US evaluation of T34-76 in 1942

[Pongo]

Well, its just you and I then, and that guy who commanded one for the Russians.

[Squire]

"And the 85mm by late 1943."

First use of the T-34/85 in combat was the Spring of 1944. The T-34/76 was still 90 percent of the USSR tank force at the time. The T-34/76 was used untill wars end.

There is really no big qualatative difference of the T-34 and M4 series. They both have their plusses an minuses, which I wont add too since they have been debated to death here and everywhere else.

Oh and Boroda, the USSR used (I know the Soviets liked to ignore or forgot western Lend-Lease, basically ALL of it), the Sherman was used by them in large #s in combat.

Where was I? Right. The M4 Sherman series with a 75mm gun; gun, armor, speeds, reliability, ect, no great difference between it and the T-34/76. The M4 Sherman 76mm series, very close to the T-34/85. Quibble all you want about a few pnds of ground pressure, or mm of armor, or whatever...the fact remains as fighting AFVs in the feild, there was not much to choose between the two.

You can now argue endlessly about which one had a better paint job, or radio antenna, or had the better commanders hatch.  

[stephen]

You seem to be disregarding the fact that the Germans where using 50mm, and 75mm short barrel door knockers in Africa, and where blowing the hell out of Grants and Shermans then, though the real point seems to be lost on alot of you.
Anti-tank guns where used to great affect to disable, and set fire to Shermans when they where initialy introduced, and the Sherman retaind its reputation throughout the entire war for being soft on the sides.

Anyway, the 37mm weapons that you wrongly attribute to German GV's, where of-course ineffective against the Sherman..., HOWEVER the 50mm early war german gun on the the MK3's and especialy the 75mm long barrel on the MK4 panzers passed through the shermans frontal armor like a sive under 1500 yds.
This isnt a guess, but a FACT mentiond by an ordinance officer with first hand experience on the battle field.

Your argument is meaningless here, because the in-game sherman isnt facing a MK3, or AYTHING besides an m8 equipt with a 37mm...
Spin the facts all you wish..., but we stuck our servicemen in an inferrioir tank, when our allies had come up with a better solution in the T34.
Even with the short barrel I would take the T34 out in real life over the Sherman ANY day. It is undeniably a better tank, and a major factor in the defeat of the Nazi's.

(I have to make a correction where the 50mm panzer mk3 German gun is concerned, the frontal armor on a Sherman was good enough to defeat that round at 1500 yds, though it would DEFFINATLY puncture the Shermans flank, even in 1944)

I hate it, but its true... the M-26 however...........

[stephen]

NO DIFFRENCE!!?? ARE YOU GUYS FOR REAL????

You do realise that the suspension and sloped armor on the T-34 is still used TO THIS DAY, because a better solution hasnt been found?

I love America, but the T-34 is so supperior to what we came up with at the time that I am personaly ASHAMED that we sent our men out to die in an inferior tank.
READ UP ON HISTORY GUYS... 

[Squire]

"NO DIFFRENCE!!?? ARE YOU GUYS FOR REAL????"

Afraid I am. Please post the BIG differences for me, since your so convinced there is one. Armor protection (all sides, turret and hull), gun, equipment, engine, speed, weights, ect.

M4A3 75mm vs the T-34/76, both from 1942

M4A3(76) vs the T-34/85 both from 1944

Go ahead. Either or both.

[E25280]

You seem to be disregarding the fact that the Germans where using 50mm, and 75mm short barrel door knockers in Africa, and where blowing the hell out of Grants and Shermans then, though the real point seems to be lost on alot of you.

http://socyberty.com/military/m4-sherman-firepower/

About a quarter of the way down the page, the author quotes the Rommel Papers:

“Up to May of 1942 our tanks had in general been superior in quality to the corresponding British types. This was now no longer true, at least not to the same extent. The American-built Grant tank, which appeared for the first time in the summer battles, undoubtedly had a match in our long-barreled Panzer IV, but only four of these latter were on African soil during our offensive. There was, in any case, no ammunition available for them, so that they were in fact unable to take any part. Our short-barreled Panzer IV was also clearly superior to the Grant in speed and maneuverability. Nevertheless, the Grant had the advantage as it could shoot up the short-barreled Panzer IV at a range where the latter’s shell was unable to penetrate the heavy armour of the American tank. We had forty short-barreled Panzer IVs against 160 British Grants.” - Page 196-197

“The main armament of our Panzer formations was the Panzer III, which, with its 50-mm. gun – of which by far the majority were short barreled – was even less of a match for the Grant. Those British tanks which were still armed with a 40-mm. gun – a large portion of the older British types had meanwhile been supplied with a 75-mm. – were inferior to the Panzer III. The 240 Italian tanks were no sort of match for the British and the troops had long talked of them as “self-propelled coffins.”" - Page 197

“Their new tank, the General Sherman, which came into action for the first time during this battle, showed itself to be far superior to any of ours.” - Page 309

“In contact engagements the heavily gunned British tanks approached to a range of between 2,000 and 2,700 yards and then opened concentrated fire on our anti-tank and anti-aircraft guns and tanks, which were unable to penetrate the British armour at that range.” - Page 309

So I guess the opposition disagrees with your assessment.

[stephen]

Im sorry, I dont undertstand how you'r paragraph conflicts with anything I said, in fact the statement was made that more than a few British tanks where inferior to the MK3 (with the 50mm gun)
"I" stated that the 50mm was only effective on the flanks..., Though it seem's to be wrong on my part..., because then you go on to support my assesment that at 1500 yards the THEN weeker German guns where STILL doing damage to British tanks... THANK YOU.  

