Quote:
Originally posted by Sloniksp:
Sorry for the second post but I also remember watching interviews of American veterans who absolutely dreaded getting into the Shermans because they would blow up upon getting hit.
There is a reason why the Germans named them " cigars boxes " or something of that nature.
unlike the Americans not one Soviet soldier disliked or said anything bad about the T-34
|
On the T 34. Much of its "reliablity" is hype. The reality is that it was a very crude vehicle with a very short service life requiring frequent rebuilding. I suspect the Soviets in part intended this in its design.
For example, the T 34 was a huge oil capacity. It needs this becasue it typically burns about a quart an hour in operation. Post war users (like the Czechs) found the workmanship so crude they disassembled the tanks they were given and totally reworked them machining most of the parts a second time. They found it was not uncommon for as much as several ounces of metal shavings to accumulate in the oil system after just a few hours run time.
The aluminum-magnesium engine used had a tendency to burn and destroy the tank. The tracks as pointed out had a very short life. The suspension system also lent itself to shedding tracks at high speeds and in sharp turns. Wartime optics frequently developed a yellow tinge from the glue used making vision more difficult. They also frequently suffered from bubbles in the glass.
The rough castings frequently used encouraged spalling in the vehicle when hit.
On the whole, it was not intended for alot of field maintenance or a long service life. The T 34 was more like a unit of ammunition you shot it off then returned it to the factory for reloading.
On the Sherman buring: The ancedotial evidence is belied by the Ordinance Department's numbers of vehicles hit, burned, etc for the France campaign. The wet stowage did alleviate the problem of ammunition fires. But, the tale of Shermans cooking off easily remained embedded from the early models which did have this problem.
But, many tanks suffered deficencies when first introduced to battle. Some were able to retrieve their reputation (the Panther for instance) others suffered with it their entire service lives.
I also suggest looking at the armor and gun of both the T34/76 T34/58 and the M4A1 75mm and M4A3E8. Both are almost identical in thickness and penetration. But, the 75mm Sherman has one big advantage: Its gun fires a great HE round and the vehicle is equipped to be used as an self-propelled artillery piece. There are numerous times where a battalion or two of Shermans are lined up in France and Italy and used to shell German positions. 50 to 100 75mm guns firing on you is not something to take lightly.
On Soviet soldier's opinions of the T 34; The ones who complained probably were shot..
More realistically, they had little or nothing to compare their mount to so their opinion based on just having crewed a T 34 alone is not credible.