T-34 reputation vs Sherman reputation

[BaronNoir]

I'm just curious over one point.

We can agree, I think, that generally amateur historians states that the T-34 was an excellent model while the Sherman M4 was a clunker.

While (relative) mechanical reliability and ease of production are of course important values, it's quite puzzling that the Sherman M4 have such a dreary reputation considering that it lost around 4500 units in WW2, while T-34s losses were around 48 000.

We are talking about a rough 13%, 15%, maybe 20% if you are generous ''kills'' compared to total production compared to an astonishing 82% kill rate for the rate (that's the kind of rate you would except for Imperial Guard troops in Warhammer 40k...)

While people seems to have a fairly honest assessment of the Sherman (IE, it was simply a not very good tank, but it did the job), why they keep saying that the T-34 was a good vehicle with such incredible casualties ?

(And as people know for my post history, I have absolute zero sympathy for the Germans and zero admiration for their war machine : I objectively think that both the T-34s and the Sherman were far better products for warmaking than the supposedly impressive Tiger, which was of course deadly when it had fuel (rarely) when it had a working engine (occasionnaly) and when it was not bombed to oblivion from the sky while immobilized for mechanical failure (unfrequently)

 

[Capt. Kiwi]

Soviet losses were massive compared to the western allies, definitely. That's not enough to draw a conclusion though - German losses on the eastern front were massive too, even if lower than Soviet losses by a factor of about 3. It's possible there was simply more fighting on that front, more chances for tanks to be destroyed. Especially since the Sherman only came into play once the western allies were on the front foot.

I honestly don't know what combat statistics tell us about Shermans vs T-34s, and I'd be interested to hear more. But it has to be a bit deeper than units lost, even done relative to production. A quick look says that 3/4 of Panzer IVs were lost on the eastern front, suggesting 3 times as much fighting might be a good starting point. Already you could probably get it down to 15%:27% comparitive loss rate by controlling for one variable.

 

[Matt714]

I'm pretty confident that the T-34 was supposed to be scrapped (at least in its original rendition) had the war not happened so soon, since it did not perform to the expectations of Soviet high command during its trials. The T-34 gets most of its good reputation from its armour and mobility, otherwise it had a lot of significant problems. No onboard radios (!), commander assumes the role of gunner, frequent mechanical breakdowns.

The Sherman gained most of its bad reputation with the British in North Africa, when facing the 88s. But that's because the British stupidly used armour throughout most of the war (such as during the slaughter at Gazala), not the fault of the tank per se. The ammunition storage tank also had the nasty habit of exploding, and this was only fixed in the 76mm models. Popular myths attribute this to the use of gasoline instead of diesel, but that's unfounded, since German tanks also ran on gasoline. (only Soviets one ran on diesel) Otherwise as an infantry-support vehicle it performed well. Most of the Western front took place in urban or semi-urban settings, giving the Allies no incentive to ponder about improving their armoured warfare capabilities.

 

[Amallric]

The T-34 rate of casualties is just a soviet rate of casualties. For everything else be it planes, vehicles or infantry you'll have similar rates. That's just how the war was fought by the Soviets. So you can't draw any conclusions about the quality of a particular tank from that.

 

[Capt. Kiwi]

Well you probably could, since the Soviets used significant numbers of Shermans themselves Just compare T-34 loss rates with emcha loss rates in similar circumstances.

 

[Sarmatia1871]

The T-34 should only be compared with the Panther.

 

[Katte]

I think a good part of the T-34's good reputation comes back from the days when the Wehrmacht encountered this tank and was surprised to see a tank with such a well-designed armor and a good gun manufactured by supposed sub-humans.

I disagree that the T-34 should be compared with the Tiger (heavy tank vs. medium tank) or the Panther (1943 vs. 1941).

 

[PEP]

My understanding is that :

1) The Sherman was cheap, comfortable, reliable, easy to produce, to modify and to repair and had a quite decent anti-personnel gun. But it had a tendency to burn when hit (it was nicknamed the Tommy Cooker by the Germans), was way too big (tall?) for a medium tank, lacked a proper armor and a real anti-tank gun (except for the Firefly version which was at least adequate in this regard)).

2) The T-34 was cheap, easy to produce, to modify and to repair, had a quite decent gun (especially in later versions), a great armor and large tracks allowing the tanks to move quickly whatever the conditions (mud, snow...). But it was difficult to operate, lacked radio equipment and had poor optics.

Overall you can't really compare the loss ratio of these tanks to judge their quality since the war on the eastern front had almost nothing in common with the war in Africa and in the west.

