Oh, and if you could, it might make it easier if you could give me a list of reasons why you found the T-34 superior. It’d be easier to respond to specific reasons one by one than general impressions. I’ll be home from work around 1 eastern.
Anecdotes they may be but they are more than you are providing. Further, I did post technical data and I’ll do it again:
Looking at those numbers we see that the T-34 could survive an attack from a Panther more readily than a Sherman (e.g. Sherman dies at 2500m on a front turret hit vs. the closer 2000m for the T-34). We also see that the Sherman was better at killing Panthers than the T-34. You can go on about how thick armor is all you like…it is these numbers that are the bottom line.
From this I infer that the T-34 and Sherman are a close match. However we have reports (linked in this thread) that said the T-34 outclassed the Sherman in Korea. Add up the other intagibles (ease of manufacture, reliability and so on) and it looks like the T-34 pulls way ahead.
Once again, you can find hundred of anecdotes about the superiority of the T-34 to the Sherman…some more believable than others to be sure but you get a preponderance of evidence like this…even circumstantial…it is hard to see how your dogged support of the Sherman can stand up to scrutiny.
In fairness I should note that comparing the King Tiger to the T-34 or Sherman is unfair. The King Tiger was classified as a heavy tank while the Sherman and T-34 were medium tanks. If any heavy tank can get spanked by a medium tank it’s time to seriously rethink your heavy tank design.
**
Indeed. That was my point all along. It wasn’t yours, however.
**
That’s a far cry from “I infer that the T-34 and Sherman are a close match.”
Since the Sherman was also “reliable, relatively cheap and mass produced in large numbers”, I assume the point of comparison in which they differ is where you say the T-34 was ‘excellent’.
I’m going to assume you meant this to say that it was tactically capable in it’s roles. As you just said, “I infer that the T-34 and Sherman are a close match.”
Do you still contend that the Sherman was “utter crap” in comparison?
Let me remind you that the stats you pulled out were for a vanilla Sherman. The A4 is the same as the A3, except with a diesel engine. Would you like me to make a table similar to the one posted about as to how a Panther or T34 compared to an easy eight and other late war Shermans? Those weren’t rare, uncommon tanks - by the end of the war they were becoming the norm, and in any 45-6 Soviet conflict, would’ve become the bulk of the US force.
**
Well, I guess I can go anecdote digging when I get home from work.
**
Where are you getting this? You’re just pulling that out of your ass - you haven’t shown that the T-34 is easier to manufacture, more reliable, and so on. So how are you calling those in the T-34’s favor?
The Sherman is generally regarded as more reliable than the T-34. The T-34 had a “ticking time bomb” transmission that was extremely problematic. The Sherman could travel twice as far without having to be re-treaded. For example.
Given the numbers involved, the T-34 doesn’t strike me as any easier to produce than the Sherman.
So if you’re going to call reliable and ease of manufacture in the T-34’s favor, it would be polite to provide some evidence.
You just said they were roughly equals in terms of armor protection and firepower. You’ve given no evidence that the T-34 was superior in other ways - just declared it so. Really, the Sherman had better radios, much better crew ergonomics, including crew comfort and battlefield visibility, better optics, more accurate guns, a much larger amount of special (HVAP) ammo that could hugely increase penetration, better reliability (T-34s simply would not have been able to make a dash across France at the same speed Shermans did without blowing half the transmissions and throwing half the treads in an armored group), with roughly equal ease of manufacture.
So, despite the fact that you admit they’re roughly tactically equal (and this is a plain, mid war sherman you’re comparing, NOT the much improved late war tanks that would’ve fought Russia in large numbers), and not having any evidence for superiority in any other category, you still assert that my “dogged support of the Sherman” can’t stand up to scrutiny?
I’m already running late, so this is my last post until later. If you would be so kind, it would make things easier if you created a list of tactical, operational, and strategic reasons why you think the T-34 is superior. I can then respond to every point in the list. If you don’t feel up to it, I’ll go ahead and do a point by point on the superiority of the Sherman.
