Best Tank of WW2??????

1. Most tank battles on the eastern front took place in large, open areas (lie kursk) and most combat on the eastern front involving KT's were in large, open environments. While there were many urban engagements (like the battle of berlin).

2. It was rare for german tanks to stumble on soviet vehicles refueling. Most of the combat with KTs were with the KT in the defensive role, not probing for russian convoys.

3. the 11:1 kill/loss ration includes vehicles that broke down or were abandoned. The kill/loss ration of KT's only destroyed in combat was closer to 20:1.

 

The Cromwell. (I'll get my coat)

 

In the debate on the T-34 vs Sherman, I'll say the T-34 starts off the better tank but the situation changes as the war goes on and in the end it's close but the Sherman ends up the slightly better tank, and for the following reasons:

1. Better interior ergonomics (The T-34 was cramped and not very comfortably furnitured inside to say the least)
2. Five (5) man crew, 3 in turret. (The T-34 didn't have this, and it was a serious disadvantage)
3. Easier to replace broken parts (The T-34 was easy to maintain, but replacement of parts took longer than on the Sherman)
4. A good radio (Soviets always had problems here)
5. Slightly better gun in general (The 76mm M1 outperformed the Soviet 76mm F34 quite readily, and was on par with the 85mm Zis-53 in terms of armour penetration)

That having been said the T-34 had its' advantages over the Sherman, such as slightly better armour protection, better HE shell (T-34/85), better mobility, lower silhuette and higher speed. Both tanks had about equal optics, with maybe a slight advantage to the Sherman, but both lacked accurate range scales, range finding tools, ease of use, clarity and field of view.

So in the end it's close, but the Sherman takes the cake.

 

I really don't feel like going throught this again but....

Armor: Both vehicles are almost identical in protection. The Sherman has a slightly thicker basis (actual plate thickness) than the T34. With slope accounted for both are virtually identical in armor protection. The T34 does have some problems however. A major one is the driver's hatch in the glacis. This is a large weak spot in the frontal armor.

Gun: The Soviet 76mm is virtually identical in performance to the US 75mm M3 cannon. The Soviet 85 is virtually identical in performance to the US 76mm.

General notes:

The T-34/76 is particularly flawed in crew layout. The commander is also the gunner. As the tank lacks an intercom system the commander can only communicate to the driver by hand and foot signals (tapping his shoulder etc.). This cannot be done with any ease, if at all, if the turret is traversed beyond the reach of the commander.
The loader has just three ready service rounds. After that he has to dig ammunition cases out of the floor of the vehicle and retrieve additional rounds. This leaves the floor of the turret a mess of rubber matting, ammunition cases, empty shell cases (no ejection port is provided) for the loader to stumble about in. All this makes loading and rate of fire extremely low.
Visibility buttoned up is pathetically bad. The commander has a single vision port on the side of the turret, the gunsight and, a single periscope to view through. The driver can only see straight ahead. The radio operator / hull machinegunner is essentially blind. The loader has a periscope on some models and a vision port in his side of the turret. Of course, he cannot use these if loading the gun.
For all intents and purposes the T34/76 is a turretted assault gun. If a target is not presented to its front it probably will go unseen. With the general lack of a radio the commander of the vehicle is unlikely to know what is happening around him and to other tanks in his unit.

Automotively, the T34 is rugged in the sense that the provded systems are nearly bullet proof. On the other hand, they are also so crude and sloppy that their service life is short. It isn't uncommon for a T 34 to burn several quarts of oil per 100 miles driven. The transmission is weak. The clutch is stiff and difficult to work. The steering system is a crude clutch and brake system that is both stiff and wearing on the driver.
The single end pin track with alternate plate toothing is libel to come off at high speed, break after just a few hours of operation, or shed in a sharp turn.
The air start system is a great feature. It works well even in very cold weather. It will turn over the diesel where even many gasoline engines of the period wouldn't start. The low ground pressure is a good feature particularly for the soil conditions in the Soviet Union.

The T34/85 is a bit better. The low sillouette is lost but the tank gains a three man turret with a cupola and dedicated commander. This fixes alot of the crew problems of the 76 model. But, it also really isn't available until mid 1944 in any numbers either.

