It should be noted that some problems, such as these:

'' the placement of the fuel tank in front of the crew increased the risk of explosion when hit.

- escape layout ( 1 hatch) meant that crews trying to ditch were in more danger''

were common place amongst tanks,

a problem is a problem, regardless if other tanks had them.

especially American ones, like the Grant and Sherman. Especially the former (fuel tank) was a massive issue with the Sherman and Grant, largely because they had thin armour. A direct hit could easily cause the entire tank to explode or barbecue it's crew, hence the nickname for these tanks: ''Tommy Cookers''.

yes and this problem was later solved with self sealing gas tanks and a wet ammunition storage. The same can not be said for russian tanks.

The T-34, though it had the same problem, experienced it's nasty effects far less precisely because of the sloped armour. A direct (and lucky) hit from a Flak 88 or King Tiger could cause the ''tommy cooker'' effect with the T-34, but with a Sherman it was almost a basic happening. There have been many accounts of Tigers fighting several Shermans, and taking quite a lot down before they do themselves.

this problem is often more attributed to ammunition catching fire due to the shermans dry storage system and extra ammo being stored in rack for ready use, instead of the gas tanks. As I said above, this problem was rectified during the war.

Again, what you're doing is rather unfair. You're makin hyperboles out of the drawbacks and understating the advantages. Moreover, you're forgetting the fact that most of these problems were common amongst many tanks, and were even more serious amongst many American tanks. I thought that was the point of this thread?

I am starting out with the flaws in the T-34 before everyone randomly jumps in saying the T-34 was the perfect tank without understanding it especially in the early tanks had some major flaws. Later models of the T-34 would be substantially better, but in its early incarnations it was quite bad except for its armor saving it.

Anyway, if you weigh the pros/cons of the T-34, and weight them against those of the Sherman, the T-34 is clearly the more superior tank.

Oh believe me, we will get to the sherman.

In a clash between a Pershing and a IS-2, it would be close, but I would have to say the IS-2. The firepower those things had was simply overkill. They massacred King Tigers for 's sake.

actually the IS-2 had pretty horrible penetration for such a large gun.

"After testing with both BS-3 and A-19 guns, the latter was selected as the main armament of the new tank, primarily because of its ready availability and the effect of its large high-explosive shell when attacking German fortifications. The A-19 used a separate shell and powder charge, resulting in a lower rate of fire and reduced ammunition capacity, both serious disadvantages in tank-to-tank engagements. However, the gun was very powerful, and while its 122 mm armour piercing shell had a lower muzzle velocity than similar late-issue German 75 mm and 88 mm guns, Soviet proving-ground tests established that the A-19 could penetrate the front armour of the German Panther tank [2], and it was therefore considered adequate in the anti-tank role.

German Army data on the penetration ranges of the 122 mm A-19 gun against the Panther tank showed it to be much less effective than the Soviets thought: the A-19 gun was unable to penetrate the glacis plate of the Panther at any distance, and could only penetrate the bottom front plate of the hull at 100 m.[3] It was however the large HE shell the gun fired which was its main asset, proving highly useful and destructive in the anti-personnel role. The size of its gun continued to plague the IS-2, the two-piece ammunition was difficult to manhandle and very slow to reload (the rate of fire was only about two rounds per minute). Another limitation imposed by the size of its ammunition was the payload: a mere 28 rounds could to be carried inside the tank. [4]"

The saving grace for the IS-2 was its heavy armor, but it was not really that good for tank vs tank combat. As pointed above, it was more of a heavy support tank for the breakthrough role of taking out heavily fortified areas.

[Dr. Croccer]

I already noted these.

Your notation was extremely underwhelming for something that was so vital.

besides, the when the T-34 arrived on scene it was mostly being confronted with tanks and anti-tank guns using 37mm or 50mm pak guns. The high velocity 75mm pak was enough to deal with these.

No they weren't.

