Panzer III vs. T-34

I don't see anything that really compares the M4 to a T-34 there except the one for the on line:

The ground pressure issue is an valid area where the T-34 had an advantage. The T-34 is also shorter but not by all that much 8' vs 9'. The greater hieght can also be an advantage in some circumstances and ways. For instance you can use taller crew and in hilly terraing it's easier to find hull down positions. This is the first I've read of the "insuffiient vision devices" I'd like to see more on what they were talking about. Difficulty of service is curious as just about if not everything I've read indicates that the Sherman was one of the most serviceable tanks in the war. It looks to me like the above may well have been politically motivated as all the pluses of the Sherman are ignored. It certainly doesn't compare to the pieces of the Aberdeen report on the T-34.

 

Well it seems the Russians maybe also had a bit of Proganda at work for their own great weapons I mean in this one Russian site, they trash almost any German tank. If they were that bad, why did the Russians not storm Berlin in Dec. 42?

 

I don't think any other tank produced in WW2 would have met the Soviet needs as well as the T-34 when you consider the total picture. In general I think the M-4 was a slightly better tank though.

 

This got me thinking....if a Sherman fought against a T-34...who would win? Didn't the Sherman meet the T-34 in Korea, since the Russians were supplying the North Koreans with weapons and tanks? This would be an interesting new topic.

 

Korean war and Sherman vs T-34/85
http://www.ww2f.com/topic/11626-korean-war-and-sherman-vs-t-3485/

By the Korean war both tanks were comparable. Being able to penetrate each others armor at range. The decisive factor at that point came down to training, experience, and combined arms cooperation.

 

Thanks Pacifist

 

#31
"There were numerous versions of the T34; the original and then every year it was upgraded, in 1943 it had a 85mm cannon and it was changed to the Stalin tank in 1944, which was a response to the panther and tiger"
Hi Steve, curious about this... Had always thought the IS was the son of the KV.

 

Might be a bit of both, The KV was more of a support tank and the IS replaced the T34 as the mbt. All you hear about the tiger is the gun and armor, but it was extremely immobile and unreliable. If it was not fighting from ambush or long range, it was at a disadvantage. Its range was pathetic, 30 miles I believe and was notorious for breaking down because the engine was not powerful enough.

 

And it took up A LOT of gasoline, as did other late war German tanks probably.

 

In a Western Allied tank, range and fuel consumption would not be a issue, and not much of one for the Soviets. Steve I think you need to recheck your sources on the range of a Tiger, I believe double to triple that amount is more accurate, depending upon the variant.

 

yes it is greater maybe 90 under optimal, I probably saw a number for poor conditions. compared to a Sherman which had 120, the T34 was vastly superior, a range of 250 miles according to wiki. Optimal is only a guide since the Tiger would use up far more fuel in bad terrain or bad weather

 

Sorry, but there was no "bit of both". The IS was a direct descendant of the KV, specifically the KV-13. And the IS never replaced the T-34/85 as an MBT - during the war or after, as it was produced in to few numbers(IIRC, just over 3,000 IS tanks were produced during the war, and some 6,000 IS & T-10 tanks were produced after the war ended). The T-34/85 would remain in production until 1958 with a grand total of 48,000-55,000 having been produced since 1943. Of course, the T-34/85 had been superseded by the T-54-1, but it took some time for the production of the T-54, and later the T-55 to get into full swing.

As to the Tiger, it did require a trained driver to operate effectively, but even that was no guarantee that it would not break down.

The engine was powerful enough, the Tiger I had a marginally better horsepower to weight ratio than the Pershing, although not as great as the Sherman. IIRC, the main problem was with the final drive of the Tiger.

 

As always, different sources give different numbers...That's a given, but, yes the Tiger did have inferior range, but it was never intended for the huge sweeps that the Allies or Germans used their medium tanks for.

IIRC, the T-34 did have a great range, but the high figure given is when the three external fuel drums were used. Also, IIRC, one of those three drums was usually carrying oil, not fuel, so it's maximum range would be somewhat less than Wiki has stated...Maybe, 180 road miles on internal fuel only.

 

Did any of the German Panzers Mark I-IV's have a long range? Or did they have just as bad of a range as the Tiger did?

 

AFAIK, the Panzer II, III, IV and V were all roughly equivalent to(give or take 10 or 20 miles) the road range of a Sherman(II & III were slightly less, IV roughly equal, and V slightly more).

 

Nice photos of the T-34M unfortunately the original site is closed since 2009...

http://www.ww2f.com/topic/4248-russian-ww2-interesting-stats-and-facts/

Check the mid-part of the page.

 

At least the long barrel seemed to be able to penetrate thicker steel.

Mid-part of the page:

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzerkampfwagen-iv.htm

 

Have you tried using the "Wayback Machine"?

However, while the pictures you posted were of the T-34M, the page you linked to is about tank destroyers.
https://web.archive.org/web/20090830080640/http://geocities.com/Pentagon/3120/td.html