As for the Sherman:

It was far better laid out. The crew had decent visibility especially once the low rise cupola was added. The gunner was provided a wide vision periscope along with the gunsight. Many crews added a blade sight on the turret to use with the periscope to cut down engagement time.

The gyroscopic stabilizer worked as advertised when crews bothered to maintain and learn to use it. The turret rotation system was both fast and very smooth with fine movements possible. It was very typical for Sherman crews to be on target first and get several rounds in before any return fire. This cannot be understated in importance. In tank battles first on target usually wins the fight.

Ammunition fires were a problem on early models, hence the reputation for burning. Wet storage took care of that problem giving wet model Shermans one of the lowest rates of catastrophic fires of any tank in WW 2. They were much less likey to burn or explode than late war German tanks. In fact, one of the worst German tanks for this is the JadgTiger. This is due to the use of seperate case ammunition. Applicae armor helped with the dry storage tanks.

The Sherman has minimally, two radios installed. This gives it great intercommunication. By mid 44 most or all also had a telephone on the rear of the vehicle to allow accompanying infantry to talk to the tank crew. The provision of a donkey two stroke engine allowed the crew to keep the batteries charged while stationary without running the main engine.

The maintainability of the vehicle is literally outstanding. An engine or transmission change could be accomplished in a few hours. The Ford GAA engine was an engineering tour de force of reliability.

The use of a rubber bushed, double end connector track was also a good choice. Shermans could drive literally thousands of miles on one set at a time when other nation's tanks managed just a few hundred at most. This track was also far more efficent in operational road marches and in breakthrough situations.
While early models had ground pressure issues on soft and muddy terrain this was progressively fixed by use of end grousers and the wider 23" track with HVSS suspension. The M4A3E8 has better off road performance than a late model Pz IV, and almost equals a Panther and a T34/85 in that respect. It outperforms all three massively on road marching.

The one major offensive that the Tiger II was used in was the Ardennes. In that battle those present were relegated to the rear of the armored assault columns. The reasons for this were:

To avoid their breaking down and jamming a road.

To avoid crossing a bridge and it collapsing.

Their low speed would reduce the speed of advance.

Their need for more fuel and maintenance was easier to meet if they were further back with logistic echelon units.

Their long range firepower was unnecessary given the terrain.

In fact, I don't think there is a single case of a Tiger battalion on either front (East or West) stopping an Allied advance at the operational level or delaying significantly the same. I would also posit that there are virtually no cases where these vehicles on the offensive actually scored more than a tactical success in combat regardless of the kill - loss ratio.

Well, enough for now.

Oh, Slinoksp: I was over generalizing. The T 34 has redemming features and did eventually win the war in the East for the Soviets as their tank.

 

You and your Cromwells....

 

The Stuart and the Lee, with red stars on them of course.

Good thing for that Atlantic AND Pacific barrier....

 

Well, tell that to the author of Tigers in Combat and his sources, the combat diaries of said units. You do own a copy of the set, right?

 

Cough, cough...

Ever did the math on LOS thickness for Sherman and T-34? Even counting the slope effect the T-34 was only marginally better protected than the M4 Sherman. However poor cast armor quality plagued Soviet tanks even at the end of the war making spalling a huge menance. Another bad news for the T-34 crew is that their diesel tanks were mounted at the front and rear of the hull and if a round pentrated above the fuel line the tank goes kaboom.

The American 75mm gun was better than the Soviet 76.2mm. Firepower advantage is more pronounced especially if the stuff the Russians call ammunition and optics in 1941 are considered. The Russian turret traverse was slower than both German and American counterpart. At first Russians had almost no radios.

The Russian 85mm slightly outperforms the American 76mm in AT power when firing regular APCBC ammo. With HVAP the American 76mm outperforms the 85mm by a considerable margin. The T-34 had no other advantage when compared to an Easy 8.

 

And more than a couple of Guards Mechanized Corps...

 

They are pretty, and have a Rolls engine.

That makes them pretty and fast. It is a Jaguar E-Type tank... No wait the E-Type wasn't as reliable as the Cromwell.

