Panzer IV (VS) Sherman (VS) T-34

[Freiwillige]

These were the MBT's for their army's. This is a discussion on the tanks themselves not numbers produced etc. For the sake of argument we shall act as an independent research firm who has access to these vehicles to decide who is the average medium tank champion.

The three have more similarity's than differences so this should be interesting.

All three are battle proven reliable design's

All three are capable in late forms of knocking each other out at combat ranges.

discuss!

[frinik]

Good topic Freiwillige but first you have to define which models of the 3 tanks do you wish to include in the comparison? The T34/76 and T34/85 models? All versions of the Sherman? All versions of the Panzer IV(up to Ausf. J)?

If yes then the T34/85 had the advantage over the other 2 in termsof armour protection because of thicker, sloped armour and much faster speed than the other 2 not to mention better cross-country traction thanks to its wide tracks.

Gun-wise I think all 3 guns are fairly well matched, the 75 mm L48 of the late Panzer IV is equal to the 85 mm C53 of the T34/76 and much superior to the 76 mm variant of the T34/76.The 76 mm of the Sherman is slightly inferior but not thta much.

The Panzer Iv had the edge over the T34s in the optics and ergonomics.While the Sherman also had better optics and ergonomics than the T34s.

The T34/76 was severely handicapped by its small turreet which forced the command er to act as loader and gave terrible visibility.The Optics were awful and reliability was also questionable because of the poor qulity filters they were using.

The Panzer IV and Sherman were vey reliable. However the Panzer IV did not have strong armour even though the late versions had more frontal protection and the Sherman while offerign better protection had the reputation(not sure if not exaggerated ) of being prone to catching fire easily after taking hits.

1) T34/85
2) Panzer IV but only ausf. G,H,J
3)Sherman
4)Panzer IV ausf. F2
5)T34/76 all versions incl 1942 Mickey Mouse Turret
6)Panzer IV F1

The difference between the Panzer IV G,H and J and the Sherman would not be great but I would give a slight edge to the PZ IV.Likewise the T34/85 is ahead of the other 2 but not by a huge margin.

Cheers

[Freiwillige]

I like how you sorted that out and your reasoning behind it, Very logical and I almost outright want to agree with you except you forgot one variable The Sherman Firefly!

Also I was reading that the first few years T-34's had terrible reliability. One unit had to move 3oo kilometers and lost half of its vehicles to breakdowns!

Also I know that T-34's didn't have radios in their tanks early on, the commander had flags he would wave for formation changes etc. That is why the Germans in under gunned tanks were able to hold on due to radios, training and therefore tactical superiority.

Also how fast was a t-34 compared to a MK IV or a Sherman?

I know its tracks were wider and much superior to the skinny Sherman and mark IV so mud and snow it would dominate the others.

[CCIP]

I don't really regard the Panzer IV and Sherman, at least as designed, to be 'true' medium tanks designed to take on other tanks - although both later acquired some of that capability. Both were initially designed as hard platforms support infantry, and neither initially had the 'teeth' for other tanks. While this gradually improved, the T-34, pound for pound, was still a much more ambitious design, with a lower profile and armament suited to true medium tank role. Its real initial flaw was the inefficient two-man turret, along with poor communication and under-developed tactics. Once that was corrected and the tank was employed in the numbers and tactics suited to its design, I don't think the other two were a match for it, although the superior German optics and excellent crew training kept the PzIV relevant long past its due. The Sherman meanwhile had very effective logistics backing it up, and in its Firefly variation with the long gun could hold its own, although I think its main contribution to the war was still as essentially an infantry tank.

[Sledgehammer427]

CCIP, I just remembered that the Panzer IV was built to be the infantry tank and the Panzer III to be the tank fighter, but their roles were switched.

Freiwillige, The T-34 was designed for the terrain it fought on, it had a wide stance, with wide tracks, as well as the fact they put the turret right in its center of gravity to keep it from nosing or tailing into the mud. a very efficient and, I think someone here said it, ambitious design.

The Germans didn't fare well in the mud of Russia simply because it was a war that Hitler didn't think of fighting back when the tanks were designed, the Tiger was outright too heavy and even though it had wide tracks it bogged down because the turret was planted ahead of its center of gravity.

but we aren't talking about the Tiger, are we?