In 1941 the thick, sloped armour of the T-34 could defeat all German anti-armour weapons at normal combat ranges except the towed 88 mm Flak guns. By mid-1942 the T-34 had become vulnerable to improved German weapons and remained so throughout the war, but its armour protection was equal to or superior to comparable tanks such as the US M4 Sherman or German Pzkw-IV.

The German infantry, at that time armed mostly with PaK 36 37 mm (1.46 in) antitank gun, had no effective means of stopping T-34s. During the Battle of France the Pak 36 had earned the nickname "Door Knocker" due to its inability to penetrate anything but the lightest tank armour, though it worked very well at announcing the presence of the gun crew. Needless to say, crews of these weapons fighting on the Eastern front also found it severely underpowered for engaging Soviet tanks, often having to rely on heavier towed firepower, such as the relatively rare but effective Pak 38, the newer and much heavier Pak 40 and especially the 88 mm Flak guns that could not be moved into location as easily.

The Pak 40 and Flak could puncture T-34 armour, but these were a rarity on the Eastern Front. Most German AT crew kept using Pak 38s.

you mean the gun, not the turret. The turret of the T-34 was horrible. Having the tank commander act as both gunner and tank commander had already proven to be a horrible failing on french tanks, its simply to much for the tank commander to do.

Again, a rather trivial issue, which was solved in the T-34/85 model, based on German crew positions.

yes, they were good for weight distribution

Well, not only that but it enabled the T-34 to strike when German vehicles were bogged down in the mud or had to be pre-warmed for most of the day, which was a massive advantage.

simplicity is good when quality control is good. The soviets rushing tanks to the front often did shotty work. If you do not weld the armor correctly ,then shells that should not penetrate might crack the armor.

Not true. Where do you get this stuff? T-34 armour had clear welding marks but they weren't ''rushed to the front'' with massive faults like the late German tanks were. Again, the T-34 had an extremely simple yet robust design which enabled it to be mass produced yet still be an extremely powerful tank.

''The cost to produce a T-34-85 tank was initially about thirty percent higher than a Model 1943, at 164,000 rubles; but by 1945 it was down to 142,000 (Harrison 2002:181). During the course of the war, the cost of a T-34 tank had been reduced by almost half, from 270,000 rubles in 1941 (Harrison 2002:181), while in the meantime its top speed remained about the same, and its main gun's armour penetration and turret frontal armour thickness both nearly doubled ''

the problems I mentioned are actually very serious ones. A two man turret- critical problem, lack of communications- critical problem, lack of good optics- very serious. having a very cramped tank is also a serious problem, crews being fatigued faster can hamper operations and make crews sloppy. Will the tank work with these problems...sure, but it won't work as well and you certainly will not get the full potential out of your crews if you put so many burdens in their way. Anyone tank commander will tell you that these are serious problems, the russians fighting in them despite does not mean there is no problem.

They were not serious problems because they were either solved in later versions or Soviet crew were ued to it. Again, I really suggest you read a book about the Eastern Front, such as Beevor's Berlin, it's got a lot of quotes of Soviet tank crew who adored their vehicles and even stuffed it full with loot, alcohol, rations and other stuff.

a problem is a problem, regardless if other tanks had them.

What? I thought the entire point of this thread was to compare American tanks with Soviet ones? American tanks suffered from many of the problems you mentioned (''tommy cooker''

yes and this problem was later solved with self sealing gas tanks and a wet ammunition storage.

Yeah, in 1945. The chanches of Shermans of bursting into flames was still nearly 20%.

The same can not be said for russian tanks.

Largely because Russian tanks never suffered from these problems as much as Shermans did. Again, Shermans had no sloped frontal armour, meaning that a direct hit from a Pak 40 or Panther could easily destroy the vehicle, with a T-34 this was a far more slim possibility. Shermans also encountered Flak 88s and other heavy AT guns far more often than the Russians did. German defensive policy in the west was considerably better than in the east.

this problem is often more attributed to ammunition catching fire due to the shermans dry storage system and extra ammo being stored in rack for ready use, instead of the gas tanks. As I said above, this problem was rectified during the war.