It is also produced in lesser numbers than the other tanks and that makes it exclusive.

It was also used in reccie formations so that means that it has foxhunting pedigree.

It was introduced 4 years too late, and comparing to high society, a late and dramatic arrival is good form indeed.

Through my warped vision that makes it just brilliant.

The Comet is just too suitable for it's task, giving it's crew too little to moan about, not good form you see.

 

What colors did it come in? And what type of financing would be available?

 

If it's looks you're going for I think the Crusader looks better than Cromwell.

 

Financing is sorted easy. The government borrows from the US, and your grandchildren would make the final payoff.

Easily availiable in a plethora of colour.

 

Actually I'd like to correct something. The 76mmM1A1's penetration I listed ..109 mm @ 500 yards & 93 mm @ 1000 yards was with the M79 shell not the M62. With M62 it's penetrations are 93mm @ 500 yards & 88 mm @ 1000 yards. I was using Hunnicutt's figures and looked at the wrong line. Still considering the Soviet 85mm penetrated 103mm @ 500 yards & 90mm @ 1,000 yards the 76mmM1A1 certainly stacks up pretty well even if not slighlt superior in AP capability depending on the ammo used and with it's higher ROF probably surpasses it. However to be fair the 85 mm would have a superior HE capability.

I sincerely apologise for posting the wrong info earlier.

 

does the book specifically mention KT's, or just regular tigers. And i highly, highly doubt the german army would use KT's to probe for russian armor convoys. They used much smaller scout vehicles for that purpose, as a KT is anything but a light scout vehicle. They were used in the defensive role as mobile anti-tank guns.

1. The fact that russian vehicles use diesel is another advantage. And the fuel tank only explodes if it is set on fire, and diesel is not very flammable.

2. The t-34's sloped armor is still an advantage even if it is only slightly thicker. Sloped armor ca deflect rounds, and AP ammunition perform worse against it.

3.The t-34 is considerably shorter in height than the sherman, another advantage. It also has much better off road performance (wider tracks), and has a much higher top speed. And perhaps the greatest advantage, it was much, much cheaper and easier to make.

 

Something I found a while back...

