I've never claimed the T-34 was a good tank in 1943. I've actually not mentioned the T-34 very often at all except when I compare it as equal to the M4. The double standard is only in your head.
There is also something going on in
your head only, which is that anything I say must be confined to a direct response to something you said.
Let us review: My re-entry into this thread was to laugh at the direction the conversation had taken that seemed to indicate the Sherman's main problem was that it wasn't a heavy tank. You thought it was directed at you, and it wasn't, except obliquely through your participation in the conversation.
My next post merely points out that you were participating in what I was laughing about. I followed by reminding that the 75mm wasn't as completely useless as the "crappy" moniker you used to describe it.
*then there is a break*
and I summarize my main point (of my laughing in the first post) thusly:
Put another way, every time a "shortcoming" of the Sherman comes up, the comparison seems to default to the German Panther or Tiger, which were both heavy tanks. The same "shortcomings" of the Sherman are equally true of the T-34/76 in most cases, but that particular tank always gets a pass. I guess it was OK that the 76.2mm was incapable of killing a Tiger, because no one expected much of the Russians to begin with. 
But the 75mm on the Sherman is considered practically criminal.
It is the inconsistent comparisons and double-standards that drive me crazy.
Having just made my point about the 75mm not being useless, it seemed the apt comparison to use when referring to the generic double-standard. In retrospect I should have used armor protection as my example instead to make it more clear than the break that the last paragraph was not directed at anything you had just said.
You still felt compelled to respond, to which I responded consistent with my point about double-standards, especially since you did more to confirm that the double-standards are out there rather than the opposite.
You say it's "all in my head", yet the inconsistencies I refer to seem to come up in just about every thread about WWII tanks. The one that you participated in without even realizing it is a prime example of how they just sneak in. Comparisons of the Sherman to the Panther since the latter is a "medium" tank, when it is clearly a heavy by any WWII standard, is one of my pet peeves.
The double-standards permiate most casual references of WWII to the point they have become "popular myth." One only has to look at the "best tanks" shows by THC to see the types of double-standards I am talking about. "T-34 PWNED!! Sherman was teh suxxor!!" And yet, they are indeed very comparable tanks.
But, that's right, its "all in my head."
I also don't buy the argument that you have used several times that the T-34 was OK because it saw combat earlier. Either the tanks are comparable, or they are not. I find them very comparable. Any of the "yes, buts" that go on from there is simply an excuse to be able to elevate one and put down the other.
You really need to stop putting words in my mouth. I've never claimed the IV and V were equally armored. I've claimed their frontal armor was of equal thickness. As for slope, the PzKpfw IV had spaced frontal armor (50mm+30mm) which is almost as effective as sloped armor.
I didn't put words in your mouth. Here they are.
The PzKpfw IV Ausf. G and H, even when being 4-7 tons lighter than the M4, had the same frontal armor thickness as the Panther at 80mm.
So if you were NOT trying to compare the PzkwIV's frontal armor to the Panther, why did you even bring up the Panther? And you didn't say it, yet you actually just said it again, didn't you? Oh, that's right, "all in my head."
Yeah I agree with you on that. However I think the reason behind the different classification is because the Germans were a generation ahead of the allies in not only tank technology, but also tank classification. Today 45-50 ton tanks like the T-72 and T-80 are considered "medium". In 1944 the Germans were producing "heavy" tanks that weighed the same as the M1 Abrams at almost 70 tons.
Generation ahead or not, by any
consistent WWII standard, the Panther is firmly in the "Heavy" category. I sometimes wonder if calling the Panther a "Medium" was simply to allow historians to avoid having to choose the Panther or the Tiger as the best Heavy tank of the war.
Look, I think you and I are actually more in agreement about matters than the intardnet purse-fight would indicate, since it seems we are talking past each other more than at or to each other. Then again, perhaps that is another "figment of my imagination", I haven't decided. If at any point I've been unfair or off base, I apologize for that.
Oh, but this statement still stands . . .
It is the inconsistent comparisons and double-standards that drive me crazy.
You can continue to think it is directed at you if you like, but that would be all in your head.
