Jump to content


T-34 v M4 v Panzer IV


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
23 replies to this topic

Crazedtiger77 #1 Posted 20 January 2015 - 08:33 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 11426 battles
  • 2,420
  • Member since:
    05-17-2014

Was the Sherman or T-34 best in general and why? We're only talking about the tank during WW2, so no super shermans, etc. 

 

 

Sherman

+Easy to maintain

+Decent sloped armour

+Lots of space for crew

+Could use the 17 pounder gun

-Very tall

 

T-34 

+Simple to maintain

+Strong 85mm gun

+Sloped armour

+Wide tracks for off road mobility

+Easy to produce

+Many great tds used its chassis

-Poor raw armour thickness

-Little internal space

-Two man turret meant that commander was also the gunner

-Louder than the Sherman

 

I'll add other advantages and disadvantages from any of your comments.

 


Edited by Crazedtiger77, 20 January 2015 - 09:14 PM.


Sovietdeath #2 Posted 20 January 2015 - 08:38 PM

    Major

  • WoTC Online Contributor
  • 15356 battles
  • 20,363
  • Member since:
    08-10-2013

View PostCrazedtiger77, on 20 January 2015 - 03:33 PM, said:

Which of the main WW2 mediums (T-34, M4 Sherman and Panzer Mark IV) do you think was best in general and why? We're only talking about the tank during WW2, so no super shermans, etc. 

 

 

Sherman

+Easy to maintain

+Decent sloped armour

+Lots of space for crew

+Could use the 17 pounder gun

-Very tall

 

T-34 

+Simple to maintain

+Strong 85mm gun

+Sloped armour

+Wide tracks for off road mobility

+Easy to produce

+Many great tds used its chassis

-Poor raw armour thickness

-Little internal space

-Two man turret meant that commander was also the gunner

 

Panzer IV

+Useful chassis for tds and spgs

-Not very well sloped armour

 

I'll add other advantages and disadvantages from any of your comments.

 

 

there is a minor problem her, The PZ IV was fairly outdated by the time the T-34 and M4 Sherman started seeing significant numbers

BR M95 OE #3 Posted 20 January 2015 - 08:44 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 16451 battles
  • 3,919
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

Like SovietDeath pointed out, the PZ IV was outdated. That's when the Tiger 1 started to appear, I think?


 - Make It Relevant - Let Each Rank Give More XP - Pls WGA!


Crazedtiger77 #4 Posted 20 January 2015 - 08:59 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 11426 battles
  • 2,420
  • Member since:
    05-17-2014

View PostSovietdeath, on 20 January 2015 - 08:38 PM, said:

 

there is a minor problem her, The PZ IV was fairly outdated by the time the T-34 and M4 Sherman started seeing significant numbers

True, changed it. Which do you think is best?



Kiwi the Fox #5 Posted 20 January 2015 - 09:00 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 18030 battles
  • 519
  • Member since:
    09-10-2013

Despite its age the Pz IV H (and later J) versions had little trouble with the regular stock M4 that equipped a lot of the Allied tank units in 1944-45.  Even the advent of the 76mm and firefly, which gave the Sherman much increased firepower, did not cure the vulnerability to the Pz IV H - many times the Sherman that were up gunned were the thinly armored M4A1 versions.

 

 

In the game I prefer the T-34 armed with the 57mm zis-5 gun to either the regular 75mm M4 or the Pz IVH.  The ROF of the T-34 gives it a distinct advantage over the other 2 machines of a great many of each (M4, Pz IV) have fallen to the gun of my fast firing hard hitting T-34.  Even the 76mm armed M4 falls to the T-34 as despite the 76mm gun the zis 5 rate of fire makes short work of the M4 while the 76mm reloads.


Edited by Kiwi the Fox, 20 January 2015 - 09:01 PM.

 

"My avatar is the division patch for the 4th Canadian Armored Division, NW Europe 1944-45"   - painted on  Left Front of Vehicle                                                               

 

                                                              


Starshoy #6 Posted 20 January 2015 - 09:11 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 13663 battles
  • 3,954
  • [KAMA]
  • Member since:
    08-28-2013
By whatever reports I read, T-34 was much louder than Sherman, which sometimes was a significant disadvantage. Sherman had many nice things, like extra generator just for radio, etc. "Soft" armor had it's advantages, but was perceived as not strong enough. Soviet tank crews generally tried to avoid Shermans, because, true or not, it was considered a less safe tank. Not that there was any choice, of course.