EVALUATION OF THE T-34 AND KV TANKS BY ENGINEERS OF THE ABERDEEN PROVING
GROUNDS, SUBMITTED BY FIRMS, OFFICERS AND MEMBERS OF MILITARY COMMISSIONS
RESPONSIBLE FOR TESTING TANKS
T-34-76 that was delivered in USA for evaluation
The tanks were given to the U.S. by the Soviets at the end of 1942 for
familiarization.
The condition of the tanks
The T-34 medium tank after driving 343 km, became completely disabled and
that could not be fixed. The reason: owing to the extremely poor air
filter system on the diesel, a large quantity of dirt got into the engine
and a breakdown occurred, as a result of which the pistons and cylinders
were damaged to such a degree that they were impossible to fix. The tank
was withdrawn from tests and was to be shelled by the KV and American 3"
gun of the M-10 tank (M10 "Wolverine" SP antitank gun - Valera). After
that, it would be sent to Aberdeen, where it would be analyzed and kept as
an exhibit.
The heavy tank KV-1 is still functional. Tests were continued, although it
had many mechanical defects.
T-34-76 that was delivered in USA for evaluation
The silhouette/configuration of the tanks
Everyone, without exception, approves of the shape of the hull of our
tanks. The T-34's is particularly good. All are of the opinion that the
shape of the T-34's hull is better than that of any American tank. The
KV's is worse than on any current American tank.
Armor
A chemical analysis of the armor showed that on both tanks the armor
plating has a shallow surface tempering, whereas the main mass of the
armored plating is made of soft steel.
In this regard the Americans consider that by changing the technology used
to temper the armored plating, it would be possible to significantly
reduce its thickness while preserving its protective ability (the
situation with American armor was even worse. Engineers in Aberdeen have
criticized their armor on Shermans. Soviet engineers have agreed with them
because during the comparative trials Soviet ZIS-3 gun could penetrate
Sherman's galcis from 1100 metres - Valera). As a result the weight of the
tank could be decreased by 8-10%, with all the resulting benefits (an
increase in speed, reduction in ground pressure, etc.)
T-34-76 that was delivered in USA for evaluation
Hull
The main deficiency is the permeability to water of the lower hull during
a water crossings, as well as the upper hull during a rain. In a heavy
rain lots of water flows through chinks/cracks, which leads to the
disabling of the electrical equipment and even the ammunition.
The Americans liked how the ammunition is stowed.
Turret
The main weakness is that it is very tight. The Americans couldn't
understand how our tankers could fit inside during a winter, when they
wear sheepskin jackets (Americans tested the T-34 with a two-men turret -
Valera). The electrical mechanism for rotating the turret is very bad. The
motor is weak, very overloaded and sparks horribly, as a result of which
the device regulating the speed of the rotation burns out, and the teeth
of the cogwheels break into pieces. They recommend replace it with a
hydraulic or simply manual system.
T-34-76 that was delivered in USA for evaluation
Armament
The F-34 gun is a very good. It is simple, very reliable and easy to
service. Its weakness is that the muzzle velocity of AP round is
significantly inferior to the American 3" gun (3200 feet versus 5700 feet
per second).
Optic
The general opinion: the best construction (please notice - the best
construction doesn't mean the best at all - Valera) in the world.
Incomparable with any existing tanks or any under development.
Tracks
The Americans like very much the idea of a steel tracks. But they believe
that until they receive the results of the comparative performance of
steel vs rubber tracks on American tanks in Tunis and other active fronts,
there is no reason for changing from the American solution of rubber
bushings and pads.
The deficiencies in our tracks from their viewpoint results from the
lightness of their construction. They can easily be damaged by
small-calibre and mortar rounds. The pins are extremely poorly tempered
and made of a poor steel. As a result, they quickly wear and the track
often breaks. The idea of having loose track pins that are held in place
by a cam welded to the side of the hull, at first was greatly liked by the
Americans. But when in use under certain operating conditions, the pins
would become bent which often resulted in the track rupturing. The
Americans consider that if the armour is reduced in thickness the
resultant weight saving can be used to make the tracks heavier and more
reliable.
Suspension
On the T-34, it is poor. The Christie's suspension was tested long time
ago by the Americans, and unconditionally rejected (American "Shermans"
and "General Lees" had very poor suspension as well. At the same time the
British used Christie's suspension and were quite satisfied - Valera). On
our tanks, as a result of the poor steel on the springs, it very quickly
(unclear word) and as a result clearance is noticeably reduced. On the KV
the suspension is very good.
Engine
The diesel is good and light. The idea of using diesel engines on tanks is
shared in full by American specialists and military personnel.
Unfortunately, diesel engines produced in U.S. factories are used by the
navy and, therefore, the army is deprived of the possibility of installing
diesels in its tanks.
The deficiency of our diesels is the criminally poor air cleaners on the
T-34. The Americans consider that only a saboteur could have constructed
