Rather than me rattle off a long list of books and publications start with this:

The Russian Battlefield - T-34: Development History

Towards the bottom of the design and production portion of the T34 notes is included an armoring schematic. It gives the basis in millimeters (as I did) and the sloping. Note, 60 degrees equals a doubling of the basis. On the T34/76 the hull front is 47mm thick. Double that is 94.

Here's an equivalent site for the Sherman:

Medium Tank M4 Sherman

Again, note the thickness of the plate and slope. Togeather they are 102mm.

__________________
Truth is stranger than bullshit!

Yea...Umm. JagdtigerI....I'm a rookie here too, but... can't you see the medals on T.A.'s chest ? He could poke your eyes out with any one of 'em. Don't you think he knows a tad ? ...If you think Russian tank engineering was anywhere near the US's , they would natta needed any of our help. I read a US report on the T-34 and one item said that the air filter(?) was so poorly designed that it may have been sabotage. What good is a tank if it only runs for a couple days?( help me out here T.A.)

"Evaluation of tanks T-34 and KV by workers of the Aberdeen testing grounds of the U.S."
(from the Tanker's forum, posted by Misha Veksler)

(Footnote 1 -- reads, "The full name of the document is, "An Evaluation of the T-34 and KV tanks by workers of the Aberdeen Testing Grounds of the U.S., submitted by firms, officers and members of military commissions responsible for testing tanks." The tanks were given to the U.S. by the Soviets at the end of 1942 for familiarization.")
The condition of the tanks

The medium tank T-34, after driving 343 km, became disabled and could not be fixed. The reason: owing to the extremely poor air cleaner on the diesel, a large quantity of dirt got into the engine and a breakdown occurred, as a result of which the pistons and cylinders were damaged to such a degree that they were impossible to fix. The tank was withdrawn from tests and was to be shelled by the KV and its "Z/ 3" (?) -- by the cannon of the M-10 tank. After this it would be sent to Aberdeen, where it would be analyzed and kept as an exhibit.

The heavy tank KV is still functional. Tests are continuing, although it has many mechanical defects.
The silhouette/configuration of the tanks

Everyone, without exception, approves of the shape of the hull of our tanks. The T-34's is particularly good. All are of the opinion that the shape of the T-34's hull is better than that of any American tank. The KV's is worse than on any current American tank.
Armor

A chemical analysis of the armour showed that on both tanks the armour plating has a shallow surface tempering, whereas the main mass of the armoured plating is made of soft steel.

In this regard, the Americans consider that, by changing the technology used to temper the armoured plating, it would be possible to significantly reduce its thickness while preserving its protective capacities. As a result the weight of the tank could be decreased by 8-10%, with all the resulting benefits (an increase in speed, reduction in ground pressure, etc.)
Hull

The main deficiency is the permeability to water of the lower hull during water crossings, as well as the upper hull during rain. In heavy rain lots of water flows through chinks/ cracks, which leads to the disabling of the electrical equipment and even the ammunition.

The Americans liked how the ammunition is stowed.
Turret

Its main weakness is that it is very tight. The Americans could not understand how our tankers could fit inside during winter, when they wear sheepskin jackets. The electrical mechanism for turning the turret is very bad. The motor is weak, heavily overloaded and sparks horribly, as a result of which the device regulating the speed of the rotation burns out, and the teeth of the cogwheels break into pieces. They recommend redoing it as a hydraulic or simply manual system.

KV-1 heavy tank at Bovington Museum (England) (photo by [...])
Armament

The gun of the T-34 is very good. It is simple, dependable and easy to service. Its weakness is that the initial speed of the shell is significantly less than that of the American "Z/ 3" (3200 feet versus 5700 feet per second).
Aiming/Back-sight

The general opinion: the best in the world. Incomparable with any existing (well-known here) tanks or any under development.
Track

The Americans very much like the idea of steel tracks. But they believe that until they receive the results of the comparative performance of steel vs. rubber tracks on American tanks in Tunis and other active fronts, there is no basis for changing from the American solution of rubber bushings and pads.

