the new T-34

[Karnak]

thanks...not a computer guy...never thought about a programming issue...always wondered why there was only 1 version of each gv where as there are multiple of some aircraft. I guess they went for best model ? only thing I don't like about T-34 is that it bounces quite a bit.

Well, the code is shared by each tank.  The complexity of it makes it hard to tell how well a given gun will do.

The reason we don't have many tanks is that this is primarily a flight combat game.

[E25280]

This obsession with the History Channel is a myth buddy, just because you use it in a sentence doesnt make the Sherman any less of a "Gamey" vehicle, ill say it one more time for you, lack of the numerouse anti tank arms that where often used against it is the reason this tank does so well here.....

I don't think I or anyone else with a gripe against the History Channel is arguing that the Sherman was "uber" or dominated its opposition.  But the matter of degree to which some people will go to put down the Sherman as "useless", a "bad tank", a "failure", etc. etc. while often simultaniously talking about how wonderfully uber the T-34 was is ridiculous. 

The History Channel's top 10 tanks program is a prime example.  They repeated the myth that it was the fact the Shermans used gasoline that made the early ones prone to burning.  They also give highest marks to the T-34 for firepower even though its 76mm gun was no better than the snub 75mm on the M4, which they rate low.  They list the armor for each at a maximum 62mm, but this is "very poor" on the Sherman but gets top marks on the T-34.  And these tanks are contemporaries -- it isn't like trying to compare the Abrams with the WWI tanks where you have to fudge a bit for timeframe.

The T-34 gained a reputation as an Ubertank on the Steppes of the Soviet Union fighting 37mm armed PzkwIIIs, and Pzkw38s.  The Sherman earned its reputation as a deathtrap being hit by 88mm armed Tigers and 75mm armed Panthers in Normandy.  Reverse the situations, you would likely reverse the reputations.

[Karnak]

I don't think I or anyone else with a gripe against the History Channel is arguing that the Sherman was "uber" or dominated its opposition.  But the matter of degree to which some people will go to put down the Sherman as "useless", a "bad tank", a "failure", etc. etc. while often simultaniously talking about how wonderfully uber the T-34 was is ridiculous. 

The History Channel's top 10 tanks program is a prime example.  They repeated the myth that it was the fact the Shermans used gasoline that made the early ones prone to burning.  They also give highest marks to the T-34 for firepower even though its 76mm gun was no better than the snub 75mm on the M4, which they rate low.  They list the armor for each at a maximum 62mm, but this is "very poor" on the Sherman but gets top marks on the T-34.  And these tanks are contemporaries -- it isn't like trying to compare the Abrams with the WWI tanks where you have to fudge a bit for timeframe.

The T-34 gained a reputation as an Ubertank on the Steppes of the Soviet Union fighting 37mm armed PzkwIIIs, and Pzkw38s.  The Sherman earned its reputation as a deathtrap being hit by 88mm armed Tigers and 75mm armed Panthers in Normandy.  Reverse the situations, you would likely reverse the reputations.

True to a point.  Keep in mind that the T-34/76 was an earlier tank than the M4.  The Grant is more directly comparable to the T-34/76.  By the time the M4 Sherman was meeting Tigers and Panthers at Normandy, there were thousands of T-34/85s.  While those didn't really address the armor issues the T-34 had by that time, the 85mm gun was significantly better than the 75mm gun on early Shermans.

But I do agree the T-34 wasn't the uber tank it is often portrayed as, but more a pointer tank in the direction things needed to be taken.  A first go or beta version if you will before the concepts it introduced could be refined.

[Bronk]

I don't think I or anyone else with a gripe against the History Channel is arguing that the Sherman was "uber" or dominated its opposition.  But the matter of degree to which some people will go to put down the Sherman as "useless", a "bad tank", a "failure", etc. etc. while often simultaniously talking about how wonderfully uber the T-34 was is ridiculous. 

The History Channel's top 10 tanks program is a prime example.  They repeated the myth that it was the fact the Shermans used gasoline that made the early ones prone to burning.  They also give highest marks to the T-34 for firepower even though its 76mm gun was no better than the snub 75mm on the M4, which they rate low.  They list the armor for each at a maximum 62mm, but this is "very poor" on the Sherman but gets top marks on the T-34.  And these tanks are contemporaries -- it isn't like trying to compare the Abrams with the WWI tanks where you have to fudge a bit for timeframe.