such a device. They also don't understand why in our manuals it is called
oil-bath. Their tests in a laboratory showed that:
the air cleaner doesn't clean at all the air which is drawn into the
motor;
its capacity does not allow for the flow of the necessary quantity of
air, even when the motor is idling. As a result, the motor does not
achieve its full capacity. Dirt getting into the cylinders leads them to
quickly wear out, compression drops, and the engine loses even more
power. In addition, the filter was manufactured, from a mechanical point
of view, extremely primitively: in places the spot-welding of the
electric welding has burned through the metal, leading to leakage of oil
etc (that claim was accepted, and later T-34 variants received the new,
better, "Cyclon" filter - Valera). On the KV the filter is better
manufactured, but it does not secure the flow in sufficient quantity of
normal cleaned air. On both motors the starters are poor, being weak and
of unreliable construction.
Transmission
Without a doubt, poor. An interesting thing happened. Those working on the
transmission of the KV were struck that it was very much like those
transmissions on which they had worked 12-15 years ago. The firm was
questioned. The firm sent the blueprints of their transmission type A-23.
To everyone's surprise, the blueprints of our transmission turned out to
be a copy of those sent. The Americans were surprised not that we were
copying their design, but that we were copying a design that they had
rejected 15-20 years ago. The Americans consider that, from the point of
view of the designer, installing such a transmission in the tank would
create an inhuman harshness for the driver (hard to work). On the T-34 the
transmission is also very poor. When it was being operated, the cogs
completely fell to pieces (on all the cogwheels). A chemical analysis of
the cogs on the cogwheels showed that their thermal treatment is very poor
and does not in any way meet American standards for such mechanisms.
Side friction clutches
Out of a doubt, very poor. In USA, they rejected the installation of
friction clutches, even on tractors (never mind tanks), several years ago.
In addition to the fallaciousness of the very principle, our friction
clutches are extremely carelessly machined from low-quality steel, which
quickly causes wear and tear, accelerates the penetration of dirt into the
drum and in no way ensures reliable functioning.
General comments
From the American point of view, our tanks are slow (Americans got the
T-34 with a 4-speed gearbox. With a such gearbox, T-34 could use the 4th
speed on a firm and even surface - i.e. on roads. Thus, the max speed on
the cross-country was 25.6 km/h. On later modifications there was a
5-speed gearbox to be installed. This gearbox allowed to drive with a 30.5
km/h. - Valera). Both our tanks can climb an incline better than any
American tank. The welding of the armor plating is extremely crude and
careless. The radio sets in laboratory tests turned out to be not bad.
However, because of poor shielding and poor protection, after installation
in the tanks the sets did not manage to establish normal communications at
distances greater than 10 miles. The compactness of the radio sets and
their intelligent placement in the tanks was pleasing. The machining of
equipment components and parts was, with few exceptions, very poor. In
particular, the Americans were troubled by the disgraceful design and
extremely poor work on the transmission links on the T-34. After much
torment they made a new ones and replaced ours. All the tanks mechanisms
demand very frequent fine-tuning.
Conclusions, suggestions
On both tanks, quickly replace the air cleaners with models with greater
capacity capable of actually cleaning the air.
The technology for tempering the armor plating should be changed. This
would increase the protectiveness of the armor, either by using an
equivalent thickness or, by reducing the thickness, lowering the weight
and, accordingly, the use of metal.
Make the tracks thicker.
Replace the existing transmission of outdated design with the American
"Final Drive," which would significantly increase the tanks
manoeuvrability.
Abandon the use of friction clutches.
Simplify the construction of small components, increase their
reliability and decrease to the maximum extent possible the need to
constantly make adjustments.
Comparing American and Russian tanks, it is clear that driving Russian
tanks is much harder. A virtuosity is demanded of Russian drivers in
changing gear on the move, special experience in using friction
clutches, great experience as a mechanic, and the ability to keep tanks
in working condition (adjustments and repairs of components, which are
constantly becoming disabled). This greatly complicates the training of
tankers and drivers.
Judging by samples, Russians when producing tanks pay little attention
to careful machining or the finishing and technology of small parts and
components, which leads to the loss of the advantage what would
otherwise accrue from what on the whole are well designed tanks.
Despite the advantages of the use of diesel, the good contours of the
tanks, thick armor, good and reliable armaments, the successful design
of the tracks etc., Russian tanks are significantly inferior to American
tanks in their simplicity of driving, manoeuvrability, the strength of
firing (reference to muzzle velocity), speed, the reliability of
mechanical construction and the ease of keeping them running.

