>3 man crew
>commander/gunner/radio operator all in one leading to a slow clusterfuck of operation
>shit optics and visibility
>1:7 KD ratio against supposedly inferior german tanks that couldn't even penetrate it
>1:3 KD ratio even at the end of the war against ragtag german tanks operated by 14 year olds with no fuel
Is there a bigger meme tank? The Sherman was clearly the best tank in the world even up until 1957
>Can build 7+ for every tank your opponents produce
>Meme tank
I don't understand what you're trying to say.
The Sherman was easier to make and had higher quality control
>muh k/d ratio
More T34 were killed because there were more of them to kill.
AT guns and mines claimed the majority of tank kills on either side.
Mines actually didn't score that many kills.
Here is an interesting video on the subject.
m.youtube.com
linking youtube video should be a bannable offense desu
You're right I'm lazy.
Would it help if I told you that all his info comes from primary sources with citations?
With the American doctrine the Sherman wasn't suppose to fight other tanks anyway.
Soviet junk. The T-34 is an overrated piece of shit tank that the Russians made. Its the worst tank in the world. You see German tanks were probably better the problem was that they didn't produce enough. A Sherman could easily take out this Russkie piece of shit vehicle.
>meme tank
>germans decided to use it if they captured it
ummm....
m8 the nazis looted more equipment than a nigger after hurricane irma, if the engine still worked they used it
>implying they used it in combat
They would have no or very little ammo for it
They probably just used it to haul artillery and other shit until something broke and they had no replacement parts
ban yourself faggot
When your team has four times as many players as the enemy team, it is difficult to get a good K/D.
The German army, always short of equipment, was always more than happy to employ as much captured materiel as possible and T-34s were not an exception. Fighting on the Eastern Front saw large numbers of T-34s captured, though few were T-34-85s. These were designated by the Germans as Panzerkampfwagen T-34 747(r). From late 1941, captured T-34s were transported to a German workshop for repairs and modification to German requirements. In 1943 a local tank factory in Kharkiv was used for this purpose. These were sometimes modified to German standards by the installation of a German commander’s cupola and radio equipment
The first captured T-34s entered German service during the summer of 1941. In order to prevent recognition mistakes, large-dimension crosses or even swastikas were painted on the tanks, including on top of the turret, in order to prevent strikes from Axis aircraft. Modified T-34s were also used as artillery tractors, recovery vehicles, and ammunition carriers. Badly damaged tanks were either dug in as pillboxes or were used for testing and training purposes.
>You see German tanks were probably better
The guns were, it took them fighting the T-34 to figure out sloped armour was a better option, and then they made the mechanical systems so fucking stupidly complex it took a day to fix what should have taken 2 hours
Well despite their flaws, the Germans probably had better tanks. Sorry. The T-34 and everything the Soviet/Russians produced was a piece of shit. The T-34 is the worst fucking tank ever. It was poorly made, they made over 80,000 of these pieces of shit, they only had a 76mm gun later upgraded to a shitty 85mm still not as good as the Sherman or the British or the German tanks. Everything that Russia produces is a fucking hunk of shit.
>More T34 were killed because there were more of them to kill.
That isn't how combat power works.
If you outnumber the enemy, you take less casualties, not more.
If you kill your enemy, they win.
That is how Soviet tactics worked. Throw men and armour at them until you come out ontop.
And if the Germans had outnumbered them, they'd have taken more casualties.
Especially after they lost and the Germans began exterminating them.
Wow what a great thread...not
I'm just saying that the T-34 was and still is an overrated piece of shit. Its soviet shit so its junk and it sucks.
I think the French tanks were even worse than the T-34. Two man crews which led to poor performance with even poorer guns and armor thinner than wet cardboard. True, they weren't exactly going up against Panzer VI's, but they still performed poorly against Germany's Panzer III's and 38t's.
Is it wrong that I like the Char B2?
They fukken rekt Panzer IIIs and 38t's nearly every time they got into a tank vs tank battle.
