Busting Tank Myths: T-34, M4, and MkIV Compared

[Neutrino 123]

Many people have little idea of how these tanks, the main tanks of their respective nations during the war, compared to each other. Alot of people know about how weak the Sherman is supposed to be, and how powerful the T-34 was though to be, but these things are not correct. All these tanks were about the same.

There were multiple models of these tanks. They can be broken up into 2-3 groups depending on the tank.

The early T-34s were equipped with 76.2mm guns and had four crew. They entered service in late 1940. Models with a redesigned turret housing an 85mm gun came into service starting in 1944 (these had five crew). Throughout the years, turret armor was improved in various sub-models. Much of the reason for the T-34s great reputation is that when it first started fighting, it was very difficult to kill due to it's good armor protection.

The early M4 Shermans came around in mid 1942 with a 75mm gun. Beginning in 1944 (when the U.S. realized it was out-gunned), Shermans with 76.2mm guns began to enter service. Also upgrades to off-road ability and armor were made to Shermans with either type of gun. The reason they have a bad reputation is that most of their fighting was in 1944, much of which was against Panthers and Tigers.

The German MkIV was produced as early as 1937. However, until the MkIVF2 entered service in 1942, these tanks were equipped with short-barreled 75mm guns, not to useful for AT work. The F2 had a medium-legnth barrel and was much better. Later models would get armor improvements and a slightly better gun.

How did these tanks compare to each other? One must select contemperary models.

In 1943 the Panzer IVG, M4A3 Sherman, and T-34 model 1942 squared off against each other.

Speed: The T-43 takes the prize here with 55km/h speed (~40 off road). The Sherman could only make a 42km/h road speed (I am not sure about off-road, I have seen estimates between 25-31 though), and the MkIV a 40km/h road speed (~16 off road). The reason for this was track size and suspension. The MkIVs had very thin tracks, so could not get very good off-road performance.

Firepower: The MkIV had the best gun (higher velocity) by far and better optics too. The Sherman was not far behind in optics, but did not have a very good gun. The T-34 had a horrible gun for its size and poor optics as well. Each gun could penetrate the other tanks at normal combat ranges, except that the T-34s 76.2mm gun could not penetrate the hull of the MkIV except at close range (nor could it penetrate the Sherman front except at close range...).

Protection (frontal): The T-34 and Sherman are about the same. The T-34 had equivalent thickness (taking slope into account - NOTE: besides for thickness increase, the slope provides addition protection against most ammo) of ~80mm (varied due to curve) for the turret and 90mm for the hull. The hull was also very sloped. The Sherman had ~88mm in the turret and 91mm in the hull (slightly less sloped then the T-34). The MkIV only had 51mm in the turret and 82mm in the hull, all with very tiny slopes.

Special: The early Shermans were prone to catch fire. The T-34 only had a two-man turret, so the commander had to be the gunner too, reducing efficientcy. Also, the T-34s were often hampered by lack of radios (this may have been largely corrected by 1943, I'm not sure). On the other hand, the Sherman and T-34 were more reliable (mechanically) then the MkIV.


The later varients of the Sherman and T-34 in late 1944 and 1945 were greatly improved. The MkIV was not, but then the Panther began to appear in signifigant numbers, so 1945 comparisons would be T-34/85 Model 1944, MkVG Panther, and M4A3(76)W Sherman.

I have used multiple sources (including Combat Mission, a well-researched WWII tactical Combat game) and the online site http://www.onwar.com/tanks/index.htm

Note that if you go to that site, the slopes are given the opposite of what they are usually given as, so 90 degrees is actually zero degree (no sloping) etc.

[micky1up]

it wasn't how good they where it was specific aspecs of the tanks that made them good for instance the t34's sloped armor gave it survivability also it's wide track gave it better crosscountry capability but the biggest factor with the like of the sherman and the t34 was mass production these where easy tanks to build in large numbers and these numbers tipped the balance against the technically superior german tanks

[Abraham]

Thanks Neutrino 123 for the interesting comparison of the individual tank characteristics.
Some new facts here, at least for me.

It seems to support my thesis that armour-wise and invasion in 1943 would have been quite possible, given the quantitative superiority of the Allied tanks...

[mog]

The fact is that while they were all designed with a similar purpose, they operated under different doctrines. For the tasks they were asked to perform in Western Europe, the Sherman was a terrible tank. Where the Germans or the Russians would have employed heavy tanks, the Allies were stuck with Shermans.

Thankfully someone that must have been relatively high-ranking in the British Army saw what was coming and started replacing the 75mm gun with 17 pounders before the invasion.

[Abraham]

And the US Army started the devellopment of the M-26 Pershing tank, which was superior to the Panther in mobility, speed and armour, although it's 90 mm gun had not the same high velocity as the Panther's 75 mm gun.
However, when this overall superior tank was ready for production, in Januari 1944, top brass in the US Army decided that ithe Shertman would be good enough and halted the production for almost a whole year. Actuallt the first 20 M-26's reached the European front the first week on February 1945!

[GunnersMate]

Now compare the Tiger, King Tiger, IS-2, and M-26 !

