Shermans vs T-34s
 

I was working on some missions - WW3 in Europe, 1948, - and i found that the Sherman V tanks with 75mm gun are as good as Russian T-34/85s. Their gun can kill soviets easilly, even from long range http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/eek.gif. I think that something is seriously not right here - Shermans were not bad, but IIRC T-34s were far superior to them. I thought that 75 mm guns on Shermamns were not very effective when fighting tanks http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif.

Re: Shermans vs T-34s
 

The 75mm cannon has AP pen 10 and max armour in T-34/85 is... 10. Not to mention the later Sherman models with Sabot ammo in their 76mm. I don't know should it be this way, but I know that the 76mm in older T-34s was able to penetrate the front armour in T-34/85 multiple times during tank battle at Juustila (according to a tank gunner who destroyed 5+ tanks that day)...

Zip

Re: Shermans vs T-34s
 

Yeah, and the T-34's gun is of much lower quality than Western models because it has a low-pressure chamber. So the Sherman could easily kill whatever a T-34 could kill. And did they fit any HEAT rounds on Shermans back then? If they did, then they could penetrate any armor.

Re: Shermans vs T-34s
 

I was working on some missions - WW3 in Europe, 1948, - and i found that the Sherman V tanks with 75mm gun are as good as Russian T-34/85s.

That's exactly what happened with Korea. The M4A3E8 Shermans with their 76s with HVAP were a match for North Korean T-34/85s, it boiled down to which tank saw the other first winning, and the shermans had better vision for their crew overall..

Re: Shermans vs T-34s
 

The M4A3E8 is a very advanced version of the Sherman. For most of the war, the allies used tanks like the M4A1. This is probably what made you think that. The original Sherman series had a low-velocity gun and was much less effective.

Re: Shermans vs T-34s
 

IIRC, the rounds were different also. The Germans used a ballistic capped shell, while the US and Soviets were straight AP. The Ballistic cap allowed the shell to 'stick' at greater angles. Plus the Germans used face hardened armor while the US and Soviets used rolled homologous armore, which had the same hardness all the way thru (hopefully, if the mill was having a good day). Face hardened armor tends to cause more deflections at an acute angle and can break up non-capped shells. On the down side face hardened armor tends to spall more and suffers greater damage from overbore hits. A guy namd Lorin Bird wrote a book analysing the gun vs armor thingie in WW2. The 2 big discoveries he made was the existance of what he called the "shatter gap", which is a energy range were the shell breaks up instead of penetrating the armor. A little slower or faster (which equals distance downrange) and the shell penetrates. The second was with oversized hits, where the shell diameter is greater then the armor thickness. IIRC, the energy levels can be great enough to shear off a section of armor and continues on the original trajectory of the projectile. That is one reason why the soviets lost so many T-34's. The shell would glance off the sloped armor, but in the process it would send a chunk of that armor into the T-34.
The Soviet steel wasn't as good as everyone else's. Poor quality control and the need for volumn. The USA didn't face harden it's steel for the same reason. Volumn was judged more important then a little extra protection.

Re: Shermans vs T-34s
 

Of course, we're talking about the M4A3 medium-heavy tank here, which was only present in large numbers near the end of the war. Pit an early-model T-34 against an early model Sherman (like the M4A2), and there's no comparison. The early Shermans had a very short gun and weren't good for anything other than infantry support. They also caught fire easily, but it dosen't really matter because any tank is usually going to be destroyed by the first penetration anyway whether it catches on fire or not.

Re: Shermans vs T-34s
 

Depends on which M4A3 and which M4A2 you are talking about. The M4A3 (75) was generally the same as the rest of 75mm Shermans concerning armour except M4A1 (75) with its cast hull. M4A1, 2 and 3 have received the M4Ax(76)W version with thicker hull, new turret and 76mm gun, but the M4A3 also evolved to M4A3(75)W with the 75mm gun and thicker hull, I believe (someone smash me over the head for lack of details and lack of respect to various M4AxEy zVSS thingies http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif).

The 75mm gun of the Sherman was roughly comparable both by barrel lenght and by effectiveness to the Soviet F-34/ZIS-5 76mm gun mounted on most T-34's and KV series and outperformed the older F-32 and L-11 76mm guns with barrel lenght of 30 IIRC. And atleast in armor penetration I believe the 76mm M1A1 gun was comparable to the 85mm gun of T-34/85.

