Why worry about supply lines through France? Simply start the supply lines in West Germany and Italy and the Middle East not to mention we could hit them on a two front war…Great Britain attacking from the west and the US attacking from the east (adding supply routes through India and China).
Does anyone know if Patton wanted to go for all of Russia or just take back East Europe from them?
No way. Assuming that Japan had already been defeated at that point, Mao’s Communists in Yan’an would have made short work of Chiang’s Nationalist government in Chungking. If Mao was able to consolidate sufficiently, I think he would have been able to at least seriously harrass any land offensive into Siberia.
This is the common shorthand history version of things, but it’s quite wrong.
The T-34 was an excellent early war tank, but it didn’t rule the battlefield by the end of the war. By 1943, it was just another target.
The Sherman gets a terrible reputation in the common perception of history because it’s being judged by arbitrary standards. The Sherman was an excellent tank - especially considering it’s development was mostly in 1941. Because it couldn’t go toe to toe with heavy tanks designed to be tank destroyers, it was maligned unfairly.
The Sherman was far more likely to face antitank guns and infantry than any German tank, and it was excellent at dispatching of soft targets. Furthermore, when it did meet a German tank, it was far more likely to be a stug 3 of pz 4 than a tiger or panther, either of which the Sherman was quite capable of killing.
Because people just sort of skim over history, or perhaps wargame fantasy scenarios with lots of German heavy tanks, people tend to think the Sherman was a bad tank. But it was great. It was extremely reliable - far more than the T34. If you ever look closely at pictures of T34s, they often have extra transmissions strapped to the hull because they were so prone to breaking them, for example. The high velocity 76mm gun later mounted to shermans was more effective than the T34/85s 85mm gun, and even the earlier 75mm gun was quite capable.
Shermans had good and well sloped armor for the times it was deisgned in, and later modifications gave it very formidable armor even by '45, carried great armament for it’s role - 3 MGs, quite a bit of ammo, and a very capable 75mm gun, and later an even more capable 76mm gun. It could drive hundreds of miles in mad dashes against France - a scenario in which almost every other tank would never have made to the same degree - and was an efficient killer of it’s primary targets and biggest threats: infantry and AT guns. And it was quite capable at taking on most German tanks, the fantasy that Germany had assloads of tigers and panthers aside.
Anyway, this isn’t all conjecture - we saw T34/85s battle Shermans in Korea. And the Shermans largely kicked their asses.
Oh, and for what it’s worth, if the allies (and their populaces) were firmly commited to the war, there’s little doubt we’d have won.
The Soviet Union was largely a spent after the war. They’d lost a large portion of their population, and most of their industries were starting to “run dry” from the damage to infrastructure, insufficient resources, etc. They’d have had a very difficult time maintaining the war.
The allies generally had superior equipment - the Sherman 76es were quite capable, tank destroyers like the M18 and M36 were the best of their type in the war, allied motorization and mechanization was more thorough - and as the allies supplied most of the trucks to the soviet army, they’d begin to have a transport crisis in a few months.
The allies were also supplying Russia with critical metals needed for industry because the Russian resource gathering infrastructure had been damaged. Withdrawing that would’ve thrown a monkey wrench into Russian production.
Something missed by people who’re mostly obsessed with tanks and other flashy items is one of the most important factors: Artillery. US artillery was just fucking incredible. The most effective equipment and system of the war, bar none. It contributed hugely to the effectiveness of the US army. The command structure of the US artillery was extremely flexible and effective, whereas the Soviet system was very rigid and unresponsive. The accuracy and speed of US artillery was unmatched - we were doing quite remarkable thing with early computers in that regard.
Russian production centers would’ve been subjected to constant bombing, whereas the US production bases would naturally be completely protected. And there would be no U-boat issues regarding bringing in supply.
By late 1944, we were really just getting started with what our industry could do. For an all out war with Russia, our industrial output could’ve steadily increased beyond it’s already remarkable capability, while the Russian infrastructure was bombed to bits by huge fleets of bombers - including, assumably, B-29s taken from the pacific theater.
The Soviet air force was more capable than most people give it credit for, but the allied air forces were simply massive, and quite advanced. The air war wouldn’t be a cakewalk, but there’s not much question as to who would’ve established air superiority.
The infrastructure in France, even damaged, would’ve been far more capable of bringing supplies to the front than anything in Poland.
