Responding to Smidsy -- I thought I made clear that I did not think the equal thickness of the armor meant in game terms that the two tanks (T-34/76 vs. the theoretical Sherman) would be equally the same to kill. The slope of the armor in the T-34 would increase the chance of a richochet - I do not claim to know how the game is modeled in that respect, I just figured it was a probability equation of some kind. Probability of richochet firing on a T-34 is significantly greater than when firing on a sherman from anywhere but the hull front. Not to mention that the lower profile of the T-34 make it harder to hit in the first place, would mean that the T-34 would still be more "survivable" than the Sherman.
I have an article from the July/August 2005 issue of WW2 Magazine that summarizes a report done by American intelligence. The Americans wanted an honest comparison of US equipment and doctrine vs Russian. In September 1944, they interviewed POWs that had fought on the Russian front prior to facing the Americans in France. The report stated: "American tanks stand up better under anti-tank fire than the Russian. . . Firepower, good visibility, and good armor are also qualities of our tanks."
They did praise the T-34 for being low-built, fast, and "they always have plenty of them." I personally take that to mean harder to hit and numerically superior.
Believe me, I am not trying to say the T-34 was a bad tank. I AM saying that it was not the "Uber-tank" it so often is made out to be, even after the T-34/85 was introduced. Also by contrast to its reputation, I am saying the Sherman was a good tank, not the pathetic paper-tiger it is often made out to be.
I had to laugh at a program they ran on the Military channel ranking the top tanks of all time. They used as their criteria Armor, Firepower, Mobility, Production value, and Fear Factor. The Sherman was #10 having received good marks only for mobility and production. #1 was the T-34, which they gave top marks for almost everything. They actually said something to the effect that the "high velocity" 76mm gun could knock out the heaviest German tanks at range. At that point I about fell out of my chair, but I think it is indicative of how the reputation of the T-34 tends to get way overblown.
By 1944 the Germans were crushing formations of T-34s with relative ease -- when they had armor available. Not surprisingly, then, they were also crushing the Shermans. I contend the reputation of the T-34 was built up by its early successes in late 41 and 42 before German armor "caught up". The Sherman's reputation was set in 1944 when facing already up-gunned German tanks. IMO, both were good tanks, but neither deserves their reputation, one high and one low.
Big G's suggestion of a Sherman Firefly is definitely a good one (a variant I had forgotten about). It would also help Klum25th's request for a Brit tank (still think the Lee / Grant would be too hard to model without more than one gunner) as the Firefly was purely a British modification. If I am not mistaken, part of the effectiveness of the 17 pounder was that it used a Sabot round, correct? One of the first (if not THE first) development of what is now standard for modern armor forces.
EZDuzit says the Pershing served in the bulge -- I don't think this is correct. I pulled the following from a website "patton-mania" which talks about the Pershing as a pre-genetor to the "Patton" tank series:
"It took until December of that year for the first tanks to be issued to troops in the European Theater of Operation (ETO). The first twenty by then T26E3 tanks, reached Europe in January 1945, and first saw combat in February. Of the 200 tanks issued to units, only twenty actually saw action. A few T26E3 tanks were issued to Okinawa in the Pacific Theater, but reaching there in July of 1945, none saw combat before the war ended." They did, however, see plenty of combat in Korea kicking the tar out of the North Korean T-34s.
I'll shut up now and let someone else post for a change.
