If the Western Allies had an equivalent of the T34

Well documented, where?

 

You can take this in a historical context.

The T34s faced the Shermans in a number of battles, middle east to Korea. The question is, in these battles, which tank proved itself the better?

 

Not really - the Matilda was still very vulnerable to the 88mm, and given its very slow speed you could not even hope to overrun the enemy position before you all get shot, which might possibly happen with Cruisers or Stuarts.

 

That turns out to be the Sherman because, like I said, it was upgraded more thorougly. I don't know where but we have had a discussion on exactly this question an Danyel beat our brains out.

 

Somua S-35 ...Good design ..well-protected and well armed..but flawed-one man turret in which the tank e commander had to aim, load and fire the gun, un as well as direct the vehicle-how on earth could one expect to cordinate tank attacks or even maneuvers under such conditions....

 

The one man turret was unfortunately a disadvantage of all french tanks in 1940.
However that did not prevent french tanks to show superior to the germans nearly every time they were used in sufficient numbers.(Which wasn't often the case).

 

Small turrets and lack of communication, internal and external, kept any of the earky tanks from being able to keep up with the German Panzers.

 

I always wondered what the effect was when stukas hit the B1bis and Somua. Where the tanks usually destroyed?

 

The early versions of the T-34 still had some major drawbacks: 1 man turret, manually traversed gun, shot gap...... though it was still better than any German tanks or the Shermans in 1941 in N. Africa.
However, the tactics used by the Africacorps were just superior and i have no doubt Rommel would figure out ways to deal with the T-34s, just like he did with the Shermans/Grants/lee/Matildas.......

 

Eh, even the earliest T34s had two-man turrets. This still caused the commander to be overburdened, but less so.

Its main advantages were large gun (even the early 76.2mm L/11 was heavier than any German gun fitted on a tank at the time), and extremely heavy armour for the period. It also had good wide tracks for cross-terrain abilities, an advantage which would have mattered little in the desert though.

 

The gun and armor and reliability and versitility etc etc etc was still superior to the T-34 at the date you mentioned.

 

Sorry, the gun and armor and reliabilty and versatility of what?

If you're talking about the Sherman, then the only one I would like to dispute is armor. The Sherman in its early form had 50mm hull armor and 80mm mantlet armor; the T34 had 45mm and 75mm respectively. But that of the T34 was sloped much better, and therefore formed a thicker layer when encountered with AT weaponry. Its armor was therefore superior to that of the early Shermans, even if there were cases of the armour giving off shrapnel inside the tank.

 

I was speaking of the Sherman.

And the M4A1, which was the origional Sherman, had the same slope as the T-34. No to mention higher quality steel and construction.

 

The T34 model 1940 had 45mm at 30 degrees.

The M4A1 had 51mm at 35-53 degrees depending on the point of measure. However, nowhere is it any better sloped than 30 degrees.

Also its turret armour was only 76mm, not 80 as I previously mentioned.

But we digress again.

 

Could you cite some specific examples?

 

I think having a tank with such basic excellence as the T-34 would have some difference. Surely having a tank which was better than at least some of its German contemporaries, (in the period you mention), would have helped.

However, British tank tactics were very poor for a long time, notably in North Africa. It wasnt uncommon for inferior British tanks to go off on charges akin to calvalry, without supporting infantry. Rommel would generally goad them into this, and lead them into a position of dug in 88s. Cue lots of British deaths/carnage.

Also, the Germans were good at keeping control of the battefield in North Africa, after the fighting, meaning they could repair their own salvagable vehicles and capture repairable British ones. These captures also contributed to British losses.

Im surprised the UK/US didnt build the T-34, or at least attempt a copy. I *think* T-34s were relatively easy to build, so it wouldnt have disrupted the American policy of churning out huge volumes of Armoured vehicles. Maybe it was just pride that meant they kept to their own designs - which, incidentally, were unpopular with Soviet crews during the lend-lease agreements (Example - they didnt like the Sherman because of its high profile).

 

Kilgore,
the US/UK couldn't have copied the T-34 in 1940 (the original question) simply because the Soviets wouldn't have allowed it. Also the T-34 was not available for service until just after the end of the Winter War with Finland (March 1940?). The earliest the US/UK could have had T-34 plans was July 1941. Although the US/UK supplied the Soviets with examples of almost all their armor, the Soviets were not as forthcoming. Soviet paranoia had to more to do with the US/UK not copying the the T-34 than American pride.
As Daniel points out the Sherman was at least as good as the T-34 and probably better (radios, internal intercom, three man turret, etc.). Unfortunately the Sherman wasn't available until late 1942.
US built tanks, particulrly the Sherman and Stuart (the Brits didn't call it Honey for nothing), were more popular with Soviet crews than they wanted to admit. Even the Grant, "the grave for seven brothers", was better than the non T-34/KV tanks in Soviet use.

 

Of course, old Mr Stalin was something of a worrier huh? :lol: Im not surprised he wouldnt have allowed any of his "allies" to benefit from soviet tank design.

I agree that Soviet tanks, other than T-34 or KV series, were very poor and inferior to the western allies vehicles.

However, I was under the impression that the soviets rectified the lack of radios, cramped conditions, and un-crewed nature of the original T-34 reasonably quickly?

I am surprised to hear that the Sherman is regarded here as being better than the T-34, my understanding, from various sources and first hand accounts, is that the Sherman was principally an average tank. (I understand the USA preffered to win by building huge numbers of average tanks, rather than small numbers of very good ones).

Was it not the Sherman the Germans called the "Tommy Cooker" because of the subsiduary explosions it always endured after being hit. A common misconception is that such explosions were due to the fuel used, but I have read it was actually due to the ammunition type/storage. I think this was sorted however, with better armour for storage and "wet storage" (I dont know much about this).

My late Grandad recounted several instances to me of Shermans "brewing up" - subsiduary explosions sending the tank literally flying after being hit by German shells.

 

On the point of tank reliability above (Sherman V T-34), it should be remembered that the Sherman was *mostly* employed in moderate European weather conditions, whereas the T-34 had to endure the horrors of the Russian Seasons.

I doubt the Sherman would have fared well on the Russian Steppe, just as the Germans found their vehilces to be largely inadequate.

 

Well you are right about one strange thing Kilgore...

"Why is the Sherman regarded as better than the T-34, when German reports of having real trouble with T-34's are "much" more frequent than them having real problems with Shermans (Wich they hardly ever had).

But however when i compare the technical specs for the M4A3 and upwards to all the T-34 models made, i can see why the Sherman might be considdered better... its just strange why the Germans didnt really report having trouble with the Sherman..

KBO