Position:Home>History> How good really was the T-34 tank?
Question: How good really was the T-34 tank!?
People always say that the T-34 was the best or was one of the best tanks of WW2!. What I want to know is how much better was the T-34 compared to the Sherman!?
I looked up both tanks on wikipedia and compared their statistics!. Now I don't now much about tanks, but after looking at the 2 tanks stats they seem to be relitively similar!. For example the T-34's aramant was 76!.2 mm and the Sherman's was 75 mm both these numbers are very close!. Are these guns similar or very different!?
http://en!.wikipedia!.org/wiki/T-34http://en!.wikipedia!.org/wiki/Sherman_tan!.!.!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
While the main gun on a T-34 was comparable to the 75mm of a Sherman, both were completely outclassed in firepower to the high-velocity, German 88mm gun!.
Where the T-34 really stood out against other WWII tanks was that it was rugged, reliable, relatively easy to repair and lighter in weight than other tanks and therefore, did not get bogged down on the Russian Steppes!. Additionally, the T-34 was the first, mass-produced main battle tank to incorporate sloped armor!. This caused many shells to ricochet off its hull, but also meant the plates themselves did not have to be as thick to provide the same amount of protection!.
An excellent example of this would be to take a piece of 2x4 wood!. Stand it on end and measure the thickness parallel to the ground!. Now, angle that same piece of 2x4 to about 40 degrees and remeasure the thickness parallel to the ground!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
You need to more look at the armor of both At it's greatest thickness, the Sherman could claim about slightly greater than 3" thick armor where as at it's greatest the T-34 could claim about slightly over 2" thick armor!. Seems to put the ball in the Sherman's court, but the T-34 actually had the advantage do to the fact that it used sloped armor more so than any other tank of the war!. Sloping armor is something that is used more heavily today on tanks than it was then because of it's effectiveness!. If you were to stand a sheet of inch thick steel up vertically and fire at it with a shell that can pierce it, then you're naturally going to blow a hole through it!. But if you slope it to a certain angle it's actually like increasing the thickness of the steel!. 1" at certain angle offers as much protection as 2" or 3" inch thick steel!. This is because there is actually a larger area the shell makes contact with and it is thus more likely to be prevented from doing damage!. So the greater slope on the T-34 and more sloped areas made it's 2" armor more effective than the Sherman's 3" armor!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
The T-34 is excellent tank in firepower, mobility and protection!. However The T-34 is not very combat effective!. It lacks radios, is very hard on the crew, and has poor tactical employment because of the crew's discomfort!.
The Sherman's gun had a low muzzle velocity, meaning the round shot out of this barrel had a lower speed!. This lower speed wouldn't make a dent in the armor of the newer German medium and heavy tanks that came out in the middle of the war!. The Sherman tank was designed to support the infantry, not to get in a head to head with a german tank!. Www@QuestionHome@Com
The similarity was in speed of production!. Both were cranked out REALLY fast!. But the Sherman was very high and narrow!. T34's were low and wide!. They also had great sloped armor!.
Shermans didn't outclass a Panzer 4!. T34's did!.
In terms of sheer power, the IS2 would be the best tank of the war!. But it came out very late!. Www@QuestionHome@Com
The Panther G
7!.5 cm Rheinmetall-Borsig KwK 42 (L/70) with 79 rounds (82 on the G)
http://en!.wikipedia!.org/wiki/Panther_tan!.!.!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
so good it pushed back the german invasionWww@QuestionHome@Com
They are very similar, and both had the advantage of simplicity and ease of maintenance that were the weakness of their German counterparts!. One thing people often forget when comparing the T-34 or the M-4 with the Mk V Panther or Mk VI Tiger is that the Allied tanks were better one-on-one half the time because the Germans were down for repairs!.
The sloping armor and lower profile of the T-34 and especially its wide track with better boyancy over mud or marshy ground made it distinctly better than the M-4, especially if it was a commander's tank with the radio (supplied by the US)!.
BTW, were you aware that the Soviets imported and used a significant number of Shermans!? They, of course, didn't get the press in Pravda that the T-34 or the KV-1 had, but that's not really a surprise, is it!?Www@QuestionHome@Com
From what I've read out of history books, the T-34 tracks were wider and wouldn't sink into that soft soil of the Eastern Front!. I think perhaps the T-34 wasn't so superior - there were just a hell of a lot of them and they were easy to make and run!. The German tanks were often over engineered and underpowered and there never was enough of them!.
I also know a guy who was caught in a raid in Korea (he was a photographer - no rifle) and the N!. Korean T-34's came down on them!. He said they were sleek and fast machines but that our guys could blow them up pretty well!.
The Shermans just looked so cool - had a great top speed - but people say the armor was just way to thin for fighting Germans!.
But you want to compare Shermans to T-34's - I don't suppose anybody talks about that so much because they never fought each other!.
Www@QuestionHome@Com