In Africa the Americans and the British tanks performed quite poorly against the Germans but in France the Allied forces had such an overwhelming superiority in artillery, planes and tanks they could really use them to the fullest of their abilities.

On the other hand and at least until Operation Bagration in the Summer of 1944, the Russians faced the bulk of the Wehrmacht. The couldn't secure air superiority and had to fight apocalyptic battles often with poorly trained and led troops resulting in tremendous casualty rates. Loosing thousands of soldiers and tanks in huge Kessel (Kiev for instance), desperate defensive Battles (Moscow) or huge offensives (Uranus) often against dug in troops (Rjev).

Even though both were easy to produce and to repair, I believe the T-34 was better than the Sherman. It wasn't comfy or anything but its armor and gun allowed it to stand its ground against its German counterparts and at least its crew wouldn't burn to death if the tank took a hit.

 

[DoomBunny]

I'm just curious over one point.

We can agree, I think, that generally amateur historians states that the T-34 was an excellent model while the Sherman M4 was a clunker.

While (relative) mechanical reliability and ease of production are of course important values, it's quite puzzling that the Sherman M4 have such a dreary reputation considering that it lost around 4500 units in WW2, while T-34s losses were around 48 000.

We are talking about a rough 13%, 15%, maybe 20% if you are generous ''kills'' compared to total production compared to an astonishing 82% kill rate for the rate (that's the kind of rate you would except for Imperial Guard troops in Warhammer 40k...)

While people seems to have a fairly honest assessment of the Sherman (IE, it was simply a not very good tank, but it did the job), why they keep saying that the T-34 was a good vehicle with such incredible casualties ?

The basic reasoning behind the T34 being so much better than the Sherman is that on paper, with the basics that most consider, it clearly is.

It has more firepower, better armour, was produced in greater numbers and has a better range and speed. So most people with little in depth interest in the period or sense automatically believe it was the greatest tank of the war. After all, it continually outmatches the Sherman and even the Panzer IV in these fields.

Of course, when you then go into details and discover that actually, the T34 had no radio, no dedicated gunner and poor optics, it gets a bit different, but most people taking a passing glance at history don't consider these.

Of course a lot of the disparity in casualties comes from the fact that on the Eastern front, fighting was a lot harder. I'd imagine (although I can't say for certain) that Soviet aircraft would also show a comparatively higher loss rate. You also need to consider, that although it may not be a big factor, at least some of those losses likely come from the start of Operation Barbarossa, when the Red Army had its head up its ass for the most part. Therefore it's not really a reflection on the quality of the vehicle.

From the Sherman's side, there's also a common conception of it as just being the basic model, the one with the 75mm gun and little armour. There were far better, albeit rarer versions which were far better tanks, such as the Firefly's, who had a 17pdr gun.

(And as people know for my post history, I have absolute zero sympathy for the Germans and zero admiration for their war machine : I objectively think that both the T-34s and the Sherman were far better products for warmaking than the supposedly impressive Tiger, which was of course deadly when it had fuel (rarely) when it had a working engine (occasionnaly) and when it was not bombed to oblivion from the sky while immobilized for mechanical failure (unfrequently)

Good to know you offhandedly write off the armed forces of an entire nation.

 

[chepaeff]

Units which had both Shermans and T-34s typically praised Shermans for better armor (no splinters and doesn't fall apart if ammo is exploded). Other than that not much difference.

 

[Capt. Kiwi]

From the Sherman's side, there's also a common conception of it as just being the basic model, the one with the 75mm gun and little armour. There were far better, albeit rarer versions which were far better tanks, such as the Firefly's, who had a 17pdr gun.

If you're going to include the Firefly or other Sherman variants, you have to include the T-34-85, complete with radio and dedicated gunner in a three man turret. It wasn't exactly rare after all, nearly 30,000 made before war's end.

 

[LYNCHY]

I think a good part of the T-34's good reputation comes back from the days when the Wehrmacht encountered this tank and was surprised to see a tank with such a well-designed armor and a good gun manufactured by supposed sub-humans.

I disagree that the T-34 should be compared with the Tiger (heavy tank vs. medium tank) or the Panther (1943 vs. 1941).

Then what about comparing a T-34/85 with a panther (this shows another bonus of the T-34 with how easy it was to modify

 

[BaronNoir]

Well, for instance, I read once that the Red Army lost 7500 T-34s in 1945 alone. and 14 000 in 1944.

21 000 tanks lost when you have the intiative, it's, uh, a lot.