I asked it above, but I’ll ask it again to be clear - do you still assert that the Sherman was “utter crap” in comparison to the T-34?
Off to GD.
Too much of it depends on the particulars of how and when a war between the West and the USSR starts. Immediately after Germany is defeated but while Japan is still in the war? After Japan is defeated? Some time in the later 40’s? Who starts the war and do they achieve any degree of surprise? I’m assuming that the Western publics wouldn’t stand for a surprise invasion of Eastern Europe with no pretext, though the opposite wouldn’t be the case. All of these would drastically affect the outcome – the US began shifting forces to the Pacific for the invasion of Japan shortly after Germany’s defeat, and the demobilization of Allied forces after the war was over was many time more substantial than the USSR’s demobilization.
All things considered though, I could see the USSR being the ones advancing, at least initially. The Red Air Force was slightly larger than the West’s in numbers, and not that badly outclassed overall. While the West would probably retain general air superiority, the days of total dominance in the skies that were enjoyed against Germany would be over in short order. In ground forces, it isn’t even a fair match-up. The USSR wins in numbers and capabilities hands down.
As to exhaustion, it is true that the USSR was suffering from some exhaustion, but the West was as well. While the US wasn’t as bad off as the USSR, Britain for example was badly exhausted by the fighting. Its economy went to pot after the war, and as early as Normandy the British were disbanding several divisions and brigades in order to keep others up to strength. France, Germany and the rest of Western Europe had been bombed to pieces and wrecked by ground fighting by 1945. Germany couldn’t provide much more than manpower and it wouldn’t be the best at that. By the end of the war they were throwing children too young to shave and men in their late 60’s into the front lines.
What would really decide it in the end would be the American monopoly on the bomb.
Not likely. The Allies did less favorably than the Germans in losses, and if anything they’d have a less favorable casualty ratio against the Russians than the Germans did. Col. Trevor Dupuy, A Genius for War:
I’ll waffle…the Sherman entered WWII as utter crap (would you feel confident riding into battle in a tank nicknamed the Tommycooker?) and came out the other end nominally capable after who knows how many modifications.
I’ve been looking around as requested but I am having a helluva time finding comparisons between the T-34 and the Sherman. I can find technical details on both but numbers on paper clearly don’t strictly equate to battlefield performance. What I DO run into continuously is the oft repeated phrase that the T-34 was among the best, if not THE best, tank of WWII (I’ll be happy to pepper you with piles of anecdotes but you don’t seem to accept that so I’ll restrict myself to one more in this post for the sake of form). I have yet to find one single solitary instance where such a thing was said of the Sherman (any variant).
Maybe there is a conspiracy out there to slander the Sherman tank. Maybe this is an instance of historical revisionism run rampant. Or maybe the T-34 simply was the better tank.
Well, unless they also had 112 mi/hr diesel tanker trucks to keep up with them, these wouldn’t have amounted to much. A few hours travel, then they run out of fuel and are sitting ducks for a day or so until the tankers catch up to them.
An old military saying is that battles are won by good commanders or troops or weapons; wars are won by good logistics.
Wow, WWII tanks stir the blood. I love this place.
I’m not saying that the Sherman was a lousy tank, BTW. SenorBeef
If you’ll notice I never said that the Sherman was lousy, just that it could not stand toe-to-toe with the T-34/85. Well, why should it? In Korea it was far easier to call in artillery or an air strike on enemy armor, which is better from a casualty standpoint anyway. Tank battles are accidental. Doctrine is to destroy enemy armor with standoff weapons, air power, and anti-tank weapons. Then, engage the enemy infantry with your armor. Tank battles are bloody and counterproductive from a strategic standpoint.
I agree that the Sherman was reliable, great in open country and wonderful against enemy infantry. Most infantry survivors from WWII think the Sherman was a key ingredient in the Allied victory. Lots of Sherman tank survivors have plates in their heads.
