Comparing the M-4 V the T-34

[Vrenn]

It's funny just how close both of these tanks ended up being equal to each other from start to finish and where their roots came from.

The M-4 came along first. Before the US entered into WWII, the US provided the Brits with a squadron of brand new M-4s for a push in North Africa. The Italian tanks were no match and for the first time, the Axis was routed. The Panzer IVs were even matched. Not bad for 1941. Until the introduction of the T-34, the M-4 was the best light and medium tank in the world. But neither were head to head matched to either the Panther or the King Tiger. But both were sent to fight in large numbers with large losses against them anyway winning by attrition.

Contrary to popular beliefs, the Panther and Tigers were late arrivals to WWII and probably had little to do with the outcome so I won't spend a lot of time on those two. The Panther is a Heavy Tank coming into service in 1943 but it was constantly being disrupted by enemy bombing. The Tiger was introduced in time for Leningrad but it had transmission problems and were very easy to defend against. But the Tiger I was formidible when it was operational against any tank other than the M-26. The KIng Tiger was just too much too late and it was over engineered.

Believe it or not, the M-4, the BT and the T-34 comes from the same drawing board. But not the track system. The BT and the T-34 track system were smuggled out of the US in 1931 shipped to the Soviet Union labeled as Farm Equipment. The M-4 Sherman inherited it's drive from the M-3.

The T-34 was a direct descendent of the A-30 from the BT line. The BT line was discontinued when it morphed into the T-34 in 1939. Basically, the T-34 was the BT drive with the A-30 turrent.

It wasn't just the T-34 that got that drive design, even the British Challenger got it as well. Just nothing the US was using at the time.

LIke the M-4 being converted into the Tank KIller in 1942 , the T-34 was given an 85mm cannon and called the T-34/85 Tank Killer in 1944.

Both were mass produced and regunned over and over. The stories you keep hearing almost always are about how they faced outgunned tigers and panthers. But normally, they faced the Panzer IVs and IIIs where they could more than hold their own. But you will find that every regunning of the T-34 was directly taken from a previous successful regunning of the venerable M-4 Patton.

 

[Manonthestreet]

It's funny just how close both of these tanks ended up being equal to each other from start to finish and where their roots came from.

The M-4 came along first. Before the US entered into WWII, the US provided the Brits with a squadron of brand new M-4s for a push in North Africa. The Italian tanks were no match and for the first time, the Axis was routed. The Panzer IVs were even matched. Not bad for 1941. Until the introduction of the T-34, the M-4 was the best light and medium tank in the world. But neither were head to head matched to either the Panther or the King Tiger. But both were sent to fight in large numbers with large losses against them anyway winning by attrition.

Contrary to popular beliefs, the Panther and Tigers were late arrivals to WWII and probably had little to do with the outcome so I won't spend a lot of time on those two. The Panther is a Heavy Tank coming into service in 1943 but it was constantly being disrupted by enemy bombing. The Tiger was introduced in time for Leningrad but it had transmission problems and were very easy to defend against. But the Tiger I was formidible when it was operational against any tank other than the M-26. The KIng Tiger was just too much too late and it was over engineered.

Believe it or not, the M-4, the BT and the T-34 comes from the same drawing board. But not the track system. The BT and the T-34 track system were smuggled out of the US in 1931 shipped to the Soviet Union labeled as Farm Equipment. The M-4 Sherman inherited it's drive from the M-3.

The T-34 was a direct descendent of the A-30 from the BT line. The BT line was discontinued when it morphed into the T-34 in 1939. Basically, the T-34 was the BT drive with the A-30 turrent.

It wasn't just the T-34 that got that drive design, even the British Challenger got it as well. Just nothing the US was using at the time.

LIke the M-4 being converted into the Tank KIller in 1942 , the T-34 was given an 85mm cannon and called the T-34/85 Tank Killer in 1944.

Both were mass produced and regunned over and over. The stories you keep hearing almost always are about how they faced outgunned tigers and panthers. But normally, they faced the Panzer IVs and IIIs where they could more than hold their own. But you will find that every regunning of the T-34 was directly taken from a previous successful regunning of the venerable M-4 Patton.

Ya mean Sherman?

 

[Dayton3]

Ya mean Sherman?

I thought the great innovation in the T-34 was it had angled armor?

 

[Manonthestreet]

I thought the great innovation in the T-34 was it had angled armor?

T34 was fast and could cross softer terrain than most tanks, certainly had better armor than M4

 

[DudleySmith]

The T-34 was a piece of crap until the 1944 models started coming off the assembly lines, with all the modifications recommended by American engineers who were asked to test a few and give feedback. They fixed a number of flaws. Their main advantage was sheer numbers; the Germans would run out of ammo knocking them out and get overrun.

