T-34 vs Sherman (Irl)

[I'm a Fascist]

Which tank was better during the second world war? If we compare T-34 76 to M4A1 Sherman which one was a better tank? If we compare T-34 85 to some Sherman variant. which one was better? Any tank experts out there?

[Katitoff]

T34 was hands down superior.

Lower, higher slope angle, 76mm gun was comparable to shermans 75mm.
It also had much wider tracks(better off-road capabilities) and lower profile(easier to camo and hide it)

It was cheaper to produce and much simplier design, allowing for literally pumping one after another.

Germany pretty much was a living proof that it doesn't matter if your tank can knock 10 tanks out before going down, when opponent can just produce 20 at the same cost.

"Quantity is quality on its own" and that was extremely accurate in ww2 tank warfare.

[I'm a Fascist]

Originally posted by Katitoff:

T34 was hands down superior.

Lower, higher slope angle, 76mm gun was comparable to shermans 75mm.
It also had much wider tracks(better off-road capabilities) and lower profile(easier to camo and hide it)

It was cheaper to produce and much simplier design, allowing for literally pumping one after another.

Germany pretty much was a living proof that it doesn't matter if your tank can knock 10 tanks out before going down, when opponent can just produce 20 at the same cost.

"Quantity is quality on its own" and that was extremely accurate in ww2 tank warfare.

What I meant by T-34 vs Sherman is how each tank performed in battle. Like which one has better armor, and etc...

[SydneyAngel]

Go over to Youtube and search for t34 vs sherman

[Scrotum Scratcher]

M4

American steel was better, due to better metallurgy, production techniques, rolling and heat treatment. Soviets had a horrible spalling problem - even if a shell didn’t penetrate the sloped armour of T-34, it could transfer its kinetic energy to the plate which would shatter inside, spreading shrapnel inside the tank. So even if the T-34 could endure a German hit, the ricocheting shrapnel due to spalling could still kill or maim the occupants inside.

The T-34 had sloped armor all around and a small profile which cramped the crew tremendously, while the M4 sherman has a sloped front glacis and flat sides/rear, offering more space.

The 76mm and 75mm had similar performance, but I don't think the T-34-76 could use HVAP rounds while shermans could. The M4 however had 5 crew members, while the T-34 had 4. This meant the M4 had a dedicated loader, improving the effectiveness of reload rates and the effectiveness of the commander at commanding the tank, spotting targets, and taking over weapon systems if a crew member is injured or killed. The M4 sherman also had more gun depression, allowing the tank to go into a hull down position to shoot downhill. The T-34 did not have much gun depression, forcing the crew to get onto flat ground and it did not allow T-34s to hide behind hills for cover.

T34 tracks were better offroad while M4 rubber tracks were better on roads. The M4 had a better suspension system (volute spring suspension) which allowed easier targeting while moving and stability while driving.

Both tanks were basically tin cans armour-wise. Both had a reputation of death trap. Both tanks would similarly ignite when hit. The initial M4 because of the improper (dry) storage of ammunition in the turret (it had a tendency to cook) and T-34 because it was almost impossible to escape from one. The Germans had a nickname “Micky-Maus” for T-34/1943 because when hit, the explosion pressure inside would throw the circular turret hatches open like the ears of Mickey Mouse. It is assumed 85% of Sherman tankers could escape a destroyed Sherman while only some 15% of T-34 tankers would survive such situation. Every crewmember had a hatch to escape from in the sherman.

Later shermans were given wet ammo stowage that drastically decreased ammo cookoff.

M4 Sherman was considered extremely reliable and well-engineered. It could be supplied either with diesel or gasoline engine, and in practise they did not have difference - it was more a question of logistics. Shermans were also made to be transported by railroads from the factory and then shipped off the Pacific/Atlantic ocean. Most Shermans never required any overhaul solely due to wear in WWII. T-34 had no quality control whatsoever, and it was assumed a good example would last 1000 km without a major overhaul whilst a bad specimen would break mechanically up after 300 km. The cylinder block of T-34 was aluminum - a bad choice of strategic material.