What French tanks? Any historian will go on record saying that France had both more and higher quality tanks than Germany at the time of the invasion of France, they didn't mass them properly, they were only used as infantry support, thats why they weren't successful. Some French tanks such as the Char B1 had very thick armor and completely repelled German anti-tank rounds (see Pierre Bilotte).
The T34 was unreliable (had an even higher failure rate than the Panther, the worst of the German tanks), had poor fire control and crew compartment, had one the worst ammunition configurations of any tank (more likely to detonate than Shermans), and its sloped armor is overrated (early production had quality problems and the armor itself was only effective because it repelled the more common German 37mm anti-tank guns). The t34 was easily mass produced and that was it.
it was stop gap to produce,and later model were still able to compete against German tanks
i guess you're so engrained in this everything Russia made is shit meme
you've never heard of deep battle right
no see
>they were only used as infantry support,
This is a retarded meme. The problem with the way the French used tanks was they weren't properly used together with infantry, not the other way around.
By "infantry support" i mean a handful of tanks were given to each battalion to be used when needed, instead of in large masses formations. The French only had a few tank (i believe they were called cavalry) divisions and the rest of the tanks were dispersed piece-meal among infantry units.
Yes everything that Russia has made with the exception of the AK-47 is a fucking piece of shit. Thin armor, shitty design, fucking retarded crew, horrible accuracy, and a fucking tank gun that can't penetrate worth shit. The Iraqis had the 4th largest army and they had soviet shit lol, they got fucking destroyed by our superior weapons. Fucking Soviet shit, its been shit since the T-34 and since then they haven't done a good job at anything. Their T-14 also looks like fucking shit.
Agreed
The only thing the Russians really had running for them was sheer numbers, but even then they still have difficulties fighting their battles. Tis' better to have a hundred men with guns that work, then 1,000 with broken guns.
>got btfo by soviet equipments a couple of time
>t-the soviets never produce anything worthwhile
my mistake in thinking that you'll produce a worthwhile argument
Look it up faggot. Look up how many Iraqis in their shitty BMPs, T-72 lols, and their shitty MiG-21s got assblasted by our superior western equipment. They can't produce worth shit. They have the worst tanks ever. The Japs had better tanks than the soviets and the Russians had and the Japs tanks in WWII sucked but they weren't shitty as fuck like the Russikie tanks had.
that's the fault of shitty arab crewman,who are notoriously shit with any thing given (look up footage where they fucking get rekt in abrams due to mismanagement)
>The French only had a few tank (i believe they were called cavalry) divisions and
French had 3 armored divisions + 3 more in reserves, 3 light mechanized divisions, and 5 cavalry divisions which were a mix of armor and cavalry.
>the rest of the tanks were dispersed piece-meal among infantry units.
This did not happen. Some tanks were used as independent battalions because France didn't have enough supporting elements to form armored divisions, but tanks were not given out to infantry formations piecemeal. How do you people come up with something like that anyway.
Well the Arabs suck at war but they still used shitty russky tanks that were fucking garbage and were designed poorly as well. Tell me Putinbot, how much does the Kremlin pay you to spread propaganda about your shitty Soviet/Russian army? How much? Take your vatnik shit somewhere else. Lol I bet the T-14 is a big piece of shit. And nice citing the North Vietnamese lol. Their kill ratio is a fucking joke.
And it's worth noting that when the French used tanks as independent battalions, they were used in groups of 2 battalions, i.e. they massed as many tanks as a typical armored division of WW2. What they were missing was not tanks, but mobile infantry support.
The T-34 was a terrible tank to start with in WW2, and got even worse in the Arab-Israeli War as technology progressed, and got worse yet again in the Vietnam War as technology bettered once more. I'll be surprised if the tin cans aren't used in WW3.
the sherman was better that is true.
The M4 Sherman was probably the best all around tank of the war.
I'm going to be cheeky and say the Panzer IV was better
>Would it help if I told you that all his info comes from primary sources with citations?
cheeki breeki
In what world is a battalion (or 2) not a handful of tanks. 2 battalions is 20 tanks tops, per divisions that actually had them. A German tank division at the time of the battle of france would have had anywhere from 90-150+ tanks. The French didn't use mechanized infantry in conjunction with their tanks correctly but thats not the issue that they had. The Germans always had more tanks at the point of attack, and as you mentioned, better support, however, to say the French improperly supported their tanks is completely false. Its also worth noting that some of the French tank divisions weren't ready for combat/were still being pieced together.
you're confusing a brigade with a battalion
2 battalions does not equal a division
Muh field repairs.
