T34-85 vrs Shermann

I would take the T34-85 against the Sherman anytime.My father rode in the Sherman -Canadian army.InItaly his Captain was killed and he was injured by a german 88 shell.Even as a young boy he told me of his fear of the 88.He told me you couldn't hear it coming.Now as a ballistitionI know the high velocity of the 88.My dad was never the same after ww11.He would tell next to nothing about the war.

 

The Sherman is greatly underrated, particularly its later versions. The T-34/85 on the other hand is often overrated. Please read our Mythbuster thread for relevant details.

As a first point, it is important to make clear just which version of the Sherman you are talking about. You define the opponent as the T-34/85, a late-war design intended to counter mid-war German tanks. It would not be fair to compare this tank to the early Sherman, which was designed in 1942 to face up against much less heavily armed and armoured opponents. The late Sherman, which had a lot more armour and the significantly better 76mm gun, was the equal or even the superior of the T-34/85 in many ways.

 

Trappermike, it would be fair to say that you appear to have an agenda here...

 

Althought I personally prefer the the T-34/85 over many of the Sherman models (personal opinio), but some models of the sherman were considerably better.

 

The 88 could penetrate the T-34/85 with equal ease...

 

Having learned that the 85mm gun was not as effective as originally thought, I'll take the hi-velocity 76mm Sherman M4A3E8 or the Sherman Vc Firefly over the T-34/85.
With it's wet stowage, up-armor and new, improved suspension, the "Easy 8" was the best Sherman of WW2 in American hands, but I also love the British Firefly... though it lacked the Easy-8 suspension mods and wet stowage.

Tim

 

Why?

You can't really "hear" any supersonic shell coming. This is personal and biased and says nothing about the T-34-85 (specific version) and the Sherman (which version?)

The German "88" can be many things. Are you speaking of the L/56 or the L/71?

 

I'd be surprised that a person inside a sherman with it's engine running wearing a head set can hear anything coming, let alone an anti tank shell.

FNG

 

You may be able to hear the shot when it is fired.

Trappermike: all AT gunfire was percieved as "88s" by the Western Allies but the most common German AT gun in North Africa was the Pak38 50mm gun; in Western Europe it was the Pak40 75mm gun.

 

No you wont, even if you are close enough to hear the shot being fired what you are hearing is the explosion of the propellants, not the shot. By definition you will not hear a supersonic shot since it is travelling faster (And will therefore reach you sooner) than any sound it makes, and also faster than the sound of the exploding propellants (For what good hearing that will do you, I have yet to hear of a real life example of someone dodging a bullet or shell mid-flight let alone a tank being able to manouevre out of the path of an incoming shell).

That you can't "hear" a shell heading your way is a nonsense argument.

 

During intense artillery bombardment, one can hear a whistling sound of falling shells.

This is, however, something completely different.

 

But that is not what he said. What he said was,

Even as a young boy he told me of his fear of the 88.He told me you couldn't hear it coming.

Any sound of an anti-tank gun being fired would obviously suffice to give a tank crew the warning that a shell was coming. I think you have a good point in saying that the shell would probably reach you before the blast of the gun opening up, but it is important to realize that Trappermike did not suppose that his father could actually hear the shell.

 

88 speed of shell

The speed of sound is approx. 1700 fps.The 88 round was much faster than that

 

Actually, the speed at sea level in dry weather is 'only' about 1.120 feet per second.

 

88 speed of shell

I should explain my dad's situation.He was in a Candian tank as an artillery observer.He told me when I was a kid that it had awooden-non-real gun.I figured this was bullshit.But appaently observer tanks had no gun to make up for radio hardware,But were a favorite target for the enemy,hence my dad's insistance it had a wooden gun.,The Germans did the sama thing when their tanks were tagated.

 

just as any square object in the distance was thought to be a Tiger. Also Panzer IVs were mistaken for Tigers.

 

Artillery observation tanks generally had wooden guns, so that they wouldn't get targeted by the enemy (an enemy artillery observer is never a good sign).

 

Is an enemy tank ever a good sign?

 

One tank isn't much of a problem. Even on a good day, it can only do so much damage. An artillery observation vehicle is very bad news, on the other hand: If it sees you, you're most likely only minutes away from having several tons of explosives pouring down on you.

 

Sherman tank

If he onlywas here now;His Sherman was artillery observer tank.He siad they ran wire back so radio transmissions couldn't be listened to.He said the main gun on the tank was wood,which likens my observations about He said he was observer tanks,He was ijured by a German 88,While his tank was hidden in a haystack in Italy.