Yeah, just before the war ended.

I am starting out with the flaws in the T-34 before everyone randomly jumps in saying the T-34 was the perfect tank without understanding it especially in the early tanks had some major flaws. Later models of the T-34 would be substantially better, but in its early incarnations it was quite bad except for its armor saving it.

All early incarnations were terrible, that can be said of any tank. Again, you're being rather a hypocrite here. The Sherman's early incarnation was awful as well, largely thanks to the incompetence of American tank strategists. All tanks gradually developed during the war.

actually the IS-2 had pretty horrible penetration for such a large gun.

"After testing with both BS-3 and A-19 guns, the latter was selected as the main armament of the new tank, primarily because of its ready availability and the effect of its large high-explosive shell when attacking German fortifications. The A-19 used a separate shell and powder charge, resulting in a lower rate of fire and reduced ammunition capacity, both serious disadvantages in tank-to-tank engagements. However, the gun was very powerful, and while its 122 mm armour piercing shell had a lower muzzle velocity than similar late-issue German 75 mm and 88 mm guns, Soviet proving-ground tests established that the A-19 could penetrate the front armour of the German Panther tank [2], and it was therefore considered adequate in the anti-tank role.

German Army data on the penetration ranges of the 122 mm A-19 gun against the Panther tank showed it to be much less effective than the Soviets thought: the A-19 gun was unable to penetrate the glacis plate of the Panther at any distance, and could only penetrate the bottom front plate of the hull at 100 m.[3] It was however the large HE shell the gun fired which was its main asset, proving highly useful and destructive in the anti-personnel role. The size of its gun continued to plague the IS-2, the two-piece ammunition was difficult to manhandle and very slow to reload (the rate of fire was only about two rounds per minute). Another limitation imposed by the size of its ammunition was the payload: a mere 28 rounds could to be carried inside the tank. [4]"

The saving grace for the IS-2 was its heavy armor, but it was not really that good for tank vs tank combat. As pointed above, it was more of a heavy support tank for the breakthrough role of taking out heavily fortified areas.

Later improved IS-2s (the model 1944), had a faster-loading version of the gun, the D25-T with a double-baffle muzzle brake and better fire-control. It also featured a simpler hull front without a 'step' in it (using a flat, sloping glacis armour plate). Some sources called it IS-2m, but it is not to be confused with the official Soviet designation IS-2M for a 1950s modernization. Other minor upgrades included the addition of a travel lock on the hull rear, wider mantlet, and, on very late models, an antiaircraft machine gun.

And, again, these things were indeed extremely effective in a tank v tank role. They often took out Tigers and King Tigers with minimal losses. Though yes, this tank was mainly designed for breakthrough, with it's targets being infantry and artillery. Though, as stated above, it was very effective against German tanks, even the mighty King Tiger.

The first engagement of Soviet tanks with King Tigers did not favor the Germans; on August 13 of 1944 a company of JS-2 tanks (the 3rd Battalion of the 71st Guards Heavy Tank Regiment) commanded 1st Lieutenant Klimenkov engaged in close combat with German tanks, knocked out one King Tiger and burnt another King Tiger. About at the same time, a single JS-2 of the 1st Lieutenant Udalov ambushed 7 King Tigers, knocked out one of them and burnt another one. Survived five German tanks attempted to retreat but Udalov made a maneuver and destroyed third King Tiger. Four other tanks flee in panic. Details of that battle are here.

Anyway, engagements between JS-2's and King Tigers were rare because the Germans seldom used them on the Eastern Front. On 12 November 1944, not far from Budapest, a skirmish occurred between JS-2's and King Tigers of the 503rd PzAbt. Both sides lost several tanks. On January 12, 1945, a column of King Tigers of the 524th PzAbt engaged in close combat with JS-2's (near Lisuv). In the fierce battle both sides had heavy losses.

