T34-85 vrs Shermann

http://www.iremember.ru/tankers/loza/loza1.html



Dmitriy Loza
"Emcha" Commander

Dmitriy Loza in Hungary, March 1945. (from D.F.Loza archive)
- Dmitriy Fedorovich, on which American tanks did you fight?

- On Shermans. We called them "Emchas", from M4 [in Russian, em chetyrye].



For a long time after the war I sought an answer to one question. If a T-34 started burning, we tried to get as far away from it as possible, even though this was forbidden. The on-board ammunition exploded. For a brief period of time, perhaps six weeks, I fought on a T-34 around Smolensk. The commander of one of our companies was hit in his tank. The crew jumped out of the tank but were unable to run away from it because the Germans were pinning them down with machine gun fire. They lay there in the wheat field as the tank burned and blew up. By evening, when the battle had waned, we went to them. I found the company commander lying on the ground with a large piece of armor sticking out of his head. When a Sherman burned, the main gun ammunition did not explode. Why was this?



I want also to add that the Sherman's armor was tough. There were cases on our T-34 when a round struck and did not penetrate. But the crew was wounded because pieces of armor flew off the inside wall and struck the crewmen in the hands and eyes. This never happened on the Sherman.



It is obvious this man , who drove both, vastly preferred the Sherman. :bang:

 

and now, the counterpoint... Here's what the U.S. army had to say about the T-34 and KV in tests done in 1942 on tanks given to the U.S. by the soviets, essentially they compared the T-34 to similar American tanks.

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quart ... erdeen.htm

In short, the Americans classified the T-34 as having its sillhouette, optics, speed and off-road capability to be 'better than than any American tank'...

the T-34 was deficient to American tanks in that it was difficult to drive, uncomfortable to had a lower shell speed after firing, and was less reliable and needed more maintenance

 

The Americans also pointed out that the armour of Soviet tanks was of a lower quality than that of the American tanks...

Are you sure about the optics, that seems quite remarkable.

 

The quote from the site said:

The site speaks only of the shape of the hull.

 

Another quote from the site:

Smeghead?

:lol:

 

being difficult to drive and manoeuvrability are different things to speed...

haha- looks like i've just given you all more reasons to love shermans !

 

I should point out that it is less a question of us all loving Shermans (though some certainly do) and more a case of us being fed up with the M4 series being continually and unfairly maligned.

Love it or loath it, but do so objectively

 

What does loath mean?

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=loath

 

The word you are looking for is "loathe", as in detest, despise. And indeed, as our Mythbuster topics try to point out, the M4 is generally underrated whereas the T34 is overrated, and both Russian and American sources testify to this (see above).

 

Apologies for the typo...

 

Did the T-34/85 use gasoline or diesel ?

 

Diesel

 

Interesting link, however one has to consider that both T-34 and KV given to the USA were early models (probably 1942), when soviet factories were beeing evacuated east and their tank production was in shambles. If i recall correctly only STZ (Stalingrad tank factory) was left in full operation and this had to supply almost entire red army with T-34's. In those conditions quality was of secondary importance to quantitiy. For proper finish of small mechanical parts one needs time, the one thing that soviets at the time did not have. One also has to consider lack of skilled labour force in those dark days, as most of skilled laboburers were sent east to set up evacuated factories or were drafted into the army and their replacements on production lines were not yet "run in".
At the time when T-34/85 appeared, production of tanks became stable and quality also wastly improved (if they would be so lousy as test models they would hardly stay in use up to the 90's).

Interesting note. Yugoslavia had both T-34/85 (model 1944 and 1945 + some after war examples) and Shermans (M4A3 modified with long 76mm gun in the old round turret). Shermans were retired in 60-70's but T-34 soldered on and were extensivly used by all sides in recent Balcan wars (Croatia, Bosnia). The only version of Sherman that stayed in use were M-10 and M-36 tank destroyers, both used in recent wars ( at the and they were retired and used as targets for NATO air strikes on Kosovo).

 

But perhaps relevantly, Yugoslavia was also a former Eastern Bloc nation and would have considerably better access to spares etc for the T-34. It's most remarkable that US Lend-lease kit could survive in good engouh condition to even be used as decoys under such circumstances.