New models of allied vehicles were quite advanced and capable - the M36 Jackson, M26 Pershing, and British Centurion would’ve seen action, and they were arguably the most advanced and capable units of their type in the world at the time.
The Russians had some capable units with battle hardened troops, but they’d largely tapped their manpower supply. On the other hand, the allies lost less than a million men during the whole war (IIRC), and would’ve had quite a reserve.
We’d also have had what was left of the German army to work with, as well as the designs to their weapons. Most of them absolutely hated the Russians and would have no problem fighting alongside us - in fact, upon surrendering, many of them wondered why we weren’t using them for exactly that.
Even without factoring in the Atomic bombs, there’s little doubt as to who would be the victor. It would be a matter of will more than anything - if for whatever reason we were thoroughly commited to defeating Russia, we could’ve done it.
As for Russia having the atomic bomb in 49 - well, that happened in peace time. Russia wouldn’t last that long, but assuming they did, they wouldn’t have the Atom bomb by then. They wouldn’t have had the resources to spare on it.
Unlikely. They’d experienced the horrors of foreign occupation, and weren’t likely to do anything but violently fight off any new attempts. Especially since we most likely would’ve been allied with what was left of the Wermacht.
Russia is huge. Once you get past Vladivostok in the East, theres not a lot out there but that harsh Russian winter we talked about earlier. Attacking Moscow from the East is like attacking San Francisco through the East Coast, except with Siberia instead of the midwest.
I don’t think we could have done it. Even if we did, what the heck would we do with it? The sheer number of forces needed to occupy Russia even for a short time would leave no one left at home to man the fort. Theres no logical way to divide it up. Who wants to be in charge of Siberia?
SenorBeef:
You are simply wrong. The Sherman was no match for German Panther tanks or the T-34/85. From a link provided earlier in this thread:
In WWII the Sherman was nicknamed the “Tommycooker” or “Ronson” (a brand of lighter) for their tendency to ‘brew-up’ (catch fire) when hit. Many crews died as a result that might otherwise have survived were this not the case. Their armor wasn’t really up tp snuff either. There were cases where German shells completely passed through the Sherman. The only upside to this was that the tank was often repairable. Support crews would literally hose out the tank (to get rid of the remains of the previous tank crew), patch the hole and send it back into battle.
Allied generals applied a loose rule of thumb of a 4:1 ratio of Shermans vs. Panthers. That is, four Shermans engage one Panther and three tanks die and the fourth kills the Panther.
I’d have to dig for the cite but there is an account of a German Tiger appearing and killing a Sherman. The other Shermans in the group immediately returned fire and hit the Tiger three times at which point the Tiger backed away not much worse for wear.
What the Sherman did have going for it was that they did produce an assload of them. What it lacked in ability it made up for in numerical superiority but that was small comfort to the crews.
If the Sherman was meant strictly as infantry support them fine but it most certainly was not capable in one-on-one fights versus Russian or German tanks of the same class. Given that he Sherman was THE primary American tank and given that the T-34 was THE primary Russian tank you have a losing scenario in the works. Also consider that Russia has always been tank happy and produced them like crazy. Maybe the Germans didn’t have enough Panthers to confront Shermans all that often but in a hypothetical war against WWII Russians you can bet your bottom dollar Shermans would have seen an assload of T-34s.
BTW…I specifically stated earlier in this thread that the German Tigers were relatively rare (in addition to having reliability problems). When working the Tiger thoroughly outmatched any other WWII tank and would absolutely annihilate a Sherman (as the stroy earlier indicated it is doubtful a Sherman could even damage one very much…maybe blow a tread off at best). Russian soldiers in the Battle of Kursk found the Tigers so threatening and hard to stop that they actually took to ramming their tanks into them as the only way to stop one. Fortunately there never were very many Tigers and they had little to no overall effect on the war.
Lots of people…one of the few places left on earth with a wealth of untapped resources. IIRC one wargame scenario the US often like to work through is China zapping up and nabbing Siberia for those resources. Of course one might ask why the US would wargame that scenario but anything that gets two nuclear armed countries at each other’s throats concerns the US.
**
I’ll have to find cites tomorrow when I have more time. From what I’ve read on Korea, T34s were largely eliminated.