It is not fair to compare the JS-2 and King Tiger because of the large disparity in weight - more than 20 tons! It would be better to classify the King Tiger as a super-heavy tank. It had thicker armor and its 88 KwK gun was slightly superior in AP ability, though inferior in HE ability.

Many times I noticed some individuals tried to compare armor penetration values of the 8,8-cm KwK 43 and the 122-mm D-25T. Unfortunately, these individuals paid no attention on different nature of those values: they were calculated by different methods. In short, the difference of calculation was about 25%. Therefore, it would be better to either increase Soviet figures on 25% or decrease German figures. Of course, the result would be very approximate, but it is much better then direct comparison.
The reliability of the King Tiger was poor, especially of first series, this is clearly stated in the follow report. The rate of fire of the King Tiger was definitely higher, ammo load was also larger. From the other side, the mobility of the JS-2 was much better. Further, the JS-2 was much cheaper than the King Tiger, which is also a very important consideration.

http://www.battlefield.ru/content/view/34/50/lang,en/

Before you shout ''OMG RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA'', the battle mentioned first did indeed happen. It was originally on Wikipedia on the IS page but I can't find it anymore.

[Gelgoog]

No they weren't.
The Pak 40 and Flak could puncture T-34 armour, but these were a rarity on the Eastern Front. Most German AT crew kept using Pak 38s.

dude, you just confirmed my point with that wiki post.

Again, a rather trivial issue, which was solved in the T-34/85 model, based on German crew positions.

Seriously flaws like those I listed above are trivial because they got fixed later? Tell that to the 34,780 T-34/76 tanks produced during the war, 60% of the T-34s produced. I guess by that same logic, the weak armor and "rosin lighter" ability of the early shermans were trivial issues because they were fixed in later tanks. If you do not think a two man turret, bad optics, bad transmissions, lack of radios and other problems are trivial, then you might as well walk out of this thread right now showing your complete ignorance on the matter.

Not true. Where do you get this stuff? T-34 armour had clear welding marks but they weren't ''rushed to the front'' with massive faults like the late German tanks were. Again, the T-34 had an extremely simple yet robust design which enabled it to be mass produced yet still be an extremely powerful tank.

this came from evaluations by workers at the Aberdeen testing grounds.

''The cost to produce a T-34-85 tank was initially about thirty percent higher than a Model 1943, at 164,000 rubles; but by 1945 it was down to 142,000 (Harrison 2002:181). During the course of the war, the cost of a T-34 tank had been reduced by almost half, from 270,000 rubles in 1941 (Harrison 2002:181), while in the meantime its top speed remained about the same, and its main gun's armour penetration and turret frontal armour thickness both nearly doubled ''

I am not figuring in cost , because both the sherman and T-34 were cheap to produce in comparison to german tanks.

They were not serious problems because they were either solved in later versions or Soviet crew were ued to it. Again, I really suggest you read a book about the Eastern Front, such as Beevor's Berlin, it's got a lot of quotes of Soviet tank crew who adored their vehicles and even stuffed it full with loot, alcohol, rations and other stuff.

Ok tell me why they are not serious problems...explain to me how 34,000 vehicles with these "issues" is not a problem because 22,000 vehicles build later did not have these "issues".

What? I thought the entire point of this thread was to compare American tanks with Soviet ones? American tanks suffered from many of the problems you mentioned (''tommy cooker''

they suffered from a few problems, but the American tanks from the beginning did not suffer from alot of those listed, as well as they had many features that even the germans did not have.

Yeah, in 1945. The chanches of Shermans of bursting into flames was still nearly 20%.
Largely because Russian tanks never suffered from these problems as much as Shermans did.

