[Neutrino 123]

Whoops, I forgot to mention the Sherman's high profile, making it an easier target. It also had a gyrostabilizer, which let is fire on the move better then other tanks. However, firing on the move was still an inferior method, so the gyrostabilizer was only useful sometimes.

Originally Posted by 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.

The T-34 had the best milage, and the Sherman the worst, but the Sherman also carried more fuel, which made up for it on the tactical level, and the range was much more then 50km. The MkIV was between the Sherman and T-34 in both range and fuel consumption. The onwar site I linked to has details.

When the T-34 was designed, it was by far the best (it entered service well after the war began). When the Sherman was designed, it was adequate. However, the Sherman was designed later in the war. The actual abilities of the tanks are quite similar.

The MkIV had rather poor cross-country ability, but the Sherman had decent off road mobility. The late model Shermans had improved HVSS suspension, and excellent off-road ability on par with the late T-34s (which were actually worse off-road then the mid T-34s due to added weight from the new turret and gun).

Originally Posted by Type941

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.

You are thinking of the later German tanks. The early ones were less reliable then the Sherman and T-34, but were not overweight, underpowered (though they did have poor off-road ability due to small tracks), or fuel hungry.

There really was a fast sweeping German blitzkrieg machine. Poland, France, and Barbarossa are clear examples of this. The early German tanks had good road-movement ability, a useful component in a blitzkrieg (off-road comes in mainly in tactical situations). Remember, though, that the operational speed of mechanized units is corrolated with tank speed, but there are other factors. The panzer and motorized divisions were able to move fast enough to cause confusion behind enemy lines, and to surround units.

Also note that the operational speed of a 'fast' large unit would be considered quite slow compared to its individual vehicles.

Originally Posted by Type941

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.

This is true, and is one of the few mistakes that Patton made (he supported this concept). However, the U.S. forces were well-supplied with tank destroyers with 76.2mm guns (medium velocity), which could deal with the Tiger and Panther at shorter ranges. The tank destroyers were actually quite effective against enemy armor, but idiot commanders would often use them as tanks, resulting in additional losses (they had thin armor and open roof turrets - making them vulnerable to artillery and the lighter German AT weapons like the 50mm gun).