Re: Shermans vs T-34s
 

Yeah, but the T-34 had a lot more armor, and it was well-sloped. No variant of the M4 was particularly well-armored, so it dosen't matter in my opinion what the armor was on any of the Sherman models. But the early Shermans not only had low-velocity guns, but they also were equipped with poor-quality ammunition that sometimes shattered on impact. So, maybe try a 1945 scenario with early-model American tanks vs. Russian ones and see what happens. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Re: Shermans vs T-34s
 

The hull armour of the T-34/76 and T34/85 was a mere 45mm while the front hull of the Shermans produced 1944/45 was 64mm. Once you calculate in the slope, the front hull protection was about the same in the two tanks. And the Sherman did not have the big hatch in front hull which was a protection liability on the T34 for a number of reasons. Earlier Shermans had thinner armour but more slope and thus, in principle, gave protection similar to the later models (there were some issues with the way the front hull was built up of different parts which weakened it somewhat).

The Sherman 75mm M3 gun was not really "low velocity", 620 m/s is quite respectable and very similar to the 76mm gun in the T34/76 - and Soviet ammunition was not that hot either which is why the US 76mm M1A1 gun was just as good at penetrating armour as the Soviet 85mm gun in the T34/85. The US 75mm M3 also penetrated more armour than the Soviet 76mm.

I dont know who spawned the fantasy that the T34/76 was somehow a better tank than the early Shermans, but it is just that, a fantasy. Protection was roughly the same and neither hand any chance of withstanding a hit by a German 75mm gun. Firepower was about equal and the Shermans three-man turret was a considerable advantage over the two-man turret on the T34/76.

As for the ammo, the US 75mm fired M62 APCBC (i.e. a capped round) and M79 AP (i.e. uncapped). The 76mm fired the same and M93 APCR (a.k.a. HVAP, subcaliber). The Germans mainly used PzGr 39 APCBC but also used a lot of Gr. 38 Hl - HEAT - and small quantities of PzGr 40 APCR. Soviet 76mm ammo was mainly BR-350 APBC, an uncapped, blunt-nosed round as well as some APCR and HEAT. The 85mm also fired APBC as well as plain AP and APCR.
So everybody used a variety of ammo types, performance differences of similar rounds from different armies can usually be explained by subtle design differences or quality issues.

Claus B

Re: Shermans vs T-34s
 

One possibiliy for the T-34s reputation could be the opposition. The T-34 faced a lot of the earlier German and Italian models, (PzKfw 2,Pz 35t, Pz 38, etc)that the Sherman never got to meet. The T-34 outclassed all these in armor, weapon, and mobility.
By the Korean War the T-34 and Sherman were both a little long in the tooth, but effective against infantry.
Will

Re: Shermans vs T-34s
 

I think you hit the nail on the head.

The T34s reputation was gained in 1941 when it was all but impervious to German 37mm anti-tank gun fire and thus gave the German infantry a real scare. It was also quite a challenge for the 3,7cm and 5cm tanks and made it hard to handle for the German tanks. And with its 76mm gun, it could sit a kilometer away and calmly pick off German tanks from a stationary position where the command and control issues of the two man turret didn't matter that much. With the introduction of the 7,5cm tank and anti-tank guns (and the remanufactured ex-Soviet 7,62cm gun) in 1942, that advantage was rapidly declining and the introduction of the T34/85 only improved things in terms of firepower, not protection.

In the case of the Sherman, it was introduced in battle at a time (late 1942) when the Germans, forced by events in Russia, had already moved on in the gun/armour race. Had the Germans run into Shermans in 1941, they would've been just as shocked as they were about the T34. So by the time it was introduced into combat, the Sherman was a good medium tank but no more than that.
The Sherman really gained its bad reputation in Normandy in 1944 when most allied tankers were fighting in old 1942 and 1943 models with 75mm guns, experiencing much of what the Germans had in 1941 in Russia - their tanks could easily be knocked out by the opposition while their own guns were struggling to deal with enemy tanks. The Soviets had the same problems with their T34/76s in 1943 and 44, but that is something people tend to forget.
The Soviets dealt with the problem by introducing the T34/85 during 1944 and the US did exactly the same by introducing the Sherman with the 76mm gun at the same time. The difference was the bureaucratic infighting (and the failure to make a good 76mm HE round) in the US Army, which meant that 75mm armed tanks were still being produced in numbers while the Soviets switched completely to the 85mm armed tank. But that doesn't change the fact that a 1944/45 76mm armed Sherman was just as good or bad as a 85mm armed T34 of the same period.