No better place to do it than under enemy MG fire
Wrong.
1. This guy is godawful and never to use him as a source.
2. Using a secondary source and trusting iffy numbers like these
And finally even using his sketchy ass numbers he shows that per use a laid down mine had a 15% chance of destroying a tank, which is a buttfuck insane rate and cannot be right.
And even then he lists it as a closecombat weapon for whatever reason.
>mother fucking torsion bar suspension
>simple transmission (made to only drive to berlin once)
>all parts extremely simplified, tracks pins not even held in and just hammered back in as the track rotates
>can be repaired by an idiot with a metal bar
>slopped armor
>fucking V-2 DIESEL engine
Sometimes engineering isn't about what has the highest numbers, but what is the most practical. Most of the allied tanks, and the Nazi tanks were overly complicated and unreliable.
For starters, the sherman had an airplane engine and ran on high octane airplane fuel. It had an overly complicated suspension system that made it really had to fix if it ever broke. It's profile was way too large. Granted, it did have the best crew safety features and highest crew survival rates, such as each crew having their own above-head spring loaded hatch, and the crews were the best trained.
However, once the upgraded 76 mm and better turret came out, the t-34 was good enough. It could face most of the Nazi tanks at the time. Once the 85 mm version came out, it could answer to all but the Tiger 2 and elefant.
This isn't even looking at the real winners of the war, the KV tank and the IS tank.
"only had a 76mm gun"
So what does that make the rest of the tanks in 1940, when every other tank had a 37mm or at most 47mm gun, with a few 75mm howitzer tanks sprinkled around?
Shermans: mediocre performance but good survivability
Tigers: excellent performance but broke down more often than your used car from the sixties
T-34: terrible performance, terrible survivability, but a fucking million of them
>made in USA
>vastly superior to made in USSR
no fucking shit, still not proof of a meme tank, or an argument
If you stop at 1945, there were about equal numbers of T-34s and Shermans made. About 50k Sherman variants and about 60k T-34 variants.
>They would have no or very little ammo for it
nigga you can just make shells for anything in a factory they aren't that complex
would honestly be wrong if you didn't.
This. People are really missing the point. Russia was never going to produce a top-quality tank during the war. They had no resources and Stalin's purges wiped out all the trained men. The engineers knew they had to make something easy to make and easy to use, but would still be effective. There are tons of large engineering feats seen in the T-34, even if it wasn't the "best" tank.
The real joke are British tanks.
>The real joke are British tanks
True
How could they escape ridicule for so long
>The Japs had better tanks than the soviets
>British tanks
What's wrong with him? The sources in his description look pretty solid
Not him, but I came up with that idea from reading books by German and French tank commanders of WWII.
>British tanks
> mother fucking torsion bar suspension
The T34 used internal coil spring suspension, (Christie type) which took up a lot of room inside the hull.
> simple transmission (made to only drive to berlin once)
If by “simple” you mean a piece of shit, then you’re correct.
> all parts extremely simplified
See above
> can be repaired by an idiot with a metal bar
The Soviets didn’t bother with field repairs, as they had neither the parts nor the skilled crewmen to do the job, they just pulled the engine or trans and replaced it.
> slopped armor
The Sherman also had “slopped” armor on the front.
> fucking V-2 DIESEL engine
That was a piece of shit and broke down after a 100-some miles.
> For starters, the sherman had an airplane engine and ran on high octane airplane fuel.
That was powerful and utterly reliable, like all American engines.
> It had an overly complicated suspension system that made it really had to fix if it ever broke.
Nonsense, bogie wheels are simple and easily repaired or simply swapped out for an entire new one.
> It's profile was way too large.
This is a minor issue and it was on par with other tanks in the war.
> However, once the upgraded 76 mm and better turret came out, the t-34 was good enough.