**
The brew ups were caused by exploding ammunition which was more likely to be hit because of where it was stored. Later model Shermans used wet storage to counteract this problem. By 1945, because of that, Shermans were less likely to brew up than other tanks.
**
And this differs from the T34 how?
You seem to regard the T34 as some sort of super tank, but it took a worse beating from German tanks than the Sherman did.
Let’s compare, shall we?
A mid-war plain vanilla Sherman, the M4A3. It could sport a 75mm or 76mm gun, and wet storage kits were prevalent in late 1944.
Armor:
In case you didn’t know, a rule of thumb is that 30 degrees of slope doubles the effectiveness of the armor.
Hull front: 51mm@34-90 degrees. That means it sloped upward, and provided increased protection the higher up it was.
Side, 38@90, rear, 38@66-80.
Superstructure 51mm@33.
Turret: 76mm@60.
Mantle 89@90. That refers to the armor block on the front of the turret around the main gun.
Let’s compare even the best, late war T34/85 to this plane jane sherman.
Hull:
Front: 45@30, side 45@0 (I think they mean 90 - obviously the side hull armor wasn’t horizontal), rear 45@45.
Superstructure:
Front: 45@30. Side: 45@50, rear 45@42.
Turret:
90@Round, side 75@70, rear 52@80.
Mantle: 90@ Round.
Analysis: The Sherman has better hull frontal armor, slightly weaker side hull armor, roughly equal turret front armor - stronger in some points, weaker in others, based on where in the curve they hit. Slightly weaker side turret armor. Roughly equal mantle.
Now remember, this is a plain vanilla Sherman vs the very best late war T34, and neither is obviously superior in terms of armor.
So, let’s look at an upgraded late war Sherman - what you’d find in a 45 or later conflict with Russia.
Hull: 114-140@34-90. 38@90. 38@68-80.
Superstructure: 102@43, 76@90.
Turret: 152@78, 152@84, 152@88.
Mantle: 178@90.
For reference, the vaunted Tiger only had 100mm of frontal armor.
Analysis:
Not even a competition. The late war Sherman absolutely destroys the late war T-34 in terms of armor. They’re not even in the same ballpark fron the front. This is the sort of face off you’d be seeing in 1945-6.
Let’s compare guns:
The most common ammunition available for the T34-85 was APC (armor piercing, capped). Limited APCBC (armor piercing, capped, ballistic cap) was available, and almost no HVAP (high velocity armor piercing - tungsten cored) was available due to the lack of tungsten.
The 85mm D5 was capable of penetrating 96mm@30 at 500m of what I assume is rolled homogenized steel. A pretty decent gun.
The 76mm on the Sherman typically used APCBC, and importantly, the US had far more HVAP available due to better supplies of tungsten. HVAP had priority for tank destroyer units, but most 76-armed Shermans had at least a few rounds available by late 44.
APCBC has two numbers listed - I assume the second is an improved round model used in the late war, but I’m not totally sure. You either have 104.2@30 at 500m or 94@30 at 500m depending on round. Roughly equal to, or slightly better than, the T34-85. HVAP provided 158@30 at 500m.
However, that’s not the whole story. The 76mm had a higher muzzle velocity, making it a more accurate gun. Additionally, US gunnery optics were of superior design and quality compared to the Russian models.
The British 17-pdr 76mm gun was the best of the three, undoubtedly - APDS (armor piercing, discarding sabot) wasn’t based on scarce materials, so it was quite common. With that, it was capable of 183-208mm@30 at 500m, depending on the shell model. This gun was commonly mounted on British Shermans, known as “fireflies”. Regular APC produced 121@30 at 500.
Analysis: All of these guns are basically in the same class, except for the 17 pdr perhaps which sets itself apart with readily producible, extremely effective ammo. The higher availability of APDS and HVAP ammo to allied forces obviously gives an advantage.
**
A commonly misrepresented rule of thumb. There was a famous quote that this paraphrasing is based on, however, to my knowledge, it was referring to the fact that it is wise to try to overwhelm a panther with multiple vehicles in the hopes that one would get a flank shot than to say that 3 of them are automatically commited to death. In other words, 4 tanks would be the fewest amount of tanks you’d want to send out against a panther to ensure success. If they said “it’s a good idea to send 12 tanks against a panther”, that doesn’t mean that they plan to lose 11.