I have to say though, that is one hell of a well-researched debate you have going on up there.
Senor Beef and I certainly did go off on a tangent but its purpose is relevant to the OP. When asking how the US and Brits would manage against the USSR in battle at the end of WWII tanks absolutely need to be taken into consideration. The US had a helluva lot of them and so did the USSR. In places like Korea and Vietnam tanks were of limited use due to the nature of the terrain. Not so in Russia…wonderful tank country. Just look at the USSR’s preponderance of tanks all through the Cold War (FAR outnumbering all the tanks NATO had). Tanks were the backbone of the Soviet land based military and that doctrine was born in WWII.
Granted you want to avoid tank vs. tank battle if you can kill the other guy’s tanks with aircraft or other antitank weapons instead. That’s not always possible though. The Germans understood the ideal of how to get rid of enemy tanks and they still managed some fairly spectacular tank vs. tank battles anyway (most notably the Battle of Kursk).
Senor Beef mentioned how ramped-up Sherman production was in the US suggesting we would outproduce Russia in this regard. I’m not so certain. I have no cites but I’d wager Soviet tank construction likewise ramped-up throughout the war. Hell, even the Germans, who were getting the snot bombed out of them, had ever increasing production right to the end of the war. Reason would suggest this was true of the Soviets as well. Further, the Soviets wouldn’t need to ship their tanks halfway around the world. US logisitcs are far superior to Soviet logistics but then again the US would have a far more difficult logistic problem to cope with.
So, we have tanks that are close in ability but the edge goes to the Russians.
We have logistics that the US is far better at but also has a harder logistical problem to solve…call it a wash.
The US could out produce the Russians.
The US has better generals.
The Russians have homecourt advantage.
Tough call…I still think the US would ultimately prevail but it’d be messy.
I not only agree that it is relevant, but participated in the slight hijack. Armor battles are one piece of the larger puzzle. If one side has a decided armor advantage it needn’t avoid head on armored combat.
I agree with both of you really. The T-34 was good in it’s own way, as was the Sherman. What I found suggested that Allied forces in Korea avoided armor battles after the early parts of the war. I will try to dig into that a bit more.
If they were trading tanks on a dead even basis, my guess is that would be considered unacceptable losses by US commanders, not so for North Korean or Chinese commanders.
Korean War educator
Thinks the US tanks could compete with the T-34.
Second Infantry Division relied on air and bazookas as far as I read.
Korean War Web
September 21, 1950 – one-for-one battle.
What’s a company of tanks? Four? Of course during wartime the numbers tend to fluctuate. I’m beginning to think that there were no tank battles of significance during the Korean War.
Seriously off topic: a modern Korean War II analysis.
Beagle, a US armor company I believe consists of 22 tanks - 4 platoons of 5 and a command element of 2.
Whack-a-Mole
I’ve been thinking a bit about our discussion (not much else to think about at my job), and I mean absolutely no disrespect in this, you seem like a bright guy, but I think a lot of what I believe are your misconceptions come from a relatively shallow knowledge of the weapon systems and tactics involved.
WW2 weapons systems, battles, tactics, and strategy has been something of an interest of mine for 5 or 6 years. I’ve done a lot of reading on the subject - books, articles, and specialized discussion boards. The impression I had of the tanks in question was pretty much the same as yours when I first began studying. But I didn’t have the detailed knowledge of each weapon system and the realities of the war that I have now. I’m not trying to make an appeal to authority - to myself - by saying this, but on the more specialized forums I’ve been on, most people who have a relatively shallow knowledge argue from the same position. Those who have done more research into the subject largely agree with me - really, they’re a lot of the reason I believe what I believe.
There are reasons that the common perception of the Sherman is what it is, and I outlined them in various parts of my previous posts. But as it is with many subjects in history, especially war, the quick, simple, common idea about something is often flat out wrong.