The Soviet 76mm gun was equivalent with the U.S. 75mm and their 85mm was similar to the U.S. 76mm/3” gun.
>The real joke are British tanks.
Indeed, they were on par with the Italians and if it wasn't for the U.S. providing half the tanks the Brits used in WWII, they'd have been fucked.
Another
>muh sherman
thread.
Please go live out your inferiority complex somewhere else, Americunts.
You forgot to mention the crew consists of an Alcoholic; a sex crazed pervert; and a guy who claims tanks talk to him and eats nothing.
T-34 had a four man crew and the T-34-85 had a five man crew.
British tanks in WW2, with exception to early war, pre war and 1944 onwards were designed to br cheap and effective. For the most part they were, the Cromwell and Churchill both filled their respective roles with the adequate 6pdr gun and short 75mm anti infantry gun. The 6pdr itself was so effective the US used it as the M1 anti tank gun. Hell, the centurion with the proven 17pdr was in production months before the war ended, and the centurion didn't go out of service until the 1960s because it was a forward thinking and highly modifiable design.
>Cromwell
wow it only took them 3-4 years longer than anybody else to get a sort of decent 75mm medium tank (sort of faster than the Sherman and shorter but mostly worse otherwise), after everybody else already had one.
good going Brits
I also like the riveted armor, gives it a nice Italian/Japanese look to it
>3 man crew
>haha, lets take all 20K tanks SU has and count them as losses
>even when a lot of them were in the Western part of SU
>even when half of them arent even operational
>even when most of the Soviet divisions didnt had fuel
>1:3 KD
>thinking tanks are responsible for most kills of enemy tanks
>not realizing that SU lost more tanks simply because it was attacking, not defending throught the most of the war
>In what world is a battalion (or 2) not a handful of tanks.
In this one.
> 2 battalions is 20 tanks tops, per divisions that actually had them.
A tank battalion is around 60 tanks. A German panzer division in BoF had 3 tank battalions authorized.
You have literally zero understanding of military history and your opinion is trash.
>2 battalions is 20 tanks tops
20 tanks is 4 tank platoons, or slightly larger than a tank company.
A battalion would have 3 companies plus a few tanks attached directly to the battalion command.
What a shit thread.
People actually think the Sherman was better than the T-34.
>bad optics
False.
I'd say M4 was a better tank overall, but it's not like T-34 was far behind.
Can you elaborate on what made it better than the M4, then?
Your PDF isn't loading for me, can you give me the name of the pdf?
Even Hugo Schmeisser had a hand in the development of the AK47 but the Russians won't say. It was only a few years ago that Kalashnikov himself would even admit that captured German designers "helped". And I'm not even talking about the general visual similarities between the AK and the STG
The Cromwell's design philosophy was literally speed and firepower above all else, including cost, hence the riveting . The Cromwell was unbelievably cheap and produced decent results for what it was, a fast cavalry tank with decent firepower.
>This isn't even looking at the real winners of the war, the KV tank and the IS tank.
I think people massively overrate tanks in general, there were barely any of the fucking things compared to infantry.
It loads for me.
Niehorster, L.W.G., German World War II Organizational Series, Vol 2/1, Mechanized
Army Divisions (10 May 1940), Germany, 1990
Cheers, no clue why but the entire usacac website doesn't load for me, I'll try and use proxies to see if that changes anything.
it's amazing for its BR
...
not him but
>in service 2 years earlier
>design reaching maturity when Sherman was only just coming off production lines
>much lower silhouette, smaller target
>mechanically simpler, Sherman used an aircraft engine
>better all round protection, especially from the sides
>superior suspension
>lower ground pressure
>much more significantly upgunned so it could compete with newer German tank models, 85mm>76mm
ultimately though comparison is ver difficult since the T-34 fought in Russia and eastern Europe while the Sherman fought in north Africa, Italy and France, theaters with vastly different conditions
> British tanks in WW2, with exception to early war, pre war and 1944 onwards were designed to br cheap and effective. For the most part they were,
British tanks throughout WWII had a terrible track record for unreliability as well as being under-gunned and crippled by a small turret ring preventing up-arming and this was further acerbated by the Brit’s stubborn insistence on an obsolete tactical philosophy of separate infantry and cruiser tanks.