Some T-34 tanks were not even fully completed and rushed to the frontlines, lacking paint jobs and even optic/gun sights.

Lastly, Russians used sherman lendlease tanks and found them effective, and they finally faced off against eachother in the Korean War.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/9u23nd/a_sherman_is_passing_near_t3485s_wreck_korean_war/

Here's some armor values

T34 - 45mm at 60 deg from vert = 90mm effective (T34 did not upgrade glacis )

M4A1 - (upper) 51mm at 37 deg 62.86 effective - 51mm at 55deg = 88.92 effective

M4A1 - (lower) 51mm at 45deg = 72.12 effective

M4A2 - 64mm at 47deg (upper front) 93.84 and 51mm at 56deg (lower) 91.2

M4A3 -51mm at 56deg (upper& lower front) 91.2

M4A1 (76) 64mm at 37 deg (lower) 80.14 effective and 64mm at 47 deg = 93.84 effective

Armor is basically equal between the T-34 and M4 shermans, especially if you consider the difference in the quality of material used.

Both tanks were effective and fit each country's needs however.

[Felinewolfie]

[quote=Scrotum Scratcher;

*Bows to your knowledge of the copy-paste".

Amazing answer, however ^_^

[Midare-Saki]

1. sounds like 1942-1943 so definately shermans.from about a year or 2 after lend lease t34s required more steel and fuel besides from technique changes. after that its pretty much fair game.
2. sounds like m4a3 or easy8 - t3485
but if you notice in korean war they basically admit shermans were better, the losses were also pretty far apart

[TankinatorXD]

Originally posted by Felinewolfie:

[quote=Scrotum Scratcher;

*Bows to your knowledge of the copy-paste".

Amazing answer, however ^_^

What? He made some very basic msitakes...

[TankinatorXD]

Originally posted by Scrotum Scratcher:

M4

American steel was better, due to better metallurgy, production techniques, rolling and heat treatment. Soviets had a horrible spalling problem - even if a shell didn’t penetrate the sloped armour of T-34, it could transfer its kinetic energy to the plate which would shatter inside, spreading shrapnel inside the tank. So even if the T-34 could endure a German hit, the ricocheting shrapnel due to spalling could still kill or maim the occupants inside.

The T-34 had sloped armor all around and a small profile which cramped the crew tremendously, while the M4 sherman has a sloped front glacis and flat sides/rear, offering more space.

The 76mm and 75mm had similar performance, but I don't think the T-34-76 could use HVAP rounds while shermans could. The M4 however had 5 crew members, while the T-34 had 4. This meant the M4 had a dedicated loader, improving the effectiveness of reload rates and the effectiveness of the commander at commanding the tank, spotting targets, and taking over weapon systems if a crew member is injured or killed. The M4 sherman also had more gun depression, allowing the tank to go into a hull down position to shoot downhill. The T-34 did not have much gun depression, forcing the crew to get onto flat ground and it did not allow T-34s to hide behind hills for cover.

T34 tracks were better offroad while M4 rubber tracks were better on roads. The M4 had a better suspension system (volute spring suspension) which allowed easier targeting while moving and stability while driving.

Both tanks were basically tin cans armour-wise. Both had a reputation of death trap. Both tanks would similarly ignite when hit. The initial M4 because of the improper (dry) storage of ammunition in the turret (it had a tendency to cook) and T-34 because it was almost impossible to escape from one. The Germans had a nickname “Micky-Maus” for T-34/1943 because when hit, the explosion pressure inside would throw the circular turret hatches open like the ears of Mickey Mouse. It is assumed 85% of Sherman tankers could escape a destroyed Sherman while only some 15% of T-34 tankers would survive such situation. Every crewmember had a hatch to escape from in the sherman.

Later shermans were given wet ammo stowage that drastically decreased ammo cookoff.

M4 Sherman was considered extremely reliable and well-engineered. It could be supplied either with diesel or gasoline engine, and in practise they did not have difference - it was more a question of logistics. Shermans were also made to be transported by railroads from the factory and then shipped off the Pacific/Atlantic ocean. Most Shermans never required any overhaul solely due to wear in WWII. T-34 had no quality control whatsoever, and it was assumed a good example would last 1000 km without a major overhaul whilst a bad specimen would break mechanically up after 300 km. The cylinder block of T-34 was aluminum - a bad choice of strategic material.