**
Well, I’m glad you’ve reconsidered a bit, but I still think you haven’t gone far enough.
The nickname was exaggerative - it was called a Ronson because it “lit up every time”, but of course that’s a huge exaggeration. The actual brew up rate was closer to 20-30% percent. Too high, but not catastrophic.
It entered WW2 primarily as the M4A3(75). At the very start, it was a more capable tank than the German PZ 4H, the bulk of their armor force throughout the later stages of the war. It was armed and about equally armored as compared to the T34-76(1942), arguably it’s counterpart in the war at that time.
So, if the Sherman entered as utter crap, then the bulk of the German armor force at the time, and bulk of the Russian force at the time was also “utter crap”, because it was a match, if not somewhat superior, to either.
The T-34 is known, too, for similar problems: The turret was often blown off the hull by secondary explosions in the ammunition bins that were on the floor and sides of the turret.
I’ve never said the T-34 wasn’t a very capable tank, nor did I say the Sherman was vastly superior. Had you said the T-34 was a better tank overall, I’d have disagreed, but I wouldn’t have found your statement too objectionable. But you claimed it was utter crap - and that’s quite far from the truth.
By the end of the war, it didn’t come out “nominally effective”, but rather dominating. The armor was heavier than the Tiger tank, even though the Sherman weighed about half as much and had much better mobility. It’s gun was capable of taking out any other tank on the battlefield - most with conventional ammo, the big ones with not-so-rare HVAP.
They were both basically remarkably good designs for their time (40-41), in the same weight class, with comparable armor protection, armament, and mobility. They’re pretty close to equals. To call either utter crap in relation to the other is just wrong, I think.
A 1942 T-34 was roughly equal to a 1942 Sherman. A 1943 T-34 is roughly equal to a 1944 Sherman. If the T-34 is great, and the Sherman is crap, can you enumerate precisely the reasons? It wasn’t armor protection or firepower, because both tanks had similar capabilities. Same with mobility. Same with ease of production. So what factor is it that makes the T-34 different, and a great tank, whereas a Sherman is a piece of crap? Is it just the ‘tommy cooker’ nickname? The t-34 had it’s share of catastrophic secondary explosions.
I’m actually having quite a bit of difficulty finding infomation about the armor battles in Korea on the web.
I’m going to list the advantages the Sherman had over the T-34. It would take a while to provide cites for each, so what I’m going to do is ask you to point out which ones you find questionable - and I will find a cite specifically to support that.
- Firepower.
A. The Sherman 75mm gun had better penetration capability than the 76mm T-34 gun.
B. The Sherman 76mm gun had better penetration capability than the 85mm T-34 gun. In either case, the capability isn’t HUGELY greater, but it is greater.
C. Either version had a higher practical rate of fire because the ammo storage bins were more readily accessible to the loader. In the T-34, a few (4 or 5) rounds were held in a storage bin near the loader, but the rest had to be picked up from a slightly seperated compartment in the lower turret, so that the sustained firing rate after those first 4 or 5 rounds slowed.
D. The Sherman 76 had a higher availability of HVAP ammo which greatly increased penetration ability (to the tune of 50-60%).
E. Metallurgy. Due to a greater possession of some rarer materials, and superior armor casting processes (I’m not quite sure of the technical details of this, but this information is in quite a few technical books about armor) US AP shells tended to be harder and denser than Russian ones, creating a more effective penetrator. Flaws in Russian shell casting often caused their AP shells to shatter on contact with armor - especially face hardened armor.
F. Ammunition capacity. The Sherman simply had more room to store shells, and had a higher standard loadout than a T-34. On the m4a3 vs t-34-85(43), 97 vs 56-60.
- Armor
A. Both tanks had similar armor protection with well sloped armor. In early models, the Sherman had better hull protection, but slightly inferior turret protection. In later models, the Sherman had more than double the armor of the T-34.