Yes well 45 is the only time a face off could have occured. The addition of wet storage, moving ammunition storage to the front hull, putting water jackets around the turret storage, and adding self sealing gas tanks, meant that a sherman only lit up in about 10% of the incidents if it was penetrated. If anything the T-34 would have been more likely to go up in flames at the end of the war because it still stored its munitions the same way early shermans did and did not have self sealing gas tanks.

Again, Shermans had no sloped frontal armour, meaning that a direct hit from a Pak 40 or Panther could easily destroy the vehicle, with a T-34 this was a far more slim possibility.

The shermans armor was designed to withstand attack from the 50mm gun on the german panzer III which was its main opponent in north africa. The sherman faired very well against their medium tank opponents when it was created. However The sherman sacrificed a bit of armor protection for speed, it was intended as a cavalry tank. It is one reason why heavily armored prototypes were continually rejected.

Shermans also encountered Flak 88s and other heavy AT guns far more often than the Russians did. German defensive policy in the west was considerably better than in the east.

exactly why sherman tank loses were quite high. Not because a sherman was a bad tank, but because it was facing a very well entrenched enemy.

All early incarnations were terrible, that can be said of any tank. Again, you're being rather a hypocrite here. The Sherman's early incarnation was awful as well, largely thanks to the incompetence of American tank strategists. All tanks gradually developed during the war.

it was awful later in the war. The early shermans were the best medium tank the allies had, and were hands down better then the german medium tanks. Its only when the panthers and tigers started showing up during the invasion of normandy, was the sherman outmatched. Medium tanks going up against heavy tanks is usually a problem even the soviets.

The early sherman was actually the best tank of the war in its intended role. cavalry and infantry support. People who know very little about armored warfare assume that the tanks main role is to take out other tanks. However throughout the entire war ( this is true for all tanks including the T-34) the main role of the tank is to support infantry operations. Tank vs Tank combat accounted for a small percentage of the tanks role. This is why American tank doctrine emphasized the tank destroyer concept( which of course did not pan out as well). However the fact remains is that the Sherman was the best infantry tank of the war. In the anti tank role, the early sherman was quite good at taking on other tanks in its class...it was not designed to take on heavy tanks.

[touchmaster]

Lets start by identifying some major flaws of the original T-34 design.

- 2 man turret which is horrible for command and control as well as gunnery. two man turrets drastically reduce the effectiveness of the tank.
-no internal or external communication. The germans proved how important having these were, and not having them was costly.
- very cramped ( crews fatique faster)
- engine exhaust could asphyxiate the crew

"The deficiency of our diesels is the criminally poor air cleaners on the T-34. The Americans consider that only a saboteur could have constructed such a device. They also don't understand why in our manuals it is called oil-bath. Their tests in a laboratory showed that:

- the air cleaner doesn't clean at all the air which is drawn into the motor;
- its capacity does not allow for the flow of the necessary quantity of air, even when the motor is idling. As a result, the motor does not achieve its full capacity. Dirt getting into the cylinders leads them to quickly wear out, compression drops, and the engine loses even more power. In addition, the filter was manufactured, from a mechanical point of view, extremely primitively: in places the spot-welding of the electric welding has burned through the metal, leading to leakage of oil etc. On the KV the filter is better manufactured, but it does not secure the flow in sufficient quantity of normal cleaned air. On both motors the starters are poor, being weak and of unreliable construction. "

- the placement of the fuel tank in front of the crew increased the risk of explosion when hit.
- transmissions were so bad that crew were reported to use sledge hammers to get into gear
- bad optics produced accuracy problems
- escape layout ( 1 hatch) meant that crews trying to ditch were in more danger
-suspension...the Christie system was good, but there is a reason the americans rejected it.

now the tank did have a few good spots
-good sloped armor ( although the welding was often very poor and sloppy)
- decent gun ( it had problems facing against tigers and panther)

however the problems listed above are quite significant, so much so that combat effectiveness would have been greatly hampered.