**
I have no doubt that this actually happened. I bet it happened a whole lot with the T34, too.
**
It didn’t lack in ability. Numbers are always helpful to an army, of course.
**
It wasn’t meant strictly as infantry support at all - US tank doctrine would take a while to explain to really flesh out the role of the Sherman. Anyway, the idea of tanks fighting tanks is romantic - it happened, but it wasn’t an every day occurance. The most common enemies of tanks on either front are AT guns and infantry. The Sherman was more than capable of dealing with both.
**
Very wrong. The panther and tiger weren’t in the same class as the Sherman, so comparing them is somewhat unfair. Additionally, you’re only comparing them in a one on one straight up tank fight - which is what the German tanks were designed for, rather than more general standards which would show the capabilities of a more well-rounded tank. The Sherman is geared towards something else - so to hold it to these arbitrary, if romantic standards, when THAT WAS FAR FROM COMMON, is silly. Panthers battling Shermans was not an every day occurance.
Anyway, the Sherman, even the early shermans, were more than a match for even late war T34s. Later Shermans outclassed the T34.
The most comparable German tank was the PZ 4, specifically the 4H. It was in the same weight class as the Sherman, as well as being Germany’s armored backbone through the end of the war.
Aside possibly from the stug 3, it would be the most common enemy AFV encountered by the Sherman. The Sherman outclassed the PZ 4 in every way aside from optics and armament. Although it was comparable in either.
**
Yeah, you do. And the T34 is going to take quite a beating.
**
I agree - but there were more Shermans produced than T34s, and Russia was running a full wartime economy for 4 whole years. US production didn’t really kick up until late 43, and we managed to outproduce them.
The tiger is generally regarded higher than it’s abilities. When it appeared in 1942, it was a menace, certainly - but by later in the war, every side had common ways of taking it out.
Anyway, tell me the T-34 is a super tank while the Sherman is shit. Look at the numbers. Apparently, somehow, the fact that panthers outmatched Shermans in tank duels means that the Sherman is inferior to the T34 - when the T34 was equally, or even more outclassed.
“Shermans are pieces of shit, Tigers and Panthers were uber tanks, the t-34 rules” is the glossed over history channel sort of explanation. It isn’t reality.
I suppose the sentiment might’ve started with some sort of Wermacht penis envy. The idea of lone Germany supertanks battling hordes of crappy tanks has a romantic appeal. So people started envisioning the war as that romantic idea. And tank duels become how people think about the war. And as such, people would compare tanks only in how they stood up in one on one tank duels.
Of course, the Germans were really the only nation who designed tanks specifically designed for this purpose. So, naturally, when we compare the numbers through the context of this romanticized vision, we get the impression that tanks that weren’t designed for tank dueling were pieces of shit, because they couldn’t go toe to toe with a tiger, or whatever.
But that ignores reality. Reality was moving some mud to help a platoon take a hill. Reality was blasting the hell out of a 75mm PAK hidden in some woods. Reality was facing an occasional panzer 4 or stug 3. Reality was driving 200 miles during a pursuit without blowing a tranny.
Anyway, media that only lightly touches on the aspects of how WW2 was fought on a tactical and operational level tend to gloss over history in such a way that it reflects the Sherman in a negative way. The Sherman was an outstanding tank designed in 1941, and even plain vanilla Shermans were able to effectively battle the bulk of the German armored fleet up until the end of the war. The upgraded Shermans were a huge improvement over the original models, quite capable of taking on anything by the end of the war. Rather than being pieces of shit as commonly, and wrongly, perceived, they were arguably the best general purpose tanks in the war.
My bad, I must have misread my world map. I was meaning to suggest that a hypothetical invasion fleet pass by the Kola Penninsula, and storm a port city like Onega, or Archangel.
BTW, gentlemen, here’s some info on the M26 Pershing medium tank. Including some delightful figures on armor thickness for the different parts of the hull and turret.
…And, for that matter, here’s some info on the Superheavy T28/T95 Heavy tank. It was never put into production, but it WAS planned for use in Operation: Olympic.
Whilst I’ve not read anything definite on the matter, I’d have to say that Patton would have gone for all the Soviet Union. He’s not exactly the kind of guy who went in for half measures. According to comments I’ve read from family members and those who knew Patton, there wasn’t much difference between the version of Patton you saw in the George C. Scott movie and the real man.
