T34-85 vrs Shermann

hehehe Haystack, I have never thought of that before. Than again I have never seen a haystack in person big enought to hide a tank behind, maybe it was like those in BoB.

 

False guns on command and atillary tanks were very common. People wearing ipod's have no idea how big a WW 2 radio was, especially two of them.

However they were still priority targets for the enemy as the multiple radio anntena would give them away, but at least the wooden barrel gave them a fairly normal silhouette at a distance or in poor light.

FNG

 

Many ARVs also had fake gun barrels, particulary the T2 which was based on a Grant tank and carried both a dummy 75mm in the hull and a dummy 37mm in the turret.

 

You can keep the T-34. When Sherman met T-34 in Korea (and elsewhere), it was the Sherman that was most often the winner.

 

Maybe a chart out, where we will make a comparison T-34s, "Sherman", Pz-4. Will make point: 0 - equal with bag and baggage, 1 - best of all, -1 - worst of all. Possiblety, points my be different. Then will make the point and find best tank. For example:

Pz-4 (with 75L24) T-34-76 "Sherman" (wiht 75mm)

1.Passableness 1 0 -1
2.High-explosive shell 0 0 0
3.Armor-piercing shell -1 0 0
4.Armor -1 1 0
5.Speed 0 1 0
6.Turnover 0 0 -1
7.Comfort 1 -1 1
8.Rate of fire 1 -1 0
9.Maintainability 1 0 0
10.Starting engine operation in winter 1 -1 0
11.Protection of crew 0 -1 0
12.Noise 1 -1 1


Total: 4 -3 0



Pz-4 (with 75L43 or 48) T-34-85 "Sherman" (wiht 76mm)

1.Passableness 1 1 -1
2.High-explosive shell 0 1 0
3.Armor-piercing shell 0 0 0
4.Armor 0 0 0
5.Speed 0 1 0
6.Turnover 0 0 -1
7.Comfort 1 -1 1
8.Rate of fire 0 -1 0
9.Maintainability 1 0 0
10.Starting engine operation in winter 1 -1 0
11.Protection of crew 0 -1 0
12.Noise
1 -1 1

Total: 5 -3 0


In my opinion, the best tank of WW 2 was the Pz - 4 with 45L48 gun.

 

What do you mean by "Passableness"? What makes you think the Sherman was harder to maintain than the Panzer IV? And why doesn't the Sherman get a point in protection of crew because of its unique Wet Storage system? I think if you consider these points the Sherman is going to end up quite better in your comparison, even though the Panzer IV still probably takes the prize.

However, a system of simply allotting single points doesn't really say much about, for example, the gun's penetrating power or the armour's real thickness on various sides.

 

I was mean by "Passableness" the possible motion of road. In accord with the memoirs of the tankmans, the "Sherman" had a passableness worse than by "Tiger", the large turning radius and high centre of gravity.
Pz-4 was a wery handly in repair. Anyway, more handly than T-34, I to take part in their reconstruction. Unfortunately, I know the "Sherman" on the scheme only...
Wet Storage system - it's well, but no all. Grandly also be the chance to leave the tank very quickly, the dimension of the tank, the disposition of the fuel tanks and the quality of the armor. The better balance of these parameters, to my mind, own Pz-4.
And I at one with you, what a system of simply allotting single points doesn't really, but I take a general case... I know also about the event, when "Tiger" was destroyed from the M-8.

 

The T-34

i prefer tanks without the tendency to catch fire

 

Oh Lawd, here we go again...

To put it shortly, the Sherman was not more prone to catching fire than other tanks. It has been proven beyond doubt in several places in this forum, search a bit to see for yourself smeghead.

 

well then, why were they nicknamed Ronsons?

because the company's motto was, "Always lights the first time!"

 

that said, the T-34 has the advantage in speed, firepower, cost and a lower silhouette. the Sherman is better armored, but what use is armor on a tank which always catches fire?

 

The Sherman does not "always catch fire".

Some versions of the T-34 will have a superior gun to earlier versions of the Sherman, and vice versa...

 

Re Shermans catching fire:

http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3752

http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopi ... ght=#92237

 

wow... well, that proves it, theres even a book on these sherman 'deathtraps'

in fact, when the sherman met the T-34 in Korea, they were advised to avoid the T-34/85 and were relegated to infantry support... most T-34/85 losses were inflicted by M-26 Pershings and air strikes

this wasnt because of inferiority of the shermans, but becase of the competence of the T-34's. they are such similar tanks it is hard to compare the two...

 

lol

Check the book review...
http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2174

 

There's a book out there called "The end of history and the last man", does that make it so? Nicknames say little to nothing about the actual, hard facts concerning a tank. In the case of the Sherman, it gained a reputation when it was still in its early, hurriedly designed versions and confronted with a brand new line of German armour desgined to outclass the T-34. The reputation completely ignores the fact that the Sherman was substantially improved throughout the war.

In Korea the M4A3E8 proved the superior of the T-34/85 in open combat.

The Sherman had the advantage of reliability, crew comfort, armour and such interesting gadgets as gyrostabilization and wet storage (keeping the ammunition from exploding when the tank was hit - something no other tank in WW2 ever had.)

 

some engines on the Sherman were more likely to catch fire mainly the Petrol engine the Diesels were less prone to catch fire .

 

well i must say... this forum certainly loves their shermans why 5 out of the last 12 posts are sherman-related.

i also admire this tank, it certainly has the track record to make it one of the most successful tanks of WW2. and i know that the book is probably a load of rubbish, but even so, a book is rarely written if there isn't some substance behind it. despite the mythbusting I remain convinced that the sherman did, on occasion, catch fire.

 

There's no doubt the Shermans caught fire, it just didn't happen any more frequently than any other tank (the Panther, by the way, could also be considered a fire trap and early versions did suffer from spontaneous engine fires, unlike the Sherman). The Sherman has gotten a undeserved reputation as a tank that was vastly inferior to any German or Soviet tank, something that can be shown is quite untrue.

 

I dont like the Sherman but, at least I have the will to respect it.