B. Metallurgy (again). The same reasons US industry was capable of producing more effective AP shells apply to armor manufacturing. The same amount of armor made by the US would provide more protecting than Russian armor. This is particularly noticable after mid-1943. Russian armor casting basically remained the same throughout the war, but US casting started better and kept becoming better at it.
- Mobility (Operational).
A. Tread wear on tanks is one of the primary limiters of the effective operational range of a tank. US rubber-shoed treads were rated for over twice as long as their German and Russian steel counterparts. It also contributed to better road speed, and significantly quieter movement - you could hear a T-34 on a road coming for miles - Shermans were much quieter.
B. Far better transmission. The T-34 transmission was known as a time-bomb because it failed very frequently. Units were often equipped with spare transmissions strapped to the hull because it was expected that they would fail. Hammers were even issued from the factory with T-34s so that the driver could beat the transmission into the proper gear if it became necesary.
C. Engine power. Not a huge difference, but the Shermans consistently had marginally more powerful engines.
D. General reliability. The T-34 engine was often very stressed and was prone to failure, whereas the Shermans are generally regarded as very solid vehicles. They made operational movements across France with a low failure rate unmatched by any other tank.
- Misc
A) The original T-34 had a 2 man turret, which is a huge limiter in combat capability. The tank commander had to function as a gunner, and this reduced situational awareness, target aquisition time, and quite a few other factors. This was later rectified by a new turret design, but this plagued the T-34 for a few years.
B) The M4 had much greater ergonomics for the crew, relating to crew comfort. This may seem minor, but driving for 6 hours into a fight in a comfortable tank makes one a better fight than being in a state of constant discomfort.
C) Sights. American sights are regarded as a whole to be better than Russian ones - most Russian sights had huge manufacturing flaws like bubbles in the glass. This of course greatly affects gunnery.
D) Secondary armament. The M4 had more machine gun ammo and an aditional .50 MG on top that was effective against aircraft, light armored vehicles, and soft targets.
E) Turret rotation speed. On the T-34-85(1943) a full turret rotation took 21 seconds. On the m4a3, it took 15. Important for close range battles and target acquisition.
F) Radios. Early and mid T-34s simply didn’t have them. Communication was done, literally, by the commander popping out of a hatch and waving flags. In combat, this was impractical, and there was often basically no communication.
Late T-34 radios were still never as reliable as their American counterparts.
However, every Sherman made had a good quality radio.
There’s probably stuff I’m forgetting, but that’s a good start.
Since the original topic of this thread is a 45-46 allies/USSR engagement, let’s compare the best T34 (the T-34-85(44)) to the common M4A3E8(76)W HVSS Sherman.
Based on the data from the links I previously gave on this thread:
APCBC out of the 85mm D5 at 30: 103, 94, 86, 77, and 64 at 500, 1000, 1500, 2000, 2500.
Compared to the Sherman front armor: 114-140@34-90 Hull, 102@43 Superstructure, 152@78 turret, 178@90 mantle.
So, similar to your previous posted data table:
T-34-85(44) D5 85mm gun firing APCBC penetrates the Sherman M4A3E8(76)W+ HVSS up to: 0m (Front Hull), 0m (Mantlet), 0m (Front turret) and 0m (Front superstructure).
There’s a chance of penetration on the front superstructure from point blank. 100m penetration, not listed, is likely greater than the 102mm armor. However, that’s rated for 30 degrees, and the superstructure slope is 43. It’d be a close call. A lucky point blank shot might penetrate.
In case it’s unclear, 0m means it’s not penetrable.
On the other hand, 76mm M1A1C firing APCBC does 104, 96, 80, 76 at 500, 1000, 1500, 2000 at 30 degrees.
T-34-85(44) Hull at 45@30, superstructure at 45@30, Turret and mantle at 90@round (let’s call it an average of 90 at 40 degrees).