 

[Beagá]

T-34 had bad armor even after 1942 (totally beatable by the 75m PAK the StuG III and Panzer IV G carried, even the 50mm wasn´t that bad versus it), was more unreliable than people think and was against the country with some of the best tanks and anti-tank guns of the war, not to mention panzerfaust and schreck. Also you can´t compare the scale of the front of the allies versus the soviet one. Even after D-Day the amount of troops versus the SU was always larger. Soviets were also always more poorly trained than their allied counterparts.

Thus it´s predictable that losses were so huge. You can´t compare Sherman losses versus T-34 and claim one tank was better than the other since the conditions they fought were totally assymetrical. If the US fought Germany on land war, alone, since 1941, it´s obvious losses wouldn´t be 5000. It´s a similar claim to saying P-51 was better than Spitfire. P-51 fought against exhausted and rookie Luftwaffe while Spitfire faced the Luftwaffe at its best. Who knows, if a Spitfire development with drop tanks had the same range as P-51 maybe it would destroy more fighters than the P-51, but since they didn´t fought in symetrical situations (which is the only situation unbiased analysis can be done) you can´t tell which plane is better.

 

[BaronNoir]

Actuallly, this post is carefully worded to avoid the usual ''who had the best tank ever'' discussion-interesting but unconclusive.

Hence the formulation ''why the T-34 had a better reputation ?''

 

[PEP]

I think the reasons for those tremendous losses have more to do with the training of the crews, the quality of the officers in charge, the red army tactics, rashness and state of mind regarding losses and the various characteristics of the Ostheer rather than the intrinsic qualities of the T34. Not to mention the fact that the merciless war in the east was fought with much more tanks and soldiers than in the west.

On the other hand, the British and Americans were much more careful and relied heavily on their planes and artillery, usually trying to crush the opposition under a rain of bombs to limit casualties rather than attacking head on.

 

[DoomBunny]

If you're going to include the Firefly or other Sherman variants, you have to include the T-34-85, complete with radio and dedicated gunner in a three man turret. It wasn't exactly rare after all, nearly 30,000 made before war's end.

I was simply arguing that the Sherman is often viewed as just the bog standard model, not that one should compare the Firefly (a good tank by 1944 standards) to a peacetime design.

Well, for instance, I read once that the Red Army lost 7500 T-34s in 1945 alone. and 14 000 in 1944.

21 000 tanks lost when you have the intiative, it's, uh, a lot.

Again, the fighting on the Eastern front was on a huge scale. The losses are certainly high, but they aren't as bad as they look at first. Even if the Red Army was on the advance, the Germans were still a very formidable fighting force.

It´s a similar claim to saying P-51 was better than Spitfire. P-51 fought against exhausted and rookie Luftwaffe while Spitfire faced the Luftwaffe at its best.

Not true. But that's a subject for another thread.

 

[Beagá]

Actuallly, this post is carefully worded to avoid the usual ''who had the best tank ever'' discussion-interesting but unconclusive.

Hence the formulation ''why the T-34 had a better reputation ?''

Mostly due to its 1941 performance and the fact that by in that year and for quite some time in 1942 it was still a very good opponent. It´s the typical myth that rises from not looking at numbers in an objective way.

Yes it´s subject for another thread but many people think the P-51 was the best plane of the war and beat the Luftwaffe on its own, which is BS. It´s not even about disregarding what the RAF did, but also other US fighters above all the P 47.

 

[Ming]

The sherman also had excellent combat performance in 1942, but this did not affect its postwar reputation.
In fact, this is one of the (many) reasons why US tank forces were not interested in upgrading their tank force.

The problem of reputation among amateur historians and gamers is that it is generally founded on things like tactics, and this was a war (like most wars) won by logistics.

In this regard, the Sherman was superior to just about every model in the war, certainly far better than the German late war tank designs. In fact, as part of an industrial war fighting system, the Sherman was an unrivalled component.

 

[Amallric]

If we speak about reputation I guess there is a thing to have in mind. Western amateur historians had no access to first-hand information from the Soviet Union, so they mostly had to rely on american and german sources. The former would typically try to emphasize the valour of American soldiers by greatly exaggerating the difficulties they faced; thus the supposed weakness of the Sherman was brought up to "compensate" the overwhelming advantage in numbers the Americans had.
German sources on the other hand would try to justify their defeats; for this purpose exaggeration of the power of the T-34 comes handy.

And even if some amateur historian managed to get access to some Soviet sources all he would find there would be propaganda, "the soviet tanks are the best in the world", even 20, 30, 50 years after war's end.