 

[DudleySmith]

I thought the great innovation in the T-34 was it had angled armor?

Wide tracks and up-gunned rifle on a fast medium chassis; it had a crappy transmission, a poor exhaust design, and broke down a lot. In Korea the Shermans killed them at about a two to one ratio in tank battles, before the M-26 and Centurions came along, which should be no surprise since the Shermans were in their element in narrow mountain roads well suited for thick frontal armor and little room for maneuver.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Boy, where to begin. The T-34 predates the Sherman. In 1940 it was the most heavily armed medium tank in the world. But it wasn’t the first with angled armor. On the whole the T-34 was a horrible tank even by 1940 standards. It was very cramped due to all that angled armor and the Christie suspension. The crew was almost blind to everything outside the tank. The transmission was so stiff drivers used a mallet to beat it into gear. The transmissions were fragile and broke down a lot. Only one tank in a company had a radio. There was no turret basket and the floor of the tank was composed of ammo boxes. There was no padding to protect the crew from injury while the tank was driving. It had a two man turret so the commander also had to load the main gun and co-ax machine gun. The turret hatch was huge and hinged forward so the commander had to expose most of his body to see around it. The commander didn’t have a vision cupola so his vision was very limited when buttoned up. There’s much more. On the other hand, it had good flotation from the wide tracks and a powerful, if unreliable, engine.

On the other hand, the Sherman had everything the T-34 lacked. It was reliable, had as good a gun as the T-34 and a better one than any Panzer in service in 1942 except the very rare Mark IV specials (Panzer IV F 2) or the ultra rare Tiger, every Sherman had at least one radio and command tanks had two. In 1942 the Sherman was hands down the best medium tank in the world. Sherman’s were stone dependable. The Soviets loved the Sherman and crews that used it preferred it to T-34s.

 

[Confederate Soldier]

Was ist los, Motherfucker?

 

[AZrailwhale]

View attachment 524721

Was ist los, Motherfucker?

Tiger Ones were rare and on a cost benefit basis a failure. Sure they could kill anything they could see, but they were slow, unreliable and resource hogs. If one broke down it took TWO eighteen ton FAMO halftracks working in tandem to tow it and Tigers were forbidden to tow one another because it destroyed the powertrain of the towing tank and then you had two disabled tanks. And they were far from invulnerable, Tiger 131 was disabled by a either a six pounder armed Churchill, or a M1897 75mm armed M-3 halftrack tank destroyer depending on which story is correct.

 

[Confederate Soldier]

Tiger Ones were rare and on a cost benefit basis a failure. Sure they could kill anything they could see, but they were slow, unreliable and resource hogs. If one broke down it took TWO eighteen ton FAMO halftracks working in tandem to tow it and Tigers were forbidden to tow one another because it destroyed the powertrain of the towing tank and then you had two disabled tanks. And they were far from invulnerable, Tiger 131 was disabled by a either a six pounder armed Churchill, or a M1897 75mm armed M-3 halftrack tank destroyer depending on which story is correct.

It was more me being a smart ass, but yeah. Not as invincible as they seem. They still look bad ass and mad scary though.

 

[AZrailwhale]

It was more me being a smart ass, but yeah. Not as invincible as they seem. They still look bad ass and mad scary though.

To me the Tiger II was the scary looking one. All smooth lines and that huge gun.

 

[Vrenn]

Wide tracks and up-gunned rifle on a fast medium chassis; it had a crappy transmission, a poor exhaust design, and broke down a lot. In Korea the Shermans killed them at about a two to one ratio in tank battles, before the M-26 and Centurions came along, which should be no surprise since the Shermans were in their element in narrow mountain roads well suited for thick frontal armor and little room for maneuver.

Sorry but the M-26 was used starting in 1944 and could hold it's own with the German Tiger. As the Tiger dwindled in numbers, the Pershing gained in numbers. It was withdrawn from service in 1951 because it was just too big to use for most of Korea where the M-4 shined. In 1951, the M-26 Medium/Heavy was replaced by the M-47 for a few years. But the M-26 was the basis for the M-48 that begat the M-60 and lead to many of the modern heavy tanks of today.

The Shermans (m-4), through a long series of replacements, have been replaced by the Strykers and are no longer tracked vehicles.