The T-34 gained a reputation as an Ubertank on the Steppes of the Soviet Union fighting 37mm armed PzkwIIIs, and Pzkw38s.  The Sherman earned its reputation as a deathtrap being hit by 88mm armed Tigers and 75mm armed Panthers in Normandy.  Reverse the situations, you would likely reverse the reputations.

Hmm how fast was rounds storage improved once learned it was the problem?

[sethipus]

The tank armor code is very complex.  Makes it harder to predict how something will pan out.  They thought the T-34/76 would be more competitive than it was, and thought the Firefly VC wouldn't be as dominating as it is.

The T34/76 needed to be upgraded to the T34/85 precisely because it's gun was so weak, and the Firefly's 17 lber gun was insanely powerful.  The T34's gunsight is also the worst in the game, while the Firefly's is the best.  Bottom line is that the T34/76 almost never kills a Sherman with a front armor or frontal turret hit at any range, including point blank, while the Sherman will kill the T34 with front armor hits out to any range you can score hits at, seriously, this shouldn't have been that hard to predict.

[E25280]

Hmm how fast was rounds storage improved once learned it was the problem?

Here is a link to a book page on the subject.  Extra armor was being added to the bins as early as '43 while wet storage was introduced in February '44.

Linky

[E25280]

True to a point.  Keep in mind that the T-34/76 was an earlier tank than the M4.  The Grant is more directly comparable to the T-34/76.  By the time the M4 Sherman was meeting Tigers and Panthers at Normandy, there were thousands of T-34/85s.  While those didn't really address the armor issues the T-34 had by that time, the 85mm gun was significantly better than the 75mm gun on early Shermans.

I disagree that the M3 Lee/Grant is a better fit for the moniker of "contemporary" to the T-34/76.  The M3 was known at the time to be a stop-gap vehicle while the M-4 was being developed.  It was clearly an "earlier generation", if you will.

The Sherman was seeing action in late '42 and '43, which is well before the introduction of the T-34/85, which I believe was introduced in February '44.  If you are going to compare the Sherman to the T-34/85, then you have to acknowledge that by mid to late '44 the first up-gunned Shermans were also seeing combat.  The Sherman lagged the T-34 by months, not a generation.

So I suppose it is the difference whether you consider a Sophomore and a Senior starting on the same championship college football team as contemporaries.  I would, YMMV.

[Karnak]

As I recall the first Easy Eights were not in combat until well after D-Day, so most of a year behind the T-34/85.  IIRC the gun on the T-34/85 was slightly better than the 76mm on the Easy Eight, correct?

[E25280]

As I recall the first Easy Eights were not in combat until well after D-Day, so most of a year behind the T-34/85.  IIRC the gun on the T-34/85 was slightly better than the 76mm on the Easy Eight, correct?

The Easy Eights were not the only Shermans to use the 76mm gun.  The M4A1s started being produced with 76mm guns in early '44.  The 76mm gun used was the same one that was sported by the M10 tank destroyer.

In terms of armor penetration, I think the US 76mm and the Russian 85mm were very comparable (neither as good as the 17lbr on the Firefly).  Where the Russian gun would definitely have an edge is in HE capability.  The HE shell for the 76mm gun was fairly weak given its size, which is why the Shermans originally sported the 75mm.  US doctrine was that the Shermans would support the infantry and the 76mm armed tank destroyers (M10s and the like) would handle enemy armor.  In practice, this wasn't how things worked out, hence the eventual up-gunning of the Shermans to better combat German armor.

Here is a Wiki page on the 76mm vs 85mm.  Must be a common hot topic.     So, granted it is Wiki, but it seems to be annotated with sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/76_mm_gun_M1

[BigKev03]

It is not a myth sherman armor in WWII was not very impressive until late in the war when the british upgraded the sherman to the "firefly" and the americans started production of the shreman "easy eight" model of the m4 sherman.  But the 88 of the tiger and the 75mm on a panther could slice through a shermans armor with no problem at long range.  I think in this game it might be the damage generator that is the main problem.  Without researching the sherman armor prior to posting this I believe the armor on a sherman was about 2" or 3" max.  On later models I am sure it was more but again the german guns like the 88 had no problem with it.   