PLK180W #7 Posted 20 January 2015 - 09:46 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 61 battles
  • 7,934
  • Member since:
    10-29-2014

Apart from the early Shermans,  the only slope to the armour was at the front, it's height was a considerable disadvantage, true it was more comfortable for crews, but it's high profile also made it an easier target, it's only major advantage was numbers and industrial capacity, (when designs were improved, they were manufactured and supplied to units much quicker then the case with Germany).

The T-34 was an outstanding design, crudely produced but crudely produced en masse, simple to maintain, and easy to upgrade, the only criticisms was the two man turret and the gun sights, (lack of radios early on in the war was an issue), but most of it's shortcomings were dealt with in the T-34-85.

The Pzkpw IV was a good pre-war design, she started as an infantry support tank, (the Pzkpw III was the Wermacht's purpose built Main Battle Tank), continuously upgraded during the war but was kept in production purely because it had to be (same problem as faced by the Luftwaffe with the Bf-109, 110, He 111 and many others).

Of these 3 tanks, the only one designed AFTER the start of the war was the Sherman, and of these 3 tanks, the one which I would say was the most flawed was the Sherman. 


Through The Mud And Blood To The Green Fields Beyond

Matthew J35U5 #8 Posted 21 January 2015 - 08:57 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostKiwi the Fox, on 20 January 2015 - 04:00 PM, said:

Despite its age the Pz IV H (and later J) versions had little trouble with the regular stock M4 that equipped a lot of the Allied tank units in 1944-45.  Even the advent of the 76mm and firefly, which gave the Sherman much increased firepower, did not cure the vulnerability to the Pz IV H - many times the Sherman that were up gunned were the thinly armored M4A1 versions.

By this metric, an upgraded T-28 is also better than the T-34 and Sherman because one could hypothetically make the T-28 about the equal of better than a Pz. IV (80 mm frontal armour, 85 mm gun) despite being introduced in 1931. 

View PostCrazedtiger77, on 20 January 2015 - 03:33 PM, said:

Was the Sherman or T-34 best in general and why? We're only talking about the tank during WW2, so no super shermans, etc. 

 

 

Sherman

+Easy to maintain

+Decent sloped armour

+Lots of space for crew

+Could use the 17 pounder gun

-Very tall

 

T-34 

+Simple to maintain

+Strong 85mm gun

+Sloped armour

+Wide tracks for off road mobility

+Easy to produce

+Many great tds used its chassis

-Poor raw armour thickness

-Little internal space

-Two man turret meant that commander was also the gunner

-Louder than the Sherman

 

I'll add other advantages and disadvantages from any of your comments.

 

I would favour the T-34 for WWII since the final model T-34-85 had a gun with better utility than any of the Sherman models used during WWII. Otherwise both were about as good as each other. 

Without limiting it to WWII, I think the Sherman is clearly the superior design, it was just possible to upgrade the Sherman much more than the T-34 could be. 


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


Kiwi the Fox #9 Posted 23 January 2015 - 03:52 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 18030 battles
  • 519
  • Member since:
    09-10-2013

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 21 January 2015 - 03:57 PM, said:

By this metric, an upgraded T-28 is also better than the T-34 and Sherman because one could hypothetically make the T-28 about the equal of better than a Pz. IV (80 mm frontal armour, 85 mm gun) despite being introduced in 1931.

I would favour the T-34 for WWII since the final model T-34-85 had a gun with better utility than any of the Sherman models used during WWII. Otherwise both were about as good as each other. 

Without limiting it to WWII, I think the Sherman is clearly the superior design, it was just possible to upgrade the Sherman much more than the T-34 could be.

 

Clearly my comment is based on historical fact, while your thoughts on the T-28 being superior to the Pz IV at any time are mere wishful thinking, as the T-28 as historically fielded in no way would match the Pz IVH.

 

"My avatar is the division patch for the 4th Canadian Armored Division, NW Europe 1944-45"   - painted on  Left Front of Vehicle                                                               

 

                                                              


Matthew J35U5 #10 Posted 23 January 2015 - 04:57 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostKiwi the Fox, on 23 January 2015 - 10:52 AM, said:

 

Clearly my comment is based on historical fact, while your thoughts on the T-28 being superior to the Pz IV at any time are mere wishful thinking, as the T-28 as historically fielded in no way would match the Pz IVH.

 

It is a historical fact that it would have been possible to upgrade a T-28 with 80 mm of frontal armour and an 85 mm gun. No-one bothered to because it was easier to build more T-34's instead. 

You seem to miss the point; you can't take a tank after its been upgraded as much as it possibly can be, and compare it to tanks at their base model, and then argue that the former is better than the latter, especially when it only about as good as their base models, and their upgraded models are better than it is. 

KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


Uranprojekt #11 Posted 24 January 2015 - 04:44 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 8338 battles
  • 3,437
  • Member since:
    08-19-2013

Is being able to use the 17 pdr. gun really an advantage for the M4? The British had to turn the gun sideways to make it fit in the turret and add a box to the back of the turret to house the radio. Also, the Americans never accepted the Firefly because they had no perceived need for it and it meant having to produce ammo for what is, in essence, a foreign gun. I don't really see that as being an advantage, more an inconvenience.

 

Also, the T-34 wasn't that easy to maintain. Everything on the tank was bolted down and the access hatches for engine compartment were incredibly heavy. The only things the crew could really do in the field were adjust the track tension, replace broken track links, change the air filters on the engine and check/refill the oil and fuel. Any other maintenance had to be done at a depot. To access the suspension guide rods, for example, the turret had to be removed. The engine could only be accessed for proper maintenance by first removing the armoured louvers that protected it and that meant the use of a small crane, so field repairs to the engine were absolutely out of the question. In comparison, the M4 didn't have armoured louvers over the engine so the crew could quite easily access the engine and do any necessary field repairs. The M4 may have had an undeserved reputation of being flammable but at least you didn't need a crane to fix a small problem with the engine like reconnecting a loose lead.


War does not determine who is right, only who is left - Bertrand Russell

 

I write things, things which can be found in Historical Discussions. Things like this article on the Soviet invasion of Manchuria in 1945 and this article on the Spanish Civil War.

 

To those of you who don't molest the English language, I salute you. For everyone else, there's this handy link; http://www.reverso.n...elling-grammar/


Crazedtiger77 #12 Posted 24 January 2015 - 05:54 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 11426 battles
  • 2,420
  • Member since:
    05-17-2014

View PostUranprojekt, on 24 January 2015 - 04:44 PM, said:

Is being able to use the 17 pdr. gun really an advantage for the M4? The British had to turn the gun sideways to make it fit in the turret and add a box to the back of the turret to house the radio. Also, the Americans never accepted the Firefly because they had no perceived need for it and it meant having to produce ammo for what is, in essence, a foreign gun. I don't really see that as being an advantage, more an inconvenience.

 

Also, the T-34 wasn't that easy to maintain. Everything on the tank was bolted down and the access hatches for engine compartment were incredibly heavy. The only things the crew could really do in the field were adjust the track tension, replace broken track links, change the air filters on the engine and check/refill the oil and fuel. Any other maintenance had to be done at a depot. To access the suspension guide rods, for example, the turret had to be removed. The engine could only be accessed for proper maintenance by first removing the armoured louvers that protected it and that meant the use of a small crane, so field repairs to the engine were absolutely out of the question. In comparison, the M4 didn't have armoured louvers over the engine so the crew could quite easily access the engine and do any necessary field repairs. The M4 may have had an undeserved reputation of being flammable but at least you didn't need a crane to fix a small problem with the engine like reconnecting a loose lead.

I still think the 17 pounder was an advantage because it gave penetration beyond the 75mm which equipped other British Shermans. US forces were already using the 76mm, so that's probably why they didn't want Fireflys.

 

Thanks for the info on T-34s, I didn't realise that it wasn't easy to maintain!



Uranprojekt #13 Posted 24 January 2015 - 07:10 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 8338 battles
  • 3,437
  • Member since:
    08-19-2013

View PostCrazedtiger77, on 24 January 2015 - 05:54 PM, said:

I still think the 17 pounder was an advantage because it gave penetration beyond the 75mm which equipped other British Shermans. US forces were already using the 76mm, so that's probably why they didn't want Fireflys.

 

Thanks for the info on T-34s, I didn't realise that it wasn't easy to maintain!

 

The US army did deem the 76 mm adequate at the time but they didn't see the need for the 17 pdr because, as I said before, it would have required the US to either begin production or procurement of 17 pdr ammunition. Also, by the time the Firefly came into service the US army were already looking to replace the M4, efforts which culminated with the design of the T25 and T26 in mid-1943 and eventually led to the T26E3/M26 Pershing. The US army saw the 90 mm gun as better replacement for the 76 mm than the 17 pdr. From the point of view of the US army, I can certainly see the 17 pdr being a difficult gun to procure and implement into the American tank divisions, especially when the 90 mm is in production. Lastly, the Americans had begun to produce both HEAT and HVAP shells in the early/mid-40's which slightly negated the need for the Firefly.

War does not determine who is right, only who is left - Bertrand Russell

 

I write things, things which can be found in Historical Discussions. Things like this article on the Soviet invasion of Manchuria in 1945 and this article on the Spanish Civil War.

