The T-34 are usually considered the best all around tank of WW2, especially if you are accounting for things like production ease.
On paper their performance was relatively similar when accounting for mobility, armour, and fire power. The only real advantage of the T34 was that it had a lower profile and did better in the snow.
The real magic behind the T34 was the rate at which they could be pumped out and still go toe to toe with most anything on the field. They could slap together a T34 in 9000 man hours of work, compared to the 48,000 hours needed to make a Sherman.
The T34 had several huge issues though. Not the least that 1 guy had to load, aim and fire the gun, with a single periscope and optics not even worthy of a boyscout. While commanding his tank without a cupola, and all other tanks in his platoon, without a radio.
As a result, they usually lost 3 to 1 if they were lucky or 6 to 1 if they weren’t. Though crappy training and early ammo shortages didn’t help either.
The T34 was cheap and plentiful, but you get what you pay for. You can build more, but you’re also going to lose more. Of course, that did fit pretty well with Soviet strategy at the time.
The T34 had several huge issues though. Not the least that 1 guy had to load, aim and fire the gun, with a single periscope and optics not even worthy of a boyscout. While commanding his tank without a cupola, and all other tanks in his platoon, without a radio.
Depends on what year you’re talking about… By 44 they had pretty much all of those problems worked out.
The extra hours weren’t much of an issue given American industrial capacity. So I’d say the Sherman was better in most areas, especially in terms of build quality, ergonomics and escape hatches for the crew.
Zhukov and Khrushchev also agreed that Lend Lease was crucial, along with many more members of Stalin’s inner circle.
Why do you consider Soviet tanks to be better than their American counterparts?
The T-34 are usually considered the best all around tank of WW2, especially if you are accounting for things like production ease.
On paper their performance was relatively similar when accounting for mobility, armour, and fire power. The only real advantage of the T34 was that it had a lower profile and did better in the snow.
The real magic behind the T34 was the rate at which they could be pumped out and still go toe to toe with most anything on the field. They could slap together a T34 in 9000 man hours of work, compared to the 48,000 hours needed to make a Sherman.
The T34 had several huge issues though. Not the least that 1 guy had to load, aim and fire the gun, with a single periscope and optics not even worthy of a boyscout. While commanding his tank without a cupola, and all other tanks in his platoon, without a radio.
As a result, they usually lost 3 to 1 if they were lucky or 6 to 1 if they weren’t. Though crappy training and early ammo shortages didn’t help either.
The T34 was cheap and plentiful, but you get what you pay for. You can build more, but you’re also going to lose more. Of course, that did fit pretty well with Soviet strategy at the time.
Depends on what year you’re talking about… By 44 they had pretty much all of those problems worked out.
The extra hours weren’t much of an issue given American industrial capacity. So I’d say the Sherman was better in most areas, especially in terms of build quality, ergonomics and escape hatches for the crew.