The deficiencies in our tracks from their viewpoint results from the lightness of their construction. They can easily be damaged by small calibre shells and mortar bombs. The pins are extremely poorly tempered and made of poor steel. As a result they quickly wear and the track often breaks. The idea of having loose track pins that are held in place by a cam welded to the side of the hull, at first was greatly liked by the Americans. But when in use under certain operating conditions, the pins would become bent which often resulted in the track rupturing. The Americans consider that if the armour is reduced in thickness the resultant weight saving can be used to make the tracks heavier and more reliable.
Suspension

On the T-34, it is poor. Suspension of the Christie type was tested long ago by the Americans, and unconditionally rejected. On our tanks, as a result of the poor steel on the springs, it very quickly (unclear word) and as a result clearance is noticeably reduced. On the KV the suspension is very good.
Motor

The diesel is good and light. The idea of using diesel engines on tanks is shared in full by American specialists and military personnel. Unfortunately, diesel engines produced in U.S. factories are used by the navy and therefore the army is deprived of the possibility of installing diesels in its tanks.

The deficiency of our diesels is the criminally poor air cleaners on the T-34. The Americans consider that only a saboteur could have constructed such a device. They also don't understand why in our manuals it is called oil-bath. Their tests in a laboratory showed that:

- the air cleaner doesn't clean at all the air which is drawn into the motor;
- its capacity does not allow for the flow of the necessary quantity of air, even when the motor is idling. As a result, the motor does not achieve its full capacity. Dirt getting into the cylinders leads them to quickly wear out, compression drops, and the engine loses even more power. In addition, the filter was manufactured, from a mechanical point of view, extremely primitively: in places the spot-welding of the electric welding has burned through the metal, leading to leakage of oil etc. On the KV the filter is better manufactured, but it does not secure the flow in sufficient quantity of normal cleaned air. On both motors the starters are poor, being weak and of unreliable construction.
Transmission

Without doubt, poor. An interesting thing happened. Those working on the transmission of the KV were struck that it was very much like those transmissions on which they had worked 12-15 years ago. The firm was questioned. The firm sent the blueprints of their transmission type A-23. To everyone's surprise, the blueprints of our transmission turned out to be a copy of those sent (?). The Americans were surprised, not that we were copying their design, but that we were copying a design that they had rejected 15-20 years ago. The Americans consider that, from the point of view of the designer, installing such a transmission in the tank would create an inhuman harshness for the driver (hard to work). On the T-34 the transmission is also very poor. When it was being operated, the cogs completely fell to pieces (on all the cogwheels). A chemical analysis of the cogs on the cogwheels showed that their thermal treatment is very poor and does not in any way meet American standards for such mechanisms.
Rolling friction clutches

Without doubt, poor. In America, they rejected the installation of friction clutches, even on tractors (never mind tanks), several years ago. In addition to the fallaciousness of the very principle, our friction clutches are extremely carelessly machined from low-quality steel, which quickly causes wear and tear, accelerates the penetration of dirt into the drum and in no way ensures reliable functioning.
General comments

From the American point of view, our tanks are slow. Both our tanks can climb an incline better than any American tank. The welding of the armour plating is extremely crude and careless. The radio sets in laboratory tests turned out to be not bad. However, because of poor shielding and poor protection, after installation in the tanks the sets did not manage to establish normal communications at distances greater than 10 miles. The compactness of the radio sets and their intelligent placement in the tanks was pleasing. The machining of equipment components and parts was, with few exceptions, very poor. In particular the Americans were troubled by the disgraceful design and extremely poor work on the drive/ gear/ transmission links/ blocks (?) on the T-34. After much torment they made new ones and replaced ours. All the tanks' mechanisms demand very frequent adjustments/ fine-tuning.
Conclusions, suggestions

1. On both tanks, quickly replace the air cleaners with models with greater capacity capable of actually cleaning the air.