Oh, a bit of a hijack and I don’t have an on-line cite, but the Tatra car company was working on a tank at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union (back in the 1990s) which could do 112 MPH under battlefield conditions! :eek: Supposedly, a British intelligence official upon hearing about the tanks (after the company had quit working on them) said, “Thank god it was only a prototype!” To which the reply was, “Yes, but they told me they had built three hundred of them as well.”:eek: :eek:
SenorBeef:
You can spout the dimensions of the Sherman at me all day. It doesn’t change the fact that over and over the Sherman is never regarded as an equal to the German P-IV or the Russian T-34.
We can keep this up all day but you might save yourself the time. I have yet to run across one single article that claims the Sherman was superior…or even a fair match…for its counterparts in the German or Russian military.
As to numbers I wouldn’t get your hopes up too high in a hypothetical WWII Russia vs. US war. Around 40,000 T-34s were made in WWII compared to about 50,000 Shermans.
As to tank v. tank battles being uncommon that may have been so for the US vs. Germany but it was much more common in Germany vs. USSR. The Battle of Kursk saw something like 1,500 tanks go at it. Again, if you plan on facing the USSR in battle y9ou had better plan on facing her tanks…lots of them.
I’ve heard these WWII tank debates since my grade school days, and they have a certain chivalric charm to them. It’s as if modern warfare could be reduced to a bunch of one-on-one duels in a carefully controlled environment. (“Combined arms … bah! Economic production … irrelevant! Strategy … useless! Logistics … boring! Intelligence … for cowards! We’ll send one of each nations’ tanks into a stadium, and whichever one comes out, wins. The prize – the entire world!”)
Even without the A-Bomb, I have a hard time understanding how the Allies couldn’t have defeated the Soviets. The Germans almost did it on their own. While the USSR was far better mobilized and organized by 1945, so was the US, Britain, Canada, Australia, etc. Combined with a re-armed Whermacht and Luftwaffe, (which was still capable of producing new aircraft in numbers, like the Me262 or Do335 towards wars end), I simply have a hard time understanding how they could have survived such an onslought.
Yes, its big, and there surely would have been pockets of resistance for years, but I can’t imagine the USSR surviving such a combined force alone.
The red airforce had jets under development , most national airforces had some sort of program that was looking at the idea. The only thing to bear in mind here ,is that the germans had already deployed the me-262 , the british had the meteor coming into squadron strength by 1945 and the americans had that p something ,looked like a shooting star.
In our time line , the russians actually got ahold of a rolls royce nene engine , to accelerate their jet program, however that was in peace time conditions , in war time conditions , i cant see stalin wasting time on jets , when he had all those strumoviks and migs and in the long term , unless he went underground , his domestic a/c factories are gonna be bombed back into the stone age.
Declan
Again I think the US would win a very bloody war. I am far from positive of this & further think it more likely the US would sue for Peace after seizing Eastern Europe and leave any invasion of the USSR alone (not the OP I know).
Having said that, this is why I think it would be difficult for the allies to win (which I think after years and millions of casualties on both sides they would win)
AIRCRAFT (& A-BOMB)
The B-29, the only A-Bomb delivery system, could make a round trip of about 3200 miles, roughly a round trip Berlin to Moscow but couldn’t reach any of the Eastern Aircraft factories. The Soviets had about 10,000 frontline aircraft including about 800 heavy bombers, virtually all of which could be brought to bear on the front. The Allies had about 15,000 Aircraft spread from England, N. Africa & Italy. The USSR was producing 30,000 aircraft a year. Air dominance for the Allies & Atom Bomb use, would have taken years, not months.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWredair.htm
http://www.daveswarbirds.com/usplanes/american.htm
ARMY
By the end of World War II the Red Army numbered over 11 million officers and enlisted soldiers.
Almost all of them were between the Allied Armies and Eastern Russia. How “It is inconceivable to me that this War would last six months” and “It is a slam dunk - Russia was exhausted” crowd could truly believe that an Allied army with less than 3 million combat troops (as opposed to support troops) that the outcome was all but certain is beyond me. The Soviets massed 1.2 million men and 22,000 pieces of artillery for the battle of Berlin alone, this isn’t ridiculously far off what the Germans had to throw at the allies from D-Day through the end. The Soviets used women. In combat. The Allies would never do that unless invaded themselves.