Some T-34 tanks were not even fully completed and rushed to the frontlines, lacking paint jobs and even optic/gun sights.

Lastly, Russians used sherman lendlease tanks and found them effective, and they finally faced off against eachother in the Korean War.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/9u23nd/a_sherman_is_passing_near_t3485s_wreck_korean_war/

Here's some armor values

T34 - 45mm at 60 deg from vert = 90mm effective (T34 did not upgrade glacis )

M4A1 - (upper) 51mm at 37 deg 62.86 effective - 51mm at 55deg = 88.92 effective

M4A1 - (lower) 51mm at 45deg = 72.12 effective

M4A2 - 64mm at 47deg (upper front) 93.84 and 51mm at 56deg (lower) 91.2

M4A3 -51mm at 56deg (upper& lower front) 91.2

M4A1 (76) 64mm at 37 deg (lower) 80.14 effective and 64mm at 47 deg = 93.84 effective

Armor is basically equal between the T-34 and M4 shermans, especially if you consider the difference in the quality of material used.

Both tanks were effective and fit each country's needs however.

"American steel was better, due to better metallurgy, production techniques, rolling and heat treatment. Soviets had a horrible spalling problem - even if a shell didn’t penetrate the sloped armour of T-34, it could transfer its kinetic energy to the plate which would shatter inside, spreading shrapnel inside the tank. So even if the T-34 could endure a German hit, the ricocheting shrapnel due to spalling could still kill or maim the occupants inside."

I would like to get a source for this because as far as I know, the Germans had problems with destroying/disableling T-34s in 1941.


"The T-34 had sloped armor all around and a small profile which cramped the crew tremendously, while the M4 sherman has a sloped front glacis and flat sides/rear, offering more space."

Because in general an advantage gives you a disadvantage of some sort.

"This meant the M4 had a dedicated loader, improving the effectiveness of reload rates and the effectiveness of the commander at commanding the tank, spotting targets, and taking over weapon systems if a crew member is injured or killed."
The T-34 had a loader too. It was missing a gunner. The fact that you don´t even know the crew layout of a tank you are talking about is astonishing. I am not saying this to offend you.

"The M4 had a better suspension system (volute spring suspension) which allowed easier targeting while moving and stability while driving."
VVSS and HVSS are not the same and both where not the best solution.

"Both tanks were basically tin cans armour-wise."
What? When the T-34 came to the frontlines in 41 it was one of the best armored tanks in the world.

" It could be supplied either with diesel or gasoline engine, and in practise they did not have difference"
The majority used gasoline engines.

"Some T-34 tanks were not even fully completed and rushed to the frontlines, lacking paint jobs and even optic/gun sights."
Yeah because they got attacked by Germany but the Tanks still managed to win the war in europe.

[drumroll]

It would depend massively on variants.

Edit: sorry just noticed you said which variants!

My vote goes to the T34. It was a simple machine designed to be operated and maintained in the field by the simplest soldier, something which it excelled at.

[CODGUY]

Both tanks are quite comparable but the Sherman edges out the T34 in armor quality and thickness. The 75mm Shermans had slightly better preformance than the 76mm T34s and likewise the 76mm high velocity gun on later Shermans had slightly better preformance than the 85mm gun on the later T34s.

In their final iterations, the T34/85 and the M4A3E8 the only advange the T34 had over the Sherman was a lower profile. The Sherman consistently had a much better combat record than the T34 both in WWII and Korea as well as later Mideast conflicts.

[Obamenau]

The T-34 was more advanced with its sloped armor and powerful engine. However the m4 was the overall more "balanced tank". It had an excellent crew layout, with enough space for everyone and very fast escape possibilities. It was also reliable and easy to maintain. Its armor and firepower was similar to the t-34. In short it had no big shortcomings
Meanwhile The T-34 had problems with poor construction quality resulting in many breakdowns, low crew visibility and crude interior design.