2. The technology for tempering the armour plating should be changed. This would increase the protectiveness of the armour, either by using an equivalent thickness or, by reducing the thickness, lowering the weight and, accordingly, the use of metal.

3. Make the tracks thicker.

4. Replace the existing transmission of outdated design with the American "Final Drive," which would significantly increase the tanks' manoeuvrability.

5. Abandon the use of friction clutches.

6. Simplify the construction of small components, increase their reliability and decrease to the maximum extent possible the need to constantly make adjustments.

7. Comparing American and Russian tanks, it is clear that driving Russian tanks is much harder. A virtuosity is demanded of Russian drivers in changing gear on the move, special experience in using friction clutches, great experience as a mechanic, and the ability to keep tanks in working condition (adjustments and repairs of components, which are constantly becoming disabled). This greatly complicates the training of tankers and drivers.

8. Judging by samples, Russians when producing tanks pay little attention to careful machining or the finishing and technology of small parts and components, which leads to the loss of the advantage what would otherwise accrue from what on the whole are well designed tanks.

9. Despite the advantages of the use of diesel, the good contours of the tanks, thick armour, good and reliable armaments, the successful design of the tracks etc., Russian tanks are significantly inferior to American tanks in their simplicity of driving, manoeuvrability, the strength of firing [reference to speed of shell], speed, the reliability of mechanical construction and the ease of keeping them running.

Signed -- The head of the 2nd Department of the Main Intelligence Department of the Red Army, General Major of Tank Armies, Khlopo... (end missing: Khlopov?)


http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/4635/

__________________
For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman

Studies have shown that Pz IIIs and IVs were just as likely to cook off as a Sherman when penetrated. Plus, the German habit of continuing to fire until the target burst into flames (since armour distorted by heat can't be repaired) may have given rise to the idea that Shermans were more vulnerable to fire than other tanks. When the Sherman was first produced the armour was perfectly reasonable, the problem was that it shouldn't have been anywhere near a battlefield by 1944. Blame Patton.

Every tank is not without its flaws even the t34 with its 'trap shot' which was a big disadvantage. The Sherman although flawed at the beginning of its combat life was quickly fixed and became feared by the Germans although not capable of really knocking out a tiger, the Firefly (a varient of the sherman with a 17pdr gun) was more then capable.

Your 'excellent' super heavy tanks such as the king tiger or even the lighter panther are far from excellent, both having the interlocking wheels which would klog up, weighed wasy to much for many bridges of any area, took way to much fuel to be of any real use to a nation that was already needing every drop and they were just too big and expensive as well as the diffuicult manufacture problems.

Ah now we come to the history channel.
I started out loving the history channel, my view into ww2. Well that quickly diminished when I realised that the HC is full of inaccuarcies and opinions that just are plain wrong. (yes an opinion can be wrong, for ex The C47 is the best in a fighter role -- ah sure it is) Now the 'historians' in this instead of relating facts continue going on about there opinions on how the war was fought and why they think it failed, well frankly I don't care what they think, I just want the facts.

__________________
They shall grow not old as we that are left grow old Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We shall remember them. Lest We Forget

Please explain this further.

__________________
Best Regards,
JW

Patton wanted tank production focused completely on the Sherman, as he felt that the Army simply needed as many tanks as it could lay its hands on. As he was such a rising star, he got a lot of support for this view, and it became policy. This delayed the development and production of the Pershing and any other tank which could have supplemented the Sherman. To be fair, I think he had been assured that the Sherman could take on any German AFV, which as we know was quite false.

I don't see why the Sherman shouldn't have been used in '44, it was more than capable of taking out it's main opponent, the PzKpfw IV.
The fact the the Germans had the Panther and Tiger makes many people think that the Sherman was rubbish, which does carry some truth if you have a 1 on 1 between a Tiger and Sherman. But that very rarely happened.