 

[DudleySmith]

Sorry but the M-26 was used starting in 1944 and could hold it's own with the German Tiger. As the Tiger dwindled in numbers, the Pershing gained in numbers. It was withdrawn from service in 1951 because it was just too big to use for most of Korea where the M-4 shined. In 1951, the M-26 Medium/Heavy was replaced by the M-47 for a few years. But the M-26 was the basis for the M-48 that begat the M-60 and lead to many of the modern heavy tanks of today.

The Shermans (m-4), through a long series of replacements, have been replaced by the Strykers and are no longer tracked vehicles.

sorry but the M-26 entered very late in WW II and was hardly used enough to make any definitive judgements on it. That didn't happen until the Marine landings at Inchon during the Korean war. The Sherman was still the main tank in use, and U.S. doctrine at the time wasn't oriented toward tank to tank combat, but more toward using our armor as tank destroyers, I.e. just portable artillery. The Shermans performed well in Africa against the early Panzers, but fell behind by 1944, too late for any big change in production.

The M-26 actually performed pretty well in Korea compared to the rest, outperformed the Sherman and the M-46, the latter by a long shot, in the few instances where tanks knocked out other tanks; aircraft and artillery did most of the work.

How did the Sherman tank compare to the T-34 during the Korean War?

Answer (1 of 6): It is hard to compare the quality of tanks directly owing to differences in crew training, tactics, logistical support and strategic situation. Looking at table 1 from we see tank fire was not a big deal in knocking out Allied tanks in Korea. The sources for my information can b...

www.quora.com

This seems to indicate the superiority of the Sherman. Each tank was able to defeat the other at practical combat ranges using its main armament. The Sherman has a slight edge as the 76 mm gun has a higher rate of fire, the Sherman ergonomics are superior and the 76 mm is slightly more accurate. But all in all, crew training and tactical factors (mainly who fires first) would dominate over these minor differences.

Overall both the T-34/85 and late model (M4A3) Shermans were good medium tanks in the same class, the Sherman gave better account of itself. It was superior in tank v tank combat, more reliable (albeit this statement can be challenged as we rarely compare like with like in tank reliability and the US logistics and mechanical support was so much superior to that of the Communist forces).

Sherman crews had much higher survival rates that those in T-34s based on available data.


How many T-26's made it to Europe, maybe 25? And they broke down a lot, not surprising for what was an experimental tank model. The M-26 that went into Korea was a better advanced model. The M-26 and Shermans had more tank targets since they went in early in the war, so that effects the stats for the M-46. Shermans were in half the battles, and preferred by infantry because it was narrower and handled the the hills and mountain terrain better, and could be set up in fortified positions easier.

There is another table of stats outlining tank losses and causes at the link as well. The terrain was a big tank killer in Korea.

 

[DudleySmith]

Boy, where to begin. The T-34 predates the Sherman. In 1940 it was the most heavily armed medium tank in the world. But it wasn’t the first with angled armor. On the whole the T-34 was a horrible tank even by 1940 standards. It was very cramped due to all that angled armor and the Christie suspension. The crew was almost blind to everything outside the tank. The transmission was so stiff drivers used a mallet to beat it into gear. The transmissions were fragile and broke down a lot. Only one tank in a company had a radio. There was no turret basket and the floor of the tank was composed of ammo boxes. There was no padding to protect the crew from injury while the tank was driving. It had a two man turret so the commander also had to load the main gun and co-ax machine gun. The turret hatch was huge and hinged forward so the commander had to expose most of his body to see around it. The commander didn’t have a vision cupola so his vision was very limited when buttoned up. There’s much more. On the other hand, it had good flotation from the wide tracks and a powerful, if unreliable, engine.

On the other hand, the Sherman had everything the T-34 lacked. It was reliable, had as good a gun as the T-34 and a better one than any Panzer in service in 1942 except the very rare Mark IV specials (Panzer IV F 2) or the ultra rare Tiger, every Sherman had at least one radio and command tanks had two. In 1942 the Sherman was hands down the best medium tank in the world. Sherman’s were stone dependable. The Soviets loved the Sherman and crews that used it preferred it to T-34s.

The Sherman, as you probably know, could easily be up armored on its front and sides, and was very handy for storming fortifications and dense urban areas during frontal assaults and inside towns and cities with narrow streets.

 

[DudleySmith]

I can't find any stats on T-26's running around tearing up Tigers, just a couple of kills, and a handful of Panzer IV's.

 

[AZrailwhale]

sorry but the M-26 entered very late in WW II and was hardly used enough to make any definitive judgements on it. That didn't happen until the Marine landings at Inchon during the Korean war. The Sherman was still the main tank in use, and U.S. doctrine at the time wasn't oriented toward tank to tank combat, but more toward using our armor as tank destroyers, I.e. just portable artillery. The Shermans performed well in Africa against the early Panzers, but fell behind by 1944, too late for any big change in production.

