You gentlemen need to take a second look at that article. It was not writen by the American engineers at Aberdeen, but by the Soviets, based on the testing the Americans did. It does not critique the two tanks' effectiveness in combat, but simply details the manufacturing processes and defects found in the tanks. This is the reason the Soviets gave the tanks to the Americans. I found it to be a balanced appraisal of the weaknesses in Soviet manufacturing during this time. You'll notice that the Soviet general officer who submitted the report did not take exception to most of the what the Americans found. Indeed, the last section are HIS suggestions, based on the testing, of what his country should do to improve the designs.
The true genious of the T-34's design is that, despite such poor manufacturing techniques and quality control, it still dominated the Easter Front. Keep in mind that later German designs surpassed the T-34 in important ways, but by then the Soviets were out-producing Germany. Quality only goes so far in countering quantity, afterall.
I do agree with the assessment made above that the US could have done worse than to build the design under license. However, there would still have been the problems of getting priority over the US Navy for the diesel engines to put in them. In the area of combat aircraft design, the US profited from perfect timing of their weapon's development cycle. The Army was not so fortunate, resulting in a design that was a generation behind what the enemy was fielding.