If a M4 regiment would go up against a T-34 76 regiment my money is on the M4s.
We also have some real life evidence from the Korea war, where 76mm M4s mopped the floor with T-34-84s

[Wolfrages]

2013 International Conference on WWII - Kursk The Epic Armored Engagement

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6xLMUifbxQ

Tanks The Russian T-34

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MM0LhuMuBz8

Battle Stations: Sherman Assault (War History Documentary)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=calKsejQkoc

Should get you started.

[Wolfrages]

The best type of armor, is being out of range. Even if you put me behind a 600 foot wall of cement, I still wouldn't want to be in the target sight of armor rounds...

That being said, alot has to do with tactics and the ever evolving nature of a battlefield.

[ck00021]

Wasnt the T-34 developed quite a few years earlier than the M4? If Russia needed to chose between building the T-34 or the M4 top produce to fight back Barbarrosa it'd be the T34 everytime. The T34 production was a marvel of Russian industrialisation.

[B Ranked Aura Farmer]

Originally posted by Latios:

From what I heard from a friend they are still like that, they just have many more ways to prevent it. The T-34s and Sherman tanks were just a liable to catch fire and burn as any other tank...

This statement is correct. All tanks that took part of the war had this problem. The problem of 'brewing up' wasn't because of the engine, its because of the location of ammunition. Early war shermans, panthers, panzer IVs and tiger Is have their ammo stored in the sides. If any of the mentioned tanks got a penetration in the side, it has a high chance of catching fire or having a cook fire. Wet Stowage obviously reduced this in later war shermans along with engineers finally figuring out the best 200 IQ place to put shells in the sherman.

Originally posted by TankinatorXD:

I would like to get a source for this because as far as I know, the Germans had problems with destroying/disableling T-34s in 1941.
What? When the T-34 came to the frontlines in 41 it was one of the best armored tanks in the world.

The Germans did had issues fighting T-34s and KV series tanks when operation Barbarossa. This was due to the T-34's sloped armor format. However when looking at the list of German anti tank capability at the time, you could start to see why: 2cm, 37mm, 50mm, and low velocity 75mm guns along with the famous 88 flak and the 105mm arty pieces. The pak 38 50 cm AT gun was used in few numbers with a handful of panzer IIIs being equipped with it. Panzer IVs are mounted with the 75 mm low velocity. The most common AT gun used by the German army at this time was the doorknockers (37 mm). The French tanks should be noted because the same problem was encountered when Germany blitzed through France.

It should be noted that the T-34 had an effective armor thickness of 47 mm - 45 mm (upper/lower hull) while the M4A1 had a thickness of 51 mm upper and lowe (frontal)r. The T-34 hull thickness stayed the same while the sherman changed with each version. The Easy Eight had a armor thickness of 64 mm upper hull and 108 to 51 mm lower (also frontal). The M4 if dropped into the same time as Operation Barbarossa would be just as a headache to the Germans like the T-34 or KV-1 was.

One thing that should be mentioned is that the Tiger I, a flat (is justice) tank, had 100 mm of armor in the front. The panther had the same 100 mm, but it had an effective thickness of 120 mm due to sloping.

Originally posted by ck00021:

Wasnt the T-34 developed quite a few years earlier than the M4? If Russia needed to chose between building the T-34 or the M4 top produce to fight back Barbarrosa it'd be the T34 everytime. The T34 production was a marvel of Russian industrialisation.

The T-34 was developed three years earlier in 1937. It should be noticed that the T-34 was built for the war it was fighting in i.e. attrition warfare. However it can be argued that the M4 is also comparable to the T-34 in the logistics and industrial departments. The M4 does have some features that the T-34 does not namely a turret mounted HMG, spring loaded hatches, optics that actually work, filters that actually do something, or auxiliary-power units to keep the tank's batteries happy.

On the other hand M4 shermans had a slight issue of falling over when in rough terrain. This might be because the M4A2's thin treads compared to its A3 brothers or the T-34. Or the guards tankers complaining about how bulky the thompson is compared to the ppsh (not the 41, but the 43).