If the allies developed a tank like the Tiger, then the Russians would have probably got all the way to the north sea, OK that could be an exaggeration, but the war ended the way it did due to the speed, quantity, and the mechanical quality of the Sherman and Cromwell.
Just like the Blitzkreigs where won by the fast IIs.
Tanks like the Tiger suited the defender, while the Sherman the attacker.

__________________

Caption reads: Laxatives caused an elephant called Stefan to release an out-pouring of poo, burying it's pitiful trainer alive.

Patton had next to zero real influence on the Selection of armoured vehicles, particularly by that point, his 'political' power became almost nonexistent as the war moved on.
The decision to stick with M4 was essentially down to the army board and other specialised departments, and it was the only sensible one they could make.

Once again the question arises when the M4 is so easily dismissed:
If not the Sherman for D-Day, then what else?
The main devices ever possibly in the frame were the M6 & the T/M26 (Pershing). The former was found to be "too heavy, under-gunned, poorly shaped and requiring improvements to the transmission" by the Armour approval people, among many other faults it would have required an entirely new set of landing craft/infrastructure to get the same amount onto the beaches as the M4. It's an irrelevance perhaps most analogous to the British TOG1/2.

The next candidate, the Pershing, is a pipe-dream for mass deployment in Normandy. By June '44 only 10 test vehicles were ready, and even though she gained combat approval very quickly if she had been found seriously wanting it would have been a disaster of epic proportions for production to have been diverted to her.
Strategic production seems to be the primary reason for any delay in replacing the M4. You don't switch all that effort on a whim, particularly with as huge an assault as the recapture of Western Europe due. You struggle and hope for a viable improved design and only change to it when absolutely necessary. The factors that hindered an improved medium/heavy tank are hugely complex, but Patton wasn't really part of the process, and the end result of continued Sherman usage was nowhere near such a disaster as many profess. The men who made these decisions are so often glibly presented as 'murderers', its a disservice to serious men who struggled as hard as humans can to give their troops the best that was available, the directions they took, and were forced to take, prove mostly solid when more closely examined.

Ramble ramble blah blah.

Cheers,
Adam.

__________________
"Wars cannot be fought with dream stuff" - Sir Percy Hobart.

I don't know where to start with this. First of all, just because T.A. has been here making posts for longer than I have doesn't exactly mean he knows more than me about everything. Second of all, the part where you say that U.S. tank engineering was far superior to the Russian's is completely absurd. Even if you think that the Sherman was a good tank (which I disagree with) the Russian tanks were superior to the American's (i.e. T-34s, KV-1, IS-2 BT-7, etc.). Furthermore, the Russians clearly had the most prominent role in the defeat of Germany, and to say that if there tanks were so good then why would they have needed us is absurd.

But back to the Sherman and T-34. Both the T-34 and the Sherman were reliable tanks. Even if you argue that the Sherman was more reliable, it doesn't even matter because the T-34 was reliable enough. The Sherman was no match for any of the the latter German tanks it encountered such as the Panther and the Tiger. The T-34 on the other hand was so good that it forced the Germans to make the Panther (which would have been the best tank if it had not been so complex). The T-34 actually stood a chance against these tanks and a lot of the time got the better of them. I mean the Germans called the Sherman the "Tommy Cooker". Anyone who thinks that the Sherman with its weak, low velocity 75mm, and light unsloped armor would defeat a T-34/85 is insane.

Also T.A. if you are taking into account the sloping for those numbers, there is no way the T34/85 would have those numbers. Also, I don't understand what you did with the guns, could you mabye explain?

Oh God, no, not another one!

All of this Sherman-defending is driving me insane!
Please can this be the last time I say this!
The Sherman was a good MEDIUM tank, on par with the PzKpfw IV, T-34/76 and Cromwell. The Panther and Tiger where much better than it (not counting reliability and maintenance issues), but they are a completely different class altogether. The Panther is a heavy medium, along with the Pershing, Comet and T-34/85 (almost). The Tiger is a heavy tank, on Par with the IS-II.