The head of the 2nd Department
of the Main Intelligence Department of the Red Army,
major-general Khlopov

 

Diesel is a fossil fuel which means it is very volatile. And diesel fume is highly explosive. Here's the Soviet report compiled after Kursk. It is translated by a Russian.

Ref. № 632/3
11/IX-44 y.

Report of spec.lab. NKV № 101-1 on theme:
Examination of hitting features of T-34 tank fuel tanks with armor-piercing/high-explosive and cumulative (armor-burning){HEAT} shells of german fascist army.
Resp. executors: Rozov, Kaminsky, Shchurov
Superviser: Sarafanov

1. History of question
In the battles of spring-summer 1943 tank army, tank corps and tank brigades commanders begin to note that cases of T-34 tanks combat losses with catastrophic explosions of fuel tanks or fire in engine compartment became more frequent. For instance, cases of burn T-34 tanks in battles of summer 1943 near Kursk exceeded those of T-70 tanks by 4-9%...
By order of chief of BTU GBTU of Red Army engeneer-colonel Afonin, 11 Sept. 1943 a comission was formed to study this problem.
Our group studied possibilities of T-34 fuel tank explosion with various armor-piercing tools and valuation of its probable impact on crew and inner equipment.

2. Target setting
Comission's survey of 72 destroyed during Kursk battle tanks on SPAM {field repair} bases have shown that most of them (68%) were destroyed by fire originated in result of fuel tank depressurization with subconcious inflammation of diesel fuel.
All mentiond tanks have breach in hull side or underskirt by AP, armor-burning shells or field charge.
About 1/3 abovementioned tanks lack one or two front fuel tanks and have demolition inside or partial, or even complete destruction of hull's welded seams, caused by internal explosion.
Only little part (8%) of tanks have signs of inner explosion with singns of flames, whereas 24% of machines were destroyed with explosion without any signs of iner flames. Often even ordinance was completely unharmed in chest. According given order our group researched this particular type of destruction - fuel tank explosion.
Members of comission engeneer-colonel Gurov and MVTU associate professor Krutov assumed after inspection of exploded tanks that given damage was caused by explosion of front fuel tanks placed inside crew compartment of T-34 after impact of some specific german ammunition.
Engeneer-major Firsov expressed opinion that such explosion could happen in result of burst of high temperature ammunition based on thermite or electron {aluminium or alloy powder and mixed with rust}
Group of com. Sarafanov recieved a task personally from chief of GBTU to explore the possibility of T-34 fuel tanks detonation after hit by various types of armor-piercing ammunition of german fascist army
{part missing}

4. Study equipment.
To verify assumtions of coms. Gurov, Firsov and Krutov, three sections layouts of 35 mm thick armoured steel with 135 l. {35 gallons} fuel tank established inside were built by NII-48 and Uralmashzavod. Also according to cover letter № 312-a from 21.IV-44 y. a T-34 hull with turret and equipment but without weapons was put to testing ground by BTU.
{part missing again}

5. Experimenting on location.
First shelling of layouts was on 12/XII-43y. from ballistic cannon m.40 from 30 meters distance.
1. During the test fuel tank was full of diesel fuel, recieved by cover letter of com. Afonin from 5/XII. Total spent 8 m.38 shells, 5 m.39/40 shells and 5 armor-burning shells. The results are the following:
• During tests fuel tank was completely destroyed 3 times, diesel fuel was flamed 4 times. Explosions were not recorded.
• When the fuel tank was hit by fragments of m39/40 shell they were abruptly dragged. Many of fragments did not break through.
Conclusions: 100% filled fuel tank of T-34 tank cannot be a source to inner explosion of T-34 tank, but even serves a protection from fragments of armor and cores of m.39/40 shells. {Guess it's the exact meaning of these fuel tanks}
2. Since com. Krutov expected that petrol cannot explode either if tank is full, with com. Fedin sanction a tank of petrol was installed into section. 3 shots was fired with m.38 shell and one armor-burning. Explosions were not recorded, in 2 tests petrol flamed.

Second stage of trials was began 9/II-44y. For trials the same weapons were used with addition of 88mm recoilless cannon m.1943, firing 88mm armour-burning mines.
According to trials program partially filled tanks were tested. Prior to the test shootings the tank was carried on a truck for 1-2 hours on service roads on testing area. After that fuel was poured off according to test conditions and tank was being installed on layout.

4th series of shooting. Tanks filled to 10-25%. Tank exploding from hit of coherent jet being filled to 25% or less. Equivalent bursting power was near 30-50 gramms of trotyl. The hatch cover on roof of layout made to lift off the tanks was smashed out. In case of filling with petrol explosiveness reducing on avearge 1.5 times comparing to diesel fuel. Fuel tank detonation caused hatch cover to open. Welded seams of layout remained intact.
Another picture is observed when inside almost empty tank a high explosive part of 75mm armor-piercing shell with red ring (80 gramms of trotyl with detonator of 20 gramms of phlegmatized tan{I don't know how to translate it, it seems to be acronym. Pretty sure some one of military or defence professionals would recognize it, but I' not} in aluminium cup) is bursting. In this case exploding effect of the shell is heavily (several times) increasing. Welded seams of underskirt was destroyed by explosion, after that shock wave ripped underskirt offand partly destroyed the roof of layout. Layout admitted off.