M4A3E8(76)W+ HVSS M1A1C firing APCBC penetrates the T-34-85(44) at 2500+ (Front hull), 2500+ (superstructure), 800+ (turret front), 800+ (mantle).
Turret and mantle are estimates - it would depend on where in the curvative it hit.
Any questions?
[/quote]
**
I’ve been looking around as requested but I am having a helluva time finding comparisons between the T-34 and the Sherman. I can find technical details on both but numbers on paper clearly don’t strictly equate to battlefield performance. What I DO run into continuously is the oft repeated phrase that the T-34 was among the best, if not THE best, tank of WWII (I’ll be happy to pepper you with piles of anecdotes but you don’t seem to accept that so I’ll restrict myself to one more in this post for the sake of form). I have yet to find one single solitary instance where such a thing was said of the Sherman (any variant).
[/quote]
**
Well, reread the “golden year” stuff I said earlier. The T-34 had a time of battlefield superiority, before counters were developed. The Sherman, because of circumstances and not design, didn’t see fighting until AFTER counters were developed for it. And hence, the T-34 is remembered as the tank that dominated the war for a year or two, whereas the Sherman had no such opportunity. If, for whatever reason, you saw Shermans fighting, and dominating, in 1941 and 1942, I think they would’ve had a better reputation.
It basically comes down to this, as I said above: In pretty much every aspect, the T-34 and Sherman are close to equals. How can one be great and one be crap? Of course, my assertion is that they were both quite good at what they did, and that an improper perspective on history is what seperates them, rather than capabilities.
I don’t think there’s a conspiracy, just improper perspective. Mixed with a bit of ignorance, mystique, and romanticism.
If the T-34 is the better tank, please, list the reasons.
I made a mistake in the middle of my post - I meant to say that a 1943 T-34 is roughly the equal of a 1943 Sherman, not a 1944 Sherman, as I said.
I forgot to add that a 1945 Sherman breaks away from and becomes more than marginally superior to a 1945 T-34 (which was pretty much unchanged since early 44).
Also, 4B should read ‘fighters’ rather than ‘fight’.
Screwed the quotes up again, too.
I need to start administering electroshock therapy every time I hit ‘submit reply’ before ‘preview reply’.
SenorBeef,
Re your post 1987 where you said: “the original Sherman … didn’t see ground combat until 1943.”
I am usually quite hesitant about correcting someone who knows what he’s talking about, but didn’t General Montgomery have about 285 Sherman tanks at the 12 day battle of El Alamein which commenced on 23 October 1942?
They were only recently delivered and his brief comments at the time were that:
“Sherman tanks, sent to us on the personal instigation of President Roosevelt, started arriving at the Delta from America in August and were issued to 10 Corps. In the Sherman we had at last a match for the German Tanks.”
So he definitely appreciated the upgrade from Matildas, Cruisers, Grants, Stuarts and Honeys.
Yes, you’re right. A brain fart on my part, I suppose. I was only thinking of Shermans in the US army.
None the less, there is more to war than counting bayonents (or tanks) the overall position of the Soviet Union was unenviable. They enjoyed interior lines (that is Army-talk for saying they were surrounded).
They had had much of their productive capacity destroyed or displaced during the war. Machine tools and other critical parts were wearing out faster than they could be replaced. The rail system was very overstressed for quite a long time.
in a continuation of WWII i would have bought American victory bonds with confidence.
The production of the Americans dwarfed that of the Soviet Union. The ability to move the stuff was amazing. The staff skills needed to make it ahppen were finely-honed.
The Soviets just barely made it through the war. That was good enough, but the US Army was hitting its stride by 1945. Add to that the defender’s advantage, the massive amounts of airpower available, The Bomb and we can have few doubts as to the final result.
I think that with the numbers in Europe at the time and how much more motivated the Russians were, I think you would have to count on Russia take Germany and France pretty quickly. Italy’s industrial North would also have been taken quickly after that. Especially if you figure in the French resistance working with the Soviet union.
