You’ve hit upon another big myth, in the process of denouncing another.
The legend of the T34 started upon its initial deployment in 1941. At the time, it was quite a capable tank - the overall best on the battlefield by most standards. But the technology and development of tanks advanced amazingly quickly through the war, and by 1943, it was just another target. It was no longer clearly superior to its opposition. Between those periods, Germany developed a lot of weapons specifically designed to counter the T-34, and hence it became quite dangerous to crew one.
The Sherman was developed around the same time, but a little later. However, it did not see deployment until 1943 (it may have seen limited deployment in 1942), and it didn’t get deployed in the European theater until mid-1944. So, while it was superior to German tanks of 1941, by the time it became deployed, like the T-34, it faced an arsenal of weapons designed to defeat it, and so, while the T-34 had a short period of dominance, the Sherman never did. As a result, the popular perception is that Shermans are regarded as crappy, while T-34s are superb. The “Ronson” part, by the way, was corrected in later models.
The reality is that the Sherman was well suited, even in 1944, for its role. This is something I wrote in another thread long ago:
"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 or 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."
The Sherman was generally superior to the T-34, the biggest drawback being that it had too high a profile comparison. But for what it’s worth, lend-lease Shermans were given to the best tank units in the Soviet army, because the Soviets viewed them as superior. That should really put some perspective on it.
This has to be taken into perspective. One thing that most people don’t know is that Germany wasn’t geared for a full war-time economy until, IIRC, late 1942. This was because, at the outset, none of the wars Germany engaged in were expected to be long, protracted, total wars. Russia was expected to fall quickly just as France did. And so the production going up through 1944 doesn’t necesarily mean that strategic bombing was ineffective, because the proper comparison would be the production of 1944 compared to the production with a hypothetical unbombed '44, rather than the production compared to previous years without an economy geared up for total war.
This is very true. It’s been said that the damage done by trategic bombing pre-transport and oil campaign was mostly in resources tied up to stop it than the actual damage inflicted by the bombing. The planes kept in the west were sorely needed in the east, along with anti-aircraft guns, and the men used to crew them, as well as the gas supply used, and the engineering and research resources used to counter strategic bombing. The industrial bombing campaigns were largely ineffective for their cost, but the resources they tied up put Germany in a bind.
Take it for what it’s worth, but the constitution of the confederacy banned the importation of slaves. I’ve read that there was a movement among southern politicians to gradually change the economic conditions of the south to move away from a slave-dependent economy over time. It’s just that they couldn’t suddenly stop slavery on a dime without leading to complete economic collapse.
Personally, I think the idea that even educated people have that the war was only, or almost entirely, about slavery is naive. The war was, in some ways, distasteful - invading a country that wished to be left alone to impose your will on them isn’t nearly as romantic as “We went to free the slaves! Yay us!”. Lincoln said he would’ve freed no slaves if it meant winning/ending the war - how can the war possibly be only about slavery when those executing it would’ve settled for not ending it?
My 8th grade social studies teacher had a really great way of explaining it, I only wish I remembered it better. There was a political divide amongst the states about which powers would be allocated to the federal government, and which to the states. This was a big, core issue to our country at the time. The fact that it’s not an issue now, because we all know the federal government is our daddy, is largely a result of the outcome of the civil war.
There was tension between the two factions for decades leading up to the civil war. We came close to secession on several different issues preceeding the civil war - and I wish I could remember them. One involved a national bank, IIRC, and others were about admitting states, and other issues. It’s just that when finally we got to slavery, which was perhaps the dozenth issue of contention that the south either compromised or back down on, it was only where they effectively couldn’t without leading to economic collapse. And so the slavery issue was the trigger to start the war. But to say that it was the only or primary cause is ignoring the fact that the tension and disagreement was there for decades, and was probably going to lead to political seperation at some point. Slavery just happened to be the issue that couldn’t come to a compromise. That doesn’t mean that the tension was started with slavery, or was all about it, or that secession was only about it, as romantic as it is to think so.
To make an analogy - say there was a bad marriage with a lot of tension, constant bickering. You’ve grudgingly compromised on issues, but neither of you are happy with it or the situation. Then someone does something - say, buying a big ticket item you didn’t approve of, and that was the last straw with you, and so you push for a divorce. Does that mean the divorce was all about that big ticket item? No, it was the trigger that finally resulted in that action after years of tension and unresolved differences.
Some historical myths I’m happy believing.