Soviets could care less about the crew

[Oklop]

I think Soviets wanted to use 100 or 107mm naval gun in IS 2 because of greater penetrative power (velocity was higher) but since 122 was in production in large numbers and even more importantly ammo for 122 was produced in huge numbers it was decided to use it instead. And the gun was powerful enough to knock out Panthers and Tigers even if it did not penetrate the armor.

[DAVIDE]

Pershing vs IS-2

Pershing is medium tank, IS-2 is heavy

sherman M4A2 vs T-34/76A

Sherman's a medium tank, T-34 is medium/heavy tank

Sherman M4A3E8(76)W vs T-34-85 (T-34/85)

X variant vs X variant.

Sherman is a medium tank, T34 is medium/heavy tank



you should take tanks of the same class, as Panther vs IS-2



anyway sherman tanks werent armoured sufficently against german counterparts. A german KwK 40 7.5 cm L/48 was able to penetrate sherman armor without using the main cannon

[Blacknight_1990]

Sherman's a medium tank, T-34 is medium/heavy tank

Sherman is a medium tank, T34 is medium/heavy tank

you should take tanks of the same class, as Panther vs IS-2

According to wikipedia (I schouldn't use it but I'm not at home, so I don't have acces to my books) the M4 Sherman was heavier than the T-34 and had thicker armor (which wasn't sloped, so it was less effective). The M4 and the original T-34 had a main armament with a similar caliber.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34

[Town Watch]

I would also say that Pershing vs IS-2, its most likely a draw, for the reasons already stated. King tigers against IS-2s, the battles themselves showed that King tiger was no slouch, often after the battle there would be an equal number of both Russian and German burning tank hulls littering the battlefield (unless it was some kind of an ambush, by either side). On longer ranges the king tiger would most likely be the clear winner though, at short and medium ranges the original howitzer that was mounted on the IS-2s started to become more competitive. King tiger still had larger ammo capacity and maybe reload time as well.


However gotta have to remember here, that in the opening post, it wasn't specified that these tank comparisons were confined to WW2 era. The tanks themselves existed after WW2 and were used after WW2 against each other (in the Korean War for instance). So I don't think we should discard the WAY better armour-penetrating rounds of the Americans so readily. That being said, I'd rate Easy 8 better than the last model of T-34.

[DAVIDE]

T-34 medium tanks used 85 mm guns, comparable in calibre to 88 mm guns on Tiger heavy tanks. However, because of their armour and speed, and their weapons' strength, the two are ranked in different classes. Practically, the two belongs to the same category. Germans at the time, for example, considered Panther tank as "medium" due to the presence of its much larger Tiger II. Anyway every country had a tank classification system due to three major roles: infantry, light, and cavalry

[Zhangir]

You can't compare Shermans and T-34s...
In T-34s it's not quality that matters, it's the quantity...

EDIT:
Matter of fact, You can't compare Soviet and American tanks in battle (of course you can compare their characteristics, etc)
Depends on the whole lot of factors, and not only on the slope of armor, number of mm. in the back, flank and front armour or armour of the turret...
JagdTiger was 250mm (as far as i remember) in the front...
Some American soldier simply threw a grenade inside...

(or was that Kings Tiger? Dont remember now)

Etc...

Please note that T-34 was much more numerous that Sherman
While Sherman was much more reliable
The T-34 engine initially could bear only 50 hours of work (if you want reference, please read most of the non-biased post-Soviet Russian historians, notably this comes from Suvorov, if i am not mistaken)
Then again, if you want to compare them you should see them battle, or see someone battle against one and then another.

[Dr. Croccer]

You can't compare Shermans and T-34s...
In T-34s it's not quality that matters, it's the quantity...

Though the T-34 was both. It had extremely good armour, a powerful turret and could be mass produced. I can't say the same about the sherman, whose only real advantage was indeed it's numbers.