Kev, have you ever looked up any stats on how thick the armor on the Sherman is, or are you just repeating popular myth?

[E25280]

It is not a myth sherman armor in WWII was not very impressive until late in the war when the british upgraded the sherman to the "firefly" and the americans started production of the shreman "easy eight" model of the m4 sherman.  But the 88 of the tiger and the 75mm on a panther could slice through a shermans armor with no problem at long range.  I think in this game it might be the damage generator that is the main problem.  Without researching the sherman armor prior to posting this I believe the armor on a sherman was about 2" or 3" max.  On later models I am sure it was more but again the german guns like the 88 had no problem with it.  

Well, you are part of the way there anyway.  Let's see if we can move you along a bit.

In your original post you said:

Just like the current T34 we have it has good armor and speed.

Followed soon thereafter by:

Though the sherman has an upgunned package in the 17pdr it still had the fatal flaw of thin armor.

So, to bring it all together . . .

You are correct that the Sherman had 2" of front hull armor, which is 51mm.  Guess what?  The "good armor" on the T-34/76 you like so much was 45mm thick.  Turrets, about 3", or 76mm on the Sherman.  The "good armor" on the T-34/76 was 70mm.

So, whether you intended to or not, you echoed the "popular myth" that the Sherman had "paper thin" armor while the T-34's is "good," even though they are nearly identical.

[715]

So "Death Traps: The Survival of an American Armored Division in World War II", ISBN-13: 978-0891418146, written by Lieutenant Cooper, who served with the 3rd Armored Division's Maintenance Battalion and was responsible for recovery and repair of Shermans, is apparently a total fantasy? 

I'd give another reference that mentioned Sherman crew lifetimes were measured in days and ,with recovery and repair, each Sherman ate through many crews.  Unfortunately I can't remember where it was so obviously it's untrue too.

[Fencer51]

Tank losses were high across the board on all sides. 

Also don't forget the T34's hull armor was sloped very effectively.

[19kilo10(ironnite)]

I woud NOT want to fight in a Sherman.....Just a horrible tank......but....for its time.....it was pretty typical.

[humble]

So "Death Traps: The Survival of an American Armored Division in World War II", ISBN-13: 978-0891418146, written by Lieutenant Cooper, who served with the 3rd Armored Division's Maintenance Battalion and was responsible for recovery and repair of Shermans, is apparently a total fantasy? 

I'd give another reference that mentioned Sherman crew lifetimes were measured in days and ,with recovery and repair, each Sherman ate through many crews.  Unfortunately I can't remember where it was so obviously it's untrue too.

Death Traps is obviously very accurate but doesnt really address any of the issues here. The US was very ill equipped for the realities it faced immediately after D-day...

1) The entire doctrine called for an integrated combined arms approach vs enemy infantry. The terrain in Normandy created brutal conditions for the tanks on either side and alot of early US losses were due to infantry/AT not tank on tank...

2) As the US broke out the US doctrine on employment of the two US heavy Tank divisions (which is the #1 reason we actually won all the major tank battles) created a meatgrinder. The US focus on maintaining a brutal tempo of of engagement caused significant attrition on both sides...but generated tremendous losses. This in no way is a reflection of the shermans armor relative to the T-34, in fact if you look at german losses to shermans and american TD's during the battle of the bulge you'll actually see similiar attrition...in one engagment 2 US M-10's took out 17 panthers and tigers with no loss before withdrawing...as WW posted elsewhere an M-8 took out a tiger as well in the same broader engagement.

The shermans role as originally concieved did not involve tank on tank combat. Nobody really visualized Rommels "AT gun" forward defense or the utilization of a dual purpose 88 in that role. No tank (allied or axis) was mission capable at any time in the war agaisnt fully deployed weapons of that caliber. Even Tigers, JS-II's or pershings would fall to an undetected 88mm or similiar caliber AT weapon. The lack of a suitable gun tube made the "stock" sherman very unsuited to the role of agressor vs a fixed in depth defense...however the sherman actually did very well in fluid meeting engagments with enemy armor.