Funny, I only see what fits your argument posted...ummm, werent there short 75mm MK4's in Africa?, how did thier armor fair against the Shermans?
I seem to recall that a couple Tigers got into the war in Africa, and that 88mm anti aircraft guns where used against tanks as well....hmmm, perhaps they where bouncing off Sherman faceplates at 2000yds?


ANYWAY the point isnt if the Sherman was better than German tanks at its inception, but IF THE T34 WAS SUPPERIOR TO THE SHERMAN OR NOT.

I sincerly am-not impressd with your ability to stay on-topic thus far..., perhaps a remedial reading class is in order?

Ill be here all week folks...GOODNIGHT!

[E25280]

Im sorry, I dont undertstand how you'r paragraph conflicts with anything I said, in fact the statement was made that more than a few British tanks where inferior to the MK3 (with the 50mm gun)
"I" stated that the 50mm was only effective on the flanks..., Though it seem's to be wrong on my part..., because then you go on to support my assesment that at 1500 yards the THEN weeker German guns where STILL doing damage to British tanks... THANK YOU.  

Funny, I only see what fits your argument posted...ummm, werent there short 75mm MK4's in Africa?, how did thier armor fair against the Shermans?
I seem to recall that a couple Tigers got into the war in Africa, and that 88mm anti aircraft guns where used against tanks as well....hmmm, perhaps they where bouncing off Sherman faceplates at 2000yds?


ANYWAY the point isnt if the Sherman was better than German tanks at its inception, but IF THE T34 WAS SUPPERIOR TO THE SHERMAN OR NOT.

I sincerly am-not impressd with your ability to stay on-topic thus far..., perhaps a remedial reading class is in order?

Ill be here all week folks...GOODNIGHT!

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem yourself.  You stated the 50mm IIIs and short 75 IVs were "blowing the hell out of the Grants and Shermans in North Africa."  I just provided a quote from Rommel that says his opinion was the short 50s and short 75mm guns were no match for the British Grants.  And that the Shermans were far superior to any of our [tanks].

I am equally unimpressed with your ability to stay on topic.  If we are comparing the Sherman to the T-34, why do you bring up the Tiger?  Sure, the Sherman fared poorly against it.  How do you supposed the T-34/76 fared?  The answer is, equally poorly.

Why don't you do yourself a favor and look up some hard data as Squire suggested you do rather than blindly clinging to myths and reputations.

[stephen]

you succeded in answering NONE of my questions, so why should I offer you any answers?

You seriously insinuate that the M4's, and Grants where better than the German tanks in Africa?
You DO know that Rommel was outnumberd 3 to 1 by the end of that campaign... right?

Egsactly what point are you making?, that 3 m4'S ARE BETTER THAN 1 MK3?..., you've got me..., I agree.

I bring up Tigers because THEY WHERE IN THE CAMPAIGN..., and obviously your quotes dont mention them.
I can shuffle through wikipedia and find BS that supports my argument, but I really dont care that much..., and I personaly think that anyone whom honestly believes that the M4 Sherman was compeditive throughout ww2 is a friggin moron.
WOW, its almost as if I dont care WHAT you think..., I know id pick a MK3 over a Grant any day of the week..., how about you?

[Oldman731]

You seriously insinuate that the M4's, and Grants where better than the German tanks in Africa?
****

I know id pick a MK3 over a Grant any day of the week..., how about you?

....um....I think I'd pick the Grant....

While I'm one of those who believes that the T-34 series was superior to the Sherman series, I don't think there's much question that the Grant's long-range 75 gave the British a huge advantage over the German tanks of the time, and that the Sherman itself was at least equal, and probably superior to the later Mark IV with the long 75.

Very few tanks in the war could compare to the Tiger I.

- oldman

[Pongo]

lol
Wish the link was still there, in the first post, it was good reading and I cant find the original on the web anymore, just the russian notes, that support it.

[E25280]

you succeded in answering NONE of my questions, so why should I offer you any answers?

All I am doing is correcting your drivel, which you continue to refuse to support with any evidence.

Oh, wait, I guess this is your evidence.

I personaly think that anyone whom honestly believes that the M4 Sherman was compeditive throughout ww2 is a friggin moron.

Yes, you are showing quite a bit of knowledge.  Why should anyone doubt you.   

You seriously insinuate that the M4's, and Grants where better than the German tanks in Africa?

I didn't insinuate anything.  I quoted Rommel.

I bring up Tigers because THEY WHERE IN THE CAMPAIGN..., and obviously your quotes dont mention them.

I don't mention them because they were not part of the original topic.  Let us review.  You said:  "You seem to be disregarding the fact that the Germans where using 50mm, and 75mm short barrel door knockers in Africa, and where blowing the hell out of Grants and Shermans then, though the real point seems to be lost on alot of you."  And I responded by showing your statement was not the view of the German Commander.  Let's try to stay on topic, shall we?

I can shuffle through wikipedia and find BS that supports my argument, but I really dont care that much.

If you are content to wallow in ignorance instead of actually researching, I can't help you.

[E25280]

lol
Wish the link was still there, in the first post, it was good reading and I cant find the original on the web anymore, just the russian notes, that support it.

Is this it?

[Pongo]

That is the russian summary of it, The full doc used to be available, pictures and all.

[MiloMorai]

NO DIFFRENCE!!?? ARE YOU GUYS FOR REAL????

You do realise that the suspension and sloped armor on the T-34 is still used TO THIS DAY, because a better solution hasnt been found?

I love America, but the T-34 is so supperior to what we came up with at the time that I am personaly ASHAMED that we sent our men out to die in an inferior tank.
READ UP ON HISTORY GUYS... 

Nice slab sides on the M1 Abrams and Leopard 2.

No modern tank that I know of uses coil springs in its suspension.