Goodnight!

__________________

Caption reads: Laxatives caused an elephant called Stefan to release an out-pouring of poo, burying it's pitiful trainer alive.

I am not defending the Sherman in anyway, if that is what you are saying (mabye your the one defending it?). I completely agree with you that the Tiger and the Panther outclass it. My argument is that the Sherman was not the best tank of the war or within the top tanks as some people here are saying.

In the actual Sherman vs T34 battles (Korea and Syria) the Shermans won most of the time. Easy Eights killed 49 T34/85s against 20 M4A3E8s knocked out in Korea.

Source- Osprey's M26/M46 Pershing Tank, 1943-53
New Vanguard Series #35

__________________
For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman

Thanks for your time JCF on posting the US review of the T-34... JagdtigerI makes a good argument I will admit( just jokin' about pokin' yer eye out)...But there are many variables. Ammunition being one. Crew training another.... 5 US crewed Shermans vs 5 Soviet crewed T34's . Who would people put their money on? It could go either way. Because a tank is just a tool. It's how you use it. Comes down to training. The Israelis were using shermans(upgunned) successfully against T52'S(I think)...Anyhoo. Am enjoying this forum.

Sure the crew obviously plays a factor, but I am looking at it as if two computer bots were controlling the tanks.

They had 'computer bots' that contorled the tanks in ww2, wow never knew that, you learn something new everyday

__________________
They shall grow not old as we that are left grow old Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We shall remember them. Lest We Forget

Absolutely, this is merry go around, and I feel like I want to give it a ride, so I'll swap with you joe

Ok, the Panther was an almost exact copy of the T-34 yes because it was a new inovative tank that was very good at what it did. However the Panther was not only complex in terms of labour time to build, but also in money needed to build, and the sheer complexity of what was required of the manufacters. Now even if this was not bad enough (as I have already posted this, but I will do it in again, because I amin a good mood) The panther having interlocking wheels just like the tiger, konigstiger, and the jadgpanther, all had the trouble with the wheels clogging up in the winter snow and western mud and making the tank immobile until it could be cleaned off, they all also were slow, extremely high on fuel consumption and were just too darn big, just look at the tiger being unable to cross many of the bridges in the combat areas (this somewhat made an attack by tigers prredictable). The panther although to German standards was considered a medium tank, in all regards it was a heavy tank while the T-34 being a medium its self as with the M4 sherman.

Now which is actually the better tank? the one which initiated the designs for all after it, or a copy of the original?

Ok now with the "tomme cooker" part. Yes we all know that the Shermans were prone to catching fire at the beginning, but that changed and they became more reliable and the main stream tank of the american and in some ares the British armoured forces, now you wouldn't use it if was not a good tank, now all the Allied Generals obviously liked it enough to use it, even the Russians, even with their hugh amounts of T-34's.

Who said that a tank can only be put out of action by penertration of its armour? What about the tracks, making it immobile? what about an arse shot taking out the engine? or the turrent with generally less armour and less slope then the hull? after all there is more then one way to skin a cat.

Ok now how well did the T-34 compared with the sherman go against a Tiger tank? Both had trouble knocking them out at any range, and both would be blown to pieces by the 88 KwK. Both had varients to attempt to fix this such as the British 17pdr Firfly (Sherman) and the T-34\85 (t-34\76), plus you cant compare a first varient American M4 Sherman against the last varient of the Russian T-34's. Its like putting the Mk I spitfire against a Me 109 Gustav.

oh and yes we know that there are many people out there that think the the Sherman was the worst tank ever and the Germans had the best tanks, but that simply is not the case mate.

and before you say it JCF I know I am beating what is clearly a mutilated dead horse

Have fun

__________________
They shall grow not old as we that are left grow old Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We shall remember them.