 

Yugoslav Shermans (M4A, M-10, M-36) were not lend - leased but were bought from US in late 1940's and early 50's together with number of M-8/20 armored cars (also used in Croatia), M3 White scout cars (also used on Sinai-UN), M3 half-tack APC's and some M7 Priest SP howitzers. At the time Yugoslavia had fall out with Stalin (informbiro resolution in 1948) and was on werge of war with eastern block (clear and present danger of invasion and undeclared low intensity war with Bolgaria i.e. a lot of border incidents). At the same time Yu also tried to produce some kind of T-34 but it was produced in only small limited series.
Note. With Shermans Yu also bought F-47D (late) Thunderbolts as stop gap mesure and later F-84G Thunderjets and F-86 D and US and Canadian versions of F-86E. At same time YU also bought large numbers of Moquito fighter bombers and night fighters (last production machines were made for YU). From that time on Yu played both sides of cold war, with establishment of Non aligned countries (first signatories: Tito (YU), Nasser (Egiypt), Nehru (India)).

YU also had some western equimnet from wwII that was supplied to them during the war by the British in form of number of M3A3 Stuarts (+ a couple of older models) and AEC II/III armoured cars that were part of 1.st armored brigade NOV and took part operations in Dalmatia, Knin and together with 2.nd armoured brigade NOV (T-34/85) in Trst (Trieste) operation.
All equipment recived from East was exclusivly of soviet origin, except Bulgarian war reparations were made in form of Bf-109G-10 fighters and Fazan and Bf-109G-12 school planes.

P.S.
In 1945/46 almost all planes that forcelanded and were left on YU soil + some captured German tanks/StuG's were traded with Soviets for their planes and tanks (especialy Yak-9P/U and T-34/85).

Some interestig conversions were made from M3A3 Stuarts. There were couple of them with removed turret and mounted PaK-40 (75mm) or Flak Vierling (4 x 20mm) guns. They were activly used in Trst opration. There is also a photo of captured Sumoa S-35 with modified turret with 6pounder from AEC armoured car (as far as i know it was not used in combat).

 

For Sherman fans:
Walkarounds of two Sherman tanks (modified with long 76mm gun in early round up-armoured turret) That are standing on infantry firing range Apače:
Sherman from Apače part 1
Sherman from Apače part 2
Sherman from Apače part 3

M-32 in Pivka tank batalion barracks:
M-32

M-36 in Pivka tank batalion barracks:
M-36

T-34-85 in Pivka and Ljubljana Moste- polje barracks:
T-34/85 models 1944 and 45

All these wheicles are intended for restauration for new military museum in Postojna.

 

I found a comparison of two models in pure technical stats...

------------------ frontal armor------side armor-----rear armor----top armor

T 34/85-----110mm------------95mm----------95mm----------20mm
M4A3 E8----95mm-------------46mm-----------46mm----------20mm

Also the Soviet 85mm cannon achieved slightly better penetration than the Shermans 76.2mm... the facts speak for themselves.

 

From the top of my head, I know that this is the opposite of facts. The T-34-85 had 45 mm of side and rear armor, and certainly less than 110 mm of frontal armor! Just look it up at wwiivehicles.com

 

I'm not sure about the source of your data.
T-34/85
Turret Armor (mm)
Front Face/Mantle = 90; Side = 75; Rear = 52; Top = 20
Hull Armor (mm)
Front = 45; Side = 45; Rear = 45; Top = 20; Belly = 20

M4A3E8
Turret Armor (mm)
Front Face = 64; Mantel = 89; Side = 64; Rear = 64; Top = 25
Hull (mm)
Hull Front Glacis = 64; Nose = 108; Lwr = 51;
Hull Side = 38; Rear = 38; Top = 19; Belly =25

Guns
T-34/85: 85/L53.9 (ZIS-S-53) or 85/L54.6 (D5T)
Muzzle velocity = 792m/s (AP & APBC); 1,200 m/s (APCR)
Penetration at 30 degrees:
500m = 90mm (AP and APBC); 100mm (APCR)
1000m = 75mm (AP); 85mm (APBC); 100mm (APCR)

M4A3E8: 76/L55 (M1A1 or M1A2)
Muzzle Velocity = 792 m/s (AP or APCBC); 1,036 m/s (APCR)
Penetration:
457m = 109mm (AP); 93mm (APCBC); 157mm (APCR)
914m = 92mm (AP); 88mm (APCBC); 103mm (APCR)

I don't really see much difference. German 75mm guns didn't have a problem with the armor of either and the US 76/L55 gun was about the same as the T-34 85/L54 gun, with a very slight edge, both able to deal with a PzKw MkIV or StuG III, but not the Panther's front armor.