US SUPPLY PROBLEMS
The U.S. was having problems filling combat personnel by 1945 and keeping the tanks & Artillery supplied.
______QUOTE-----------------
Many of the problems associated with the performance of American units in World War II may be directly attributed to this. In general, the US Army was the best equipped and supplied in the war. However, the commonly accepted view that the US Army overwhelmed opponents by sheer numbers is not quite correct. US industrial expansion did provide a steady source of supply to the combat troops. However, logistical shortages, particularly in regards to tanks and artillery ammunition, and personnel replacements were a problem for American forces throughout the war.
_____QUOTE------------------------
from here:
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/usarmy/introduction.aspx
Times this by Ten in the expanses of Eastern Russia in January of ‘48
PARTISANS
I agree that Germans And Ukrainians would fight for the allies and welcome them.
I doubt that places like Poland, with huge organized groups of partisans organized by the communists, would be so accommodating. Greece, France and Italy, to name a few, had significant communist parties that could be counted on to go apesh^t once it “was on”, possibly even take up arms … I would guess that “others” in the conflict would be an overall, perhaps small, positive for the Soviets as the allies tied up forces chasing communists in “liberated’ countries.
Another factor to be considered was that many of the German regular army were eager to join with the US and her allies against the USSR. Steven Ambrose, in his Band of Brothers, mentions this more than once.
Not much good in assisting the US with supplies (not that we needed it), but a core of blooded, highly motivated and fiercely loyal troops and officers.
It would have been bloody, with or without nukes (probably with as many as the US had or could produce), but the US could have prevailed in under three years.
A lot would also depend on how much surprise the US could achieve, and what the motives for war would have been perceived as in the USA and with the allies. I suspect it would have taken a bit more than just a feeling that, as long as we were at it, we might as well take out the Russkis. There was considerable wartime propaganda that pushed the idea of Uncle Joe Stalin and the brave defenders of Mother Russia.
The Soviets would have had more of a fifth column in the US and in Europe than the Nazis did, as well, which would have been a tactically unpleasant but probably strategically insignificant factor as well.
Regards,
Shodan
I am in no way neglecting other aspects that weigh on combat. Indeed, the Germans didn’t have a direct answer to the T-34 for two years (maybe three). The Germans were able to press ahead because they had far better leadership and militaru doctrine. Still, the T-34 certainly helped even the score somewhat and mitigated the other advantages the Germans possessed.
Also, when determing the ‘best’ tank of the war you need to look into more than its sheer one-on-one ability. By that measure the King Tiger would take the prize. Add in cost of manufacture, ease of manufacture, reliability, ease of repairs, effective range on a tank of gas, top speed, ability to handle differing terrain, tactical doctrine and so on and you get a very different picture. In direct one-on-one combat the T-34 was capable but not supreme. The Russians never could produce a high velocity gun barrel (and instead opted for larger calibers which weren’t as effective but managed to getthe job done if only just). However taken in total the T-34 was in many ways, from an all-around standpoint, one of the premier tanks of WWII.
What the Sherman lacked in ability it made up for in numbers. The T-34 was better than the Sherman AND it also had the numbers. The Allies on the other hand had better trained troops in their tanks but the Russians had tank crews that learned their lessons the hard way. At best expect a bloody slug fest on the armor side of the equation (and make no mistake that when it comes to fighting Russia you had better pay attention to the armor). Frankly I think the Russians will own the Allies in this regard at least at the start…maybe after awhile the Allies could wear them down or ultimately produce a superior tank that the Russians would likely have no ability to match.
**
How much reading have you done to ascertain that it was never regarded as such? A few websites?
Those are armor values, by the way, not “dimensions”. You’re claiming that the Sherman wasn’t as well armored as the T-34, and then dismissing me when I give you the actual armor values. Well, hey, if you want to throw away the technical data you have right there in favor of anecdotes and glossed over, paragraph or two long history, there’s not much I can do to stop you.
The T-34 got a reputation as a remarkable tank in 1941, where it was, indeed, a remarkable tank. Soon, however, the Germans developed counters - tanks specifically designed to take on large numbers of T-34s, and by 1943, the T-34 wasn’t anything special, it was just another target.