[Dowly]

"The M4 Sherman tank was first called 'Chuck Norris', but Norris wanted it to be changed as it wasnt tough enough."

[Abraham]

I only have intimate knowledge available about the M-26 (Pershing) and the M-26A1E2 (Super Pershing)

M-26:
Weight 47.5 tons.
Suspension: Modified Christies system.
Ground pressure: 3.5 pound per sq. inch (Sherman 7 pound p/s/i)
Engine: 550 Hp. Ford inline engine
Mobility: excellent
Speed: 56 km per hour
Armour: (front glacis) 4 inch hardened at 45 degrees (superior to the Panther.
Turret with power traverse and gyrostabilizer.
Gun: medium velocity 90 mm M1 (2,750 feet per second)

M-26A1E2: the experimental 90 mm T15E1 70 cal. gun was added with some modifications to the cuppalo (counterbalance etc).
It produced a muzzle velocity of 3,850 f.p.s., 600 f.p.s. more than the 88 mm KwK43 gun of the PzKw VIb King Tiger. It was the most powerful tank gun of the war and it's shell could penetrate any adversary.

[GunnersMate]

eh heh heh hey Beavis he said penetrate

[Type941]

Overall on balance T34 was the better tank. Faster to built, super light aluminum engine which was easy to maintain, it has the BEST gun when the war begun (others would catch up oh-so late) and it has the best suspension of all tanks throughout the whole war, not to mention superior cross country ability. Really, Sherman was only good because there were so many of them. Perhaps one on one, the late versions of Mk4 with more powerful guns were superior, but that doesn't really count when you can't get beyond 50km without refueling, or have no support from air.

Really, the german tanks were all throughout the war:
- overweight
- underpowered
- unreliable
- fuel hungry

There really was no such thing as a sweeping mega fast German blitzkrieg machine.


Pershing was great, but it was too late. Sherman had some wicked optics and mechanisms that would allow it to fire on move (very clever and huge advantage at the time) but it didn't work. The whole thing actually work like 30-40 years later.

PS. German and Russian tanks were meant to fight other tanks. Sherman weren't. Hence so many changes had to be made to it to make it combat worthy against Germans.

Abraham, no way in 43 would the atack work. It's not about tank. It's about availablity of menpower. tank on its own was a metal box that went 100km and needed refuel, and dragged a train of supply trucks behind it. Germans anihilated those columns again and again.

[Abraham]

@ Type941:
I agree with most what you say about tanks, but not with this:

Originally Posted by Type941

... Abraham, no way in 43 would the atack work. It's not about tank. It's about availablity of menpower. tank on its own was a metal box that went 100km and needed refuel, and dragged a train of supply trucks behind it. Germans anihilated those columns again and again.

There were a million Allied soldiers in the Mediterranean theather doing very little in 1943 plus there were already 16 British divisions in Britain preparing for the invasion. More than enough manpower to sweep the few Germans in France back to Germany... (the real German army was fighting deep in the Ukraine at that time, which put a terrible strain on German logistics and communications...)

[TLAM Strike]

IIRC the good old Sherman (the up gunned ones) did fairly well against the T-34/85s (Korea) and Pattons (Israel and India-Pakistan) in the 50s and 60s. That definitely says something about the Sherman.

[STEED]

Production Totals of German & Soviet Tanks

German
Tank Version......Total Production Numbers
Panzer 4D..........229
Panzer 4E..........223
Panzer 4F..........462
Panzer 4F/2.......175
Panzer 4G......... 1687
Panzer 4h..........3774
Panzer 4J ..........1758
Panzer 5D..........850
Panzer 5A..........2000
Panzer 5G..........3126

Soviet
Tank Version........Total Production Numbers
T-34/76A..............about 950
T-34/76B..............about 9290
T-34/76C..............14041
T-34/85................10760

[Type941]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

IIRC the good old Sherman (the up gunned ones) did fairly well against the T-34/85s (Korea) and Pattons (Israel and India-Pakistan) in the 50s and 60s. That definitely says something about the Sherman.

The good old sherman in Korea was not the one we are talking about - not the one in ww2. It had proper gun, etc. Comparing apples to oranges here mate.

Abraham, germans had what, 22 divisions in France? hardly 'very few' of them. Allies didn't sweep them away at any time Afaik. When the defence collapsed in France and they went back to germany, allies were very surprised it collapsed so fast. they thought they won, but they actually didn't. The armies in med were stuck there. getting them out would have taken a wee bit of time, don't you think? In fact, if you took them out, the time they would be available would be probably in 44, a wild guess, but probably quite accurate.


I find it still a bit puzzling why americans insist sherman was such a great tank, guys stop being subjective. It was a good fast light tank but nothing else. Only necessary modifacations made it better. it was also very poor on cross country and against anti tank traps (like rails stuck into ground). Hard to argue with blind patriotism really.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Type941

The good old sherman in Korea was not the one we are talking about - not the one in ww2. It had proper gun, etc. Comparing apples to oranges here mate.

I did mention I was taking about the Upgraded ones. But it says a lot that the basic Sherman design that it could be upgraded and still be capable 30 years after they were built.