The M-26 actually performed pretty well in Korea compared to the rest, outperformed the Sherman and the M-46, the latter by a long shot, in the few instances where tanks knocked out other tanks; aircraft and artillery did most of the work.

How did the Sherman tank compare to the T-34 during the Korean War?

Answer (1 of 6): It is hard to compare the quality of tanks directly owing to differences in crew training, tactics, logistical support and strategic situation. Looking at table 1 from we see tank fire was not a big deal in knocking out Allied tanks in Korea. The sources for my information can b...

www.quora.com

This seems to indicate the superiority of the Sherman. Each tank was able to defeat the other at practical combat ranges using its main armament. The Sherman has a slight edge as the 76 mm gun has a higher rate of fire, the Sherman ergonomics are superior and the 76 mm is slightly more accurate. But all in all, crew training and tactical factors (mainly who fires first) would dominate over these minor differences.

Overall both the T-34/85 and late model (M4A3) Shermans were good medium tanks in the same class, the Sherman gave better account of itself. It was superior in tank v tank combat, more reliable (albeit this statement can be challenged as we rarely compare like with like in tank reliability and the US logistics and mechanical support was so much superior to that of the Communist forces).

Sherman crews had much higher survival rates that those in T-34s based on available data.


How many T-26's made it to Europe, maybe 25? And they broke down a lot, not surprising for what was an experimental tank model. The M-26 that went into Korea was a better advanced model. The M-26 and Shermans had more tank targets since they went in early in the war, so that effects the stats for the M-46. Shermans were in half the battles, and preferred by infantry because it was narrower and handled the the hills and mountain terrain better, and could be set up in fortified positions easier.

There is another table of stats outlining tank losses and causes at the link as well. The terrain was a big tank killer in Korea.

The M-26 was underpowered, it used the same Ford GAA engine as the M-4A3 Sherman. Most M-26s were converted to M-46s with a new engine/transmission powerpack.

 

[AZrailwhale]

I can't find any stats on T-26's running around tearing up Tigers, just a couple of kills, and a handful of Panzer IV's.

The M-26 was really more of a match for the Panther, It's gun was about the equal of the 88mm L56 on the Tiger One and inferior to the 88mm L71 on the Tiger Two

 

[Mushroom]

I thought the great innovation in the T-34 was it had angled armor?

That is what is known as a "lucky accident".

The Soviets were having a hard time with the supply of adequate armor for their tanks. And one of their engineers realized if you tilted it at an angle, you essentially increase the thickness. For example, at a 60 degree tilt, the armor adds over 50% the thickness to projectiles, greatly increasing it's survivability. They had to make the hulls as thin as possible, simply due to lack of raw materials. The fact that they also deflected projectiles was not intended, but quickly used in future designs.

 

[DudleySmith]

The M-26 was underpowered, it used the same Ford GAA engine as the M-4A3 Sherman. Most M-26s were converted to M-46s with a new engine/transmission powerpack.

Yes. The T-26 saw very little combat at the end of WW II; by Korea they had tweaked them and the M-26 that went in with the Marine landings were a much better tank. They were quickly replaced with the M-46 and the later upgrades. But there weren't many tank battles in Korea, so the Sherman Easy 8's were still an adequate tank.

A better war for armor data was probably the Israeli wars. They had the advantage of better training, even against forces using the same tank models they had in some cases, like the 1956 war. Getting off-topic, but related anyway:

The National Interest: Blog

nationalinterest.org

The IDF needed tanks badly. Here are all of the ones they inherited or purchased.



Over the years, the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) acquired hundreds of U.S.-manufactured M4A1 and M4A3 medium Sherman tanks. A large number of these were acquired from the French Army just before the 1956 Sinai Campaign. Over the years, many were refitted with an American 76mm main gun and the remainder with a French 75mm/.62-caliber high-velocity (3,200-feet/second) main gun.



In order to accommodate the long, heavy French gun, the Sherman turrets were modified with gun braces forward and counterweights on the bustle. Further, 40 former French Shermans equipped with French AMX-13 turrets were captured from Egypt in 1956. These were retrofitted with new turrets housing French 75mm/.62-caliber high-velocity main guns. All 75mm and 76mm Shermans were designated M-50 Super Shermans.


And more at the link. The Israelis captured a lot of Centurions from the Jordanians. The Israelis were always improving on our models, hence why they were still successful even with Shermans until up into the 1960's. They do the same with our aircraft and other gear.