The original Sherman was roughly equal in capabilities to the original T-34 in 41/42, and as such, was a fairly remarkable design in itself for the time. However, it didn’t get to rack up a reputation during the period it compared most favorably with other tanks, because it didn’t see ground combat until 1943.
So when the Sherman finally did see combat against the Germans, they already had a large armor core designed specifically to kill T-34/Sherman class tanks. As such, the Sherman, while being roughly equal in capabilities, never had a “golden year” or two in which it was respected as much as the T-34.
And so if we just look anecdotes and impressions, people will think of the golden year of the t-34 and think ‘wow, that sure was a good tank’, and look at the Sherman in 1944, facing an array of weapons specifically designed to destroy T-34/Sherman class tanks, and think ‘gee that thing sure did get outclassed in tank duels’, we get the impression that the T-34 was a better tank.
Of course, we can break through the sentiment and impressions and shallow history - by looking at the technical data. Unfortunately, you seem to have just dismissed that out of hand - because it doesn’t fit your preconceptions.
If the Sherman went to war against Germany in 1941, as the T-34 did, it would’ve ruled the battlefield, much as the T-34 often did. It’s rivals at the time were the Pz 3H, sporting a short 50L42 gun and 60mm of front armor - badly sloped, and the PZ 4D, sporting a 75/L24 gun that wasn’t meant to be used to take on other armored vehicles, and also around 60mm of frontal armor - badly sloped.
It was only the later, and more rare german tanks specifically designed to take on T-34/Sherman class tanks that outclassed it in tank duels - but the thing that you seem to be missing is that these also equally outclassed the T-34. For every anecdote in which a Sherman’s shells bounce off a tiger, you can probably find 3 in which a T-34’s shells bounce off one.
Because late war t-34/sherman killers did indeed kill Shermans doesn’t mean they didn’t kill T-34s just as effectively. That’s where your seem to be illogical - you use the fact that late war German tanks were effective at dueling Shermans as proof somehow that the T-34 was better, when the T-34 took an equal beating.
Even by late war, the most common German tank was the PZ 4H, and the most common AFV was the Stug 3. They were all roughly equal - one shot from any of them could kill the other quite handily.
Anyway, the only logical way your assertions work - that since the panther and tiger beat the Sherman up therefore the T-34 was superior in tank duels - is if the T-34 wasn’t equally beat. You haven’t done anything to prove that assertion whatsoever. So what we have basically is “The panther could outduel the T-34 and Sherman… therefore the Sherman is inferior to the T-34.”
[/quote]
**
We can keep this up all day but you might save yourself the time. I have yet to run across one single article that claims the Sherman was superior…or even a fair match…for its counterparts in the German or Russian military.
[/quote]
**
That doesn’t really surprise me, since any “article” that only glosses over the realities of war is going to present in inaccurate picture for the reasons I described. I could probably make a few book recommendations, if you’re really interested, that evaluate the situation at more depth and accuracy.
**
Yes, but the T-34 was produced from 1940 to 1945. The Sherman was really only mass produced, to my knowledge, from 1943 to 1945 - that’s a much larger yearly rate.
Factor in the material loss to Russian industry from American equipment - both because we wouldn’t be sending them necesary metals, and because they’d have to switch some of their industry over to things we were previously providing - and the production situation looks pretty bad for the Russians - not even factoring in the daily bombings that would ensue, while Detroit remained quite safe.
[/quote]
**
As to tank v. tank battles being uncommon that may have been so for the US vs. Germany but it was much more common in Germany vs. USSR. The Battle of Kursk saw something like 1,500 tanks go at it. Again, if you plan on facing the USSR in battle y9ou had better plan on facing her tanks…lots of them. **
[/QUOTE]
Yes, I realize the tank situation would be different. I wasn’t saying that the situation against Germany would be repeated against Russia - I was using the concept to explain that the Sherman is only considered a bad tank because it was held to unreasonable and arbitrary standards, rather than the reality it faced - Wumpus’ Stadium of Tanks post not being far off.
Something I forgot to mention - lend-lease Shermans were preferentially given to distinguished and skilled tank units over the T-34. I guess someone forgot to tell the Russians that the Sherman could be killed by a tiger, and therefore was a piece of shit. I’ll get you a cite for that later tonight - I have to get ready for work soon.
Oops, should’ve previewed. Oh well, it’s easy enough to figure out.