> the Cromwell and Churchill both filled their respective roles with the adequate 6pdr gun and short 75mm anti infantry gun.
The development of the Cromwell was so slow that it’s use in WWII was limited to reconnaissance units and the Churchill was so unreliable, that it was almost canceled and even once all the bugs had been worked out, it was still glacially slow (due to the above tactical philosophy).
> The 6pdr itself was so effective the US used it as the M1 anti tank gun.
The 6pdr / 57mm gun was arguably the best towed anti-tank gun of the war, providing good armor penetration in a reasonably light and small package but towed anti-tanks in general were obsolete and the 6pdr’s use in British tanks was (again) crippled by the Brit’s insistence on only supplying it with armor piercing ammo, requiring the use of howitzer equipped support tanks.
> Hell, the centurion with the proven 17pdr was in production months before the war ended,
While it was a good tank, the Centurion never fired a shot in anger during WWII, only arriving after the war was over.
>terrible tank to start with
>pretty much unkillable except for pak 40 and 42 during the early days
>goes in tune with soviet doctrine and situation the soviets are in
its certainly dumb to put it for the no.1 tank in that greatest tank show but it did its job,anything that can kill a tiger at 400 metres and run over a defense line was fine enough
> It had an overly complicated suspension system that made it really had to fix if it ever broke.
The Sherman had the easiest transmission system to fix out of all the WW2 tanks.
All you had to do was untension the track, jack the tank up, unbolt the bogies from the side, and bolt new ones back on, and re-tension the track. The ability of the Sherman to change out suspensions extremely fast was one of it's bigger advantages.
VVSS/HVSS bogie units were more mechanically complex than torsion bars, but they don't have to be repaired in the field. The battalion motor pool simply stocked spare bogie units as spare parts.
Also T-34 doesn't have Torsion Bars, it has Christie. KV and IS are the ones with torsion bars. Christie suspension required the hull to be opened up to replace a unit. So does Torsion bars, which also requires you to fish out all the broken torsion bar chunks.
The downside to bogie suspension is limited travel and vulnerability to battle damage, since the suspensions were not under armor. The benefits are ease of repair and taking up zero hull volume.
> towed anti-tanks in general were obsolete
Obsolete in American and British service, since they expected to be on the attack most of the time, where towed guns would be too unmaneuverable.
Towed guns were still terrific and cost-effective on the defense, but the Western Allies weren't doing much of that.
>Towed guns were still terrific and cost-effective on the defense
Towed anti-tank guns had zero mobility and virtually no protection, allowing them to be outflanked and/or overrun, which is why the Germans were desperately sticking anti-tank gun on anything with an engine.
>VVSS/HVSS bogie units were more mechanically complex than torsion bars, but they don't have to be repaired in the field.
The horizontal volute spring suspension units were even easier to repair in the field, as the individual road wheels could be swapped out without removing the entire bogie assembly.
Ahahahha motherfuckers even cross-sectioned the gunner.
In combat British tanks were useless but the 'funnies' proved extremely useful in assisting infantry. Clearing obstacles etc.
It's a shitty fucking Russian piece of shit tank. Their 76mm lolgun was fucking junk. They couldn't even penetrate our Shermans and Pershings during the Korean War. lol it sucked.
Compared to the Soviets yeah they did. Jap tanks were bad against our Shermans but they weren't as bad as Ivans and their shitty hunk of shit they call a "tank" for like a deathtrap. You pro-Russian faggots need do more research on your precious soviet junk of a tank known as the T-34 lol.
>Look up how many Iraqis in their shitty Bradleys, Abrams lols, and their shitty F-22s got assblasted by our superior ISIS ahem soviet equipment.
The Korean failure was due to the ammunition, not the gun.
As a russian, i gotta say it's extremely amusing to see how westfags always try to downplay our powah while portraying Motherland as a huge threat in their propaganda at the same time.
>be NK T-34-85
>shoot down F-80C jet with your 85mm cannon
>how can capitalist boys even compete