The M4 Sherman tanks have thicker sloped armor.

The T-34 was also more difficult to maintain, had less average mileage per major breakdown and sometimes shoddily constructed. A random sample of T-34 the Russians sent to the Allies could only actuate 50% of the engine's theoretical horsepower because the filters were faulty. Russian LL tankermen generally liked their M4s.

 

1. Diesel is less flammable then gasoline. 75-95% of the time sherman tanks would brew up when hit. That is why the polish called them "flaming coffins".

2. The sherman has sloped frontal armor, but its hull side, hull rear, and turret are flat. The t-34 has sloped hull front, side, rear and the entire turret is sloped.

3. Another fatal flaw in the sherman was that the sherman had one hatch in the turret. This made it extremely difficult to escape when the vehicle was ablaze. The t-34 had one hatch in the t-34-76 model, but the hatch was very large and the turret contained only 2 people (however the hatch was heavy and could get locked). in the t-34-85 the new turret fixed the problem by having 2 hatches. German tanks, on the other hand, had 3 hatches, which is why there crews had a higher chance of surviving if there vehicle caught fire. And while the t-34-76 has visibility and reloading problems, these were corrected with the t-34-85, which offered the superior 85mm gun and a 3 man turret and a commanders copula. Also, the t-34 was able to be equipped with wire-mesh screens that deflected HEAT warheads fired by the panzerfaust and panzershreck, something I have never seen applied to a sherman tank. I have said this before but another advantage it has over the sherman was it is much cheaper and easier to make, which is why the russians made more of them (50,000 to 47,000) with less factories. They were also constantly moving there factories eastward, which hindered production even more.

 

It isn't fuel that is the danger, it is ammunition. That is why the US went to wet storage. That is why dry storage Shermans got applicae armor. The T34 is hard to brew because the ammunition is almost entirely in aluminium "suitcases" stored in the bottom of the vehicle. Early Shermans brewed when hit because there are numerous ammunition boxes stored high in the hull.

Oh, by the way one of the bigger vunerabilities of the Tiger II is the ammunition stored in the rear of the turret. Henschel added spall liners (thin armor to keep fragments out) to help prevent non-penertrating hits from detonating this ammunition by spall fragmentation. Many Tiger crews also kept a minimum of ammunition in these racks knowing the potential danger they represented as a source of catastrophic explosion.

So? The Sherman is still 2" thick on the sides and rear. The T 34 has 45mm with slope included and the basis is only 30mm or just over 1" Slope is not some magical panacia for armored vehicles. Note how many today are very boxy shaped. The M1 certainly is no highly sloped vehicle from many aspects. Neither was a Tiger 1 but it's armor was sufficent to stop most weapons that were in service when it was designed.
Note that the side and rear armor of a Tiger I is 80 mm thick. The frontal armor of late model Pz IV is 80mm thick. The Germans chose that thickness for a reason. That thickness will stop any 76mm Russian round at anything more than point blank range. That is why they chose it.

Not true. Most Shermans other than early A1 versions had two hatches. The 60 degree hull Shermans also got larger hull hatches added after early models.

As for Panzerfaust protection: a number of experiments were tried. The M4A3E2 Jumbo was the chosen solution. From the front it is 75L48 and Pak proof. It is also panzerfaust proof. From even the side and rear you would have to be very lucky to kill one with a panzerfaust. The Soviet improvisation of using mattresses and other junk spaced out on the tank is little different, if more crude, than the US using chain link fence to the same purpose in Vietnam against RPG 7 rounds.

The Pz III, Germany's main battle tank for much of the war had no hull hatches except two fairly small ones between the road wheels. These were later eliminated too. Many vehicles in many armies had poor routes of escape. Possibly one of the worst was the Hetzer. But, this is hardly a major flaw in a vehicle.