Shermans vs T-34s

[MacGalin]

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 . 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 .

[Zipuli]

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

[Mustang]

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.

[MarkSheppard]

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..

[Mustang]

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.

[c_of_red]

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.

[Mustang]

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.

[Marek_Tucan]

Mustang said:
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.

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 ).

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.

[Mustang]

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.

[cbo]

Mustang said:
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.

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).

Mustang said: But the early Shermans not only had low-velocity guns, but they also were equipped with poor-quality ammunition that sometimes shattered on impact.

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