Even staggering Germany was almost able to run the allies into the sea. I think that a few months later the Russians would have.
At the time Communism was pretty popular in all of Europe and even in the US. Greece, Checkoslovakia, Hungary and the rest of Italy would have turned Communist without any aid from the Russians. Sweden would have continued to pay their Steel tax but this time to the Soviet Union. The Fins were through with war and were in no shape to start a second defeat.
Now where do we go from there? The Soviet union rules Europe. Japan is at war with the US. The US can unleash an Atom bomb now and then but without a foothold in Europe or a safe harbor I think the best they could have done would be to decimate Russian cities inciting the Russians even more and not really making a dent in their Ural based production. Russia gets the bomb a few years later and delivers them by subs or German made missiles.
My bet would have been on the Russians.
The Soviets were ramping up production of their B-29 copy (Tu-4, bolt-for-bolt). The giant Soviet tank killers, artillery, tanks, and self-propelled guns were awesome. As mentioned, the nukes were coming thanks to assistance from Soviet allies in the US.
If the Red Storm Rose in 1946, I like the Allies in a bloody slugfest. By 1950 or so… 
All just paper analysis, of course. Morale would have been the biggest problem. Going from one world war to another is asking a lot of the citizen soldier.
The air power nod has to go to the Allies, but not to the degree some assume. Early Soviet jet development–meaning ripping off the Germans–was on par with the US.
The US definitely did not dwarf Soviet production of armaments. For tanks, planes, artillery, ammunition and small arms, Soviet production was not that far behind the US and in some cases exceeded it. The only area that the US clearly dwarfed Soviet production in was in naval vessels, though in the USSR’s defense they had no real use for them. Soviet logistics were also not far behind the US – they had a record of being able to conduct deep operations against the Germans that is every bit as good as, if not better than, that of the western Allies. Operation Bagration which destroyed Army Group Center in 1944 and threw the Germans out of Belorussia is a good example, as is Mars/Uranus which successfully nabbed the 6th Army at Stalingrad and came reasonably close to bagging the larger German forces fleeing out of the Caucasus as well. A lot of this was courtesy of the 600,000+ thin-skinned vehicles provided by the US, but as I pointed out in another thread recently, Russia conducted successful deep operations against Germany in the winter of 41/42 when these vehicles hadn’t arrived yet. I really don’t get where the view that the USSR just barely survived the war comes from. After the failure to achieve total victory in 41, Germany was in a war of attrition with the USSR that it couldn’t hope to win.
With regard to the US having better generals that the USSR, that is open to some serious debate. The USSR had its own share of extremely competent if not brilliant generals such as Zhukov and Konev, and the US had its share of complete boneheads as well, such as Mark Clark. At a lower level, Bradley went on quite a binge of sacking divisional commanders in Normandy.
I don’t want to jump too far into the Sherman/T-34 debate, but the comparison of the Sherman to the Panther isn’t entirely unfair. The Allies may have considered the Panther to be a heavy tank, but the Germans certainly didn’t. It was a considered a medium tank and as such was deployed to panzer divisions. In theory each division was supposed to have a regiment of Panthers and a regiment of Pz-IVs, though lack of production meant that this was never the case. The Tiger was considered a heavy tank and only deployed to independent heavy tank battalions and companies.
The only times Germany came close to driving the Allies into the sea were at Salerno and to a smaller degree at Anzio. In the main event in France, the worst case would have been the failure to achieve a beachhead at Omaha, which would still have left 4 successful beachheads. It certainly would have crimped the Allies, but it in no way was going to result in the Allies being thrown into the sea.
Overall, I don’t fancy the USSR’s chances in a war with the western Allies over the long haul. The primary reasons for this are the atomic bomb and no longer drawing millions of tons of raw materials from the US and Britain through lend lease. Stopping them and then driving into the Russian heartland would by no means have been easy or quick, and would have required millions of allied casualties.