 

To those of you who don't molest the English language, I salute you. For everyone else, there's this handy link; http://www.reverso.n...elling-grammar/


Victorious Nox #14 Posted 25 January 2015 - 05:45 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 10285 battles
  • 2,305
  • [P4NDA]
  • Member since:
    08-30-2013

It's all well and good saying X vs X, but their needs to be description;

 

are we talking M4A1 or E8 or Jumbo or what about the Panzer IV ausf models? And dont even ask me about the different factory models of T34. 


1st wave EU Beta Tester

​Immortals Member

 


DStegCat #15 Posted 26 January 2015 - 10:47 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 25012 battles
  • 2,031
  • [BACON]
  • Member since:
    05-24-2014

       

       A good read about T34 vs PZ IV is the Wikipedia link to the battle of Prokhorovka (see link below).   Soviets had superior numbers of mainly T34s vs mainly German PZ IVs.   Pay particular attention to the casualties and losses section.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Prokhorovka

 

Germans after July 5th 1943 had control of the battlefield and repaired many tanks for further use.

 

A small number of Tigers made a big difference but they were knocked out.    Notice the German's controlling the battlefield were able to repair their tanks and get their Tigers back in action.

 

Notice the "irrecoverable losses of T34s" by the Russians.

 

     In this battle you also see the differing equipment strategy of German vs Russian.  Russia built expecting loss with a goal of throwing  the next regiment at the Germans.  German equipment at the end of a long supply line placed a priority on repair.

 

At Prokhorovka the German's won the battle (the day) but history shows the Russians won strategically.

 


nam et ipsa scientia potestas est (for knowledge is itself power)  Francis Bacon - 1597

More Bacon


Matthew J35U5 #16 Posted 27 January 2015 - 12:22 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013
When I think of Prokhorovka I think about the commander of 5th GTA (I think that was the unit) getting half of his tanks killed to little effect, and blowing the battle all out of proportion to try and excuse himself.

KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


Chieftain WGA #17 Posted 29 January 2015 - 08:44 PM

    Private

  • Players
  • 4 battles
  • 246
  • Member since:
    06-28-2013

M4 was best tank, for the US. T-34 was best tank, for the Soviets.

 

Why do people insist on trying to make apple-to-apple comparisons, when the strategic, operational and tactical requirements for each nation are different?


 

I muse upon this a bit here. http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/pc-browser/21/chieftains-hatch-devils-due/


 

Credit to the Israelis, at least they openly claim not that Merkava is "Best tank in the world", but that Merkava is "Best tank in the world for Israel."

 

 

 

 

 



Matthew J35U5 #18 Posted 29 January 2015 - 08:52 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostChieftain WGA, on 29 January 2015 - 03:44 PM, said:

Why do people insist on trying to make apple-to-apple comparisons, when the strategic, operational and tactical requirements for each nation are different?

Because this is the internet. :P


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


I3iggus Nickus #19 Posted 29 January 2015 - 09:55 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 34187 battles
  • 4,813
  • [ACES]
  • Member since:
    03-17-2014

View PostChieftain WGA, on 29 January 2015 - 02:44 PM, said:

M4 was best tank, for the US. T-34 was best tank, for the Soviets.

 

Why do people insist on trying to make apple-to-apple comparisons, when the strategic, operational and tactical requirements for each nation are different?


 

I muse upon this a bit here. http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/pc-browser/21/chieftains-hatch-devils-due/


 

Credit to the Israelis, at least they openly claim not that Merkava is "Best tank in the world", but that Merkava is "Best tank in the world for Israel."

 

 

 

 

 

 

people just want their favorite nation's tanks to win

 

Germany is better than every other nation btw:hiding:


​Member of the Senior Technical Engineer Club [ACES] Armoured Aces "Louder than God's revolver and twice as shiny"

1: A leap of faith. An unproveable belief in a reality beyond this world. 2: suicide. Escaping a pointless existence. 3: acceptance of an Absurd existence, and the freedom that comes with creating your own meaning.

"He who snipes snipers, runs the risk of becoming the sniper himself. If you gaze into the scope, the scope gazes back"


Morpheus02007 #20 Posted 29 January 2015 - 10:32 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14339 battles
  • 6,282
  • Member since:
    02-13-2014

View PostSovietdeath, on 20 January 2015 - 09:38 PM, said:

;

there is a minor problem her, The PZ IV was fairly outdated by the time the T-34 and M4 Sherman started seeing significant numbers

 

No, I think it was first the Panther (Pz V), if I'm not mistaken. Then the Tiger (Pz VI) as the Pz IV succesor.
Garage

Thanks to xRoni7x for this awesome sig!





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users