Frinik, the T-34/76 you speak of, the commander had to be the GUNNER, not the loader. I prefer it because instead of having someone else calling targets for me to shoot at, or me having to trust someone else to shoot, I can do both! But, I'm basing my experience off of simulation and thus, I'm sure its more efficient to have gunner and commander separate.

but, frinik, I have to agree with your post. you said basically what I would have said.

[Freiwillige]

Having the commander be the gunner is a terrible idea, First off who's watching out for other forces? If your head is in your gun sight you lose perspective of the bigger picture quickly.

Also I respectfully have to disagree with you on the Tiger that were not talking about. Everything I have ever read is that it was a dream to drive for a world war two tank and its wide tracks gave it a very light ground pressure. The only real negative I have read was that the interleaved wheels would get mud built up and that mud would freeze over night and the next day they would have a pillbox!

But neither snow nor mud nor sand was much of an issue for der Tiger.

I have a book about the Tiger I will have to dig out and reference but it discusses in detail the luxury like ride and amazing cross country mobility for a 57 ton tank.

Also the sights were so good infact that the British were able to do this according to a Wikipedia article~
"The Tiger's gun had a very flat trajectory and extremely accurate Leitz Turmzielfernrohr TZF 9b sights (later replaced by the monocular TZF 9c). In British wartime firing trials, five successive hits were scored on a 16 by 18 in (410 by 460 mm) target at a range of 1,200 yards (1,100 m)."

The same article states that the Tigers wide tracks and interleaved road wheel gave it less ground pressure than both the Sherman and the T-34!

Based on gunsights alone I would be curious to know what the Panzer IV uses?

[frinik]

Freiwillige I like how you sorted that out and your reasoning behind it, Very logical and I almost outright want to agree with you except you forgot one variable The Sherman Firefly!

Also I was reading that the first few years T-34's had terrible reliability. One unit had to move 3oo kilometers and lost half of its vehicles to breakdowns!

Also I know that T-34's didn't have radios in their tanks early on, the commander had flags he would wave for formation changes etc.

I took all the flaws of the T34/76 into account which is why I put it in 5th position.

Yes the T34/76 was a revolutionary design as CCIP pointed out but revolutionary does not necessarily mean the best.The Messerschmitt ME 262 Schwalbe and ME163 Komet were also revolutionary designs but their teething problems and flaws were such that they were not terribly effective and older and more classical designs produced in large qunatities won the day...In the case of the Soviets they were ucky to have the chance to design a better second model the T34/85 which combined both solid improvements and large production numbers.I personally think the Panther was a much better tank overall than the T34/85 and had it not been produced in insufficient numbers and direly affected by the lack of fuel it would have carried the battlefield.

I took the Firefly into account in my rating but it was only one of the variants and not produced in large quantities.

The Tigers (both I and II) were legends and formidable machine much more agile than what people think but they had 2 basic flaws;

1) too complicated to produce( less than 1900 of both variants were made partly due to the disruption in production due to heavy Allies bombings it's true) which led to slow production rate and required frequent and time-consuming maintenance and repairs.

2) overweight and mechanically fragile;their excessive weight led to frequent transmission and suspension breakdowns and excessive fuel consumption a definite con for a fuel-poor country like Germany.The Tiger II at 68 tons weighs more than modern tanks such as the Leopard A6, the Abrams, Challenger 2 or the Leclerc not too mention the Russian equivalents!Krupp was planning a Klein Tiger weighing only 33 tons but the end of the war put an end to that project.

The Sherman for all its imperfections did what it was designed to do.It reflects very much the practical American mind; easy to produce , maintenance light and reliable.Swamp them with numbers!(that and air supremacy did the job).

All 3 contenders were designed initially for infantry support but had thei role changed as the nature of war evolved and changed.

Sledge the T34 could clock up to 63 kph on the road.The Sherman up to 48 if I remember correctly and the Panzer IV up to 45.But tanks are not race cars and faster means aldso more wear and tear on the engine and transmission and high fuel consumption.

one major flaw of the T34/85 which most Soviet tanks shared; a very low AP complement; it had only 14 AP rounds against 35 to 37 for the Panzer IV ( ausf. F onwards), 60 for the Tiger I and 43 approx for both Panthers and Tiger II.It meant the Sov tank commanders and gunners could not afford to make too many mistakes...