Claus B

Re: Shermans vs T-34s
 

Bingo! Cannot agree more! Had Sherman encountered PaK-36 and Pz-IIIE's/Pz-38(t)'s in the North Africa, it would fare probably even better than T-34 due to better ergonomics etc. But it was faced by first Tigers and by long-barrelled 75mm guns instead...

Re: Shermans vs T-34s
 

That will be the tiger tanks on the battlefield of El Alamein in October 1942, then?. Nope - the Allies first met the tigger in Tunisia. British in Feb 43, USA apparently later in 1943, at Fais Pass. (I do not have a precise date for that)).

At El Alamein, the main German force would have been PzIII, both long and still some short barreled 50mm versions. Shermans could deal with these. A few long barreled 75mm PzIv would be present, which would be a problem for the early Sherman.

However - the Sherman/75mm is a useful tank (WRT tank killing) from El Alamein till Tunisia in SPWW2. I tend to go for the Cromwell when that arrives as the 6pr is a better AT Gun (and its speed allows "cavalry tactics" as with the T-34), or 6pr Churchills as these are reasonably resistant to the 75mms (but s l o w).

The Sherman then becomes interesting again when the 76 or Firefly editions arrive. But the 75mm version still can be used as a main battle tank till these arrive, if you are careful, and prepare the advance with arty and keep mech infantry up close, and avoid long range duels or advancing over wide open fields of fire (use smoke!).

The advantage with the T-34 (once even the long 50 becomes common and its armour starts to get permeable) is it's speed, as the German tanks are not that fast, and all including Panther are vulnerable from the side. But later on I get interested in some KV or IS as the "sluggers" with 34s as the flankers. The 34 I use as a supporting APC to the carried guard rifle section with AT mines, of course!.

Naturally - in the Pacific, the Sherman is overkill (the Tiger of the PTO! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif. I find Stuarts will do the job against Japanese tanks, as the main line tank.

The Bovinton tank museum journal for the restoration of Tiger #301 (captured in Tunisia) can be found here: http://www.tiger-tank.com/secure/journal.htm

cheers
Andy

Re: Shermans vs T-34s
 

I had there the "long barrelled IV's" as well ;o) But in American service, the Tigers came in rather soon after the beginning of combat. And even PzIII with short 50mm is more combat capable than the 37mm popgun. So the point is that when the Sherman entered battlefield there already were tanks that can reliably kill it at longer ranges while the T-34, when first appeared, was in much better position.

Oh yes, didn't argue with that, Sherman is definitely a battle-capable tank on par with T-34 except the speed (but then again usually more machineguns). Regarding the armor protection, Sherman 75 is comparable with Panzers. As for the Cromwell, I kinda like this one too. With 6pdr, that is.

And use artillery to beat up bad boys enough for them to retreat quickly after the tanks reach them;o)

Yes, the T-34/KV-1 combo in these roles are my favourites as well. KV-1's with their heavier armour, more ammo and a crew of five (ie higher ROF) are ideal to tie up the enemy.

I remember reading somewhere that somewhere the Sherman tankers have found their AP shells are flying right through the Japanese tanks without detonating as the armour was too thin to set off the fuse...


Just found our miitary technical museum owns a Sherman M4A1(76) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/shock.gif Didn't know that...

Re: Shermans vs T-34s
 

Allow me to nitpick a little http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

The first three Tigers (s.PzAbt 501) landed in North Africa (Tunesia) on 23rd November 1942 and was in combat on the 25th in the Djedida/Medjez el Bab area. IIRC the allied forces in the area were a mix of British and US forces (tanks).
More Tigers arrived in the following days and weeks and apparently had a field day knocking out Stuarts, which the allies continued to use as real tanks at this time http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Claus B