Was it really that shitty?
Yeah.
That 1 man turret syndrome.
That no turret basket.
That too-cramped-to-bail-out-during-an-emergency-so-every-time-one-gets-penetrated-the-crew-gets-burned-alive-thus-depriving-your-army-of-precious-institutional-experience.
The -85 and later variants fixed a lot of the problems, but the Sherman was simply a better design.
Sure, it was taller, but it was an extremely marginal difference (see pic) and it's absolutely worth it for the crew space.
>>29506082
It was a nightmare for the loader as he had to stand on bare shells with no guard, busted ankles were almost expected.
>>29506082
Good enough.
Good enough to win the war, shitty enough to lose several tens of thousands of tanks doing so.
>>29506082
Depends, how tall are you?
>>29506082
The americans shit on it at the aberdeen trials, the GRU agent who sent a copy of the american report back to moscow had to defend it mercilessly, with excuses like "americans criticized suspension, they didnt drive it enough" . By Western standards it was shit but it was good enough for the soviets
>>29506082
It was fair for its time, and most importantly it could and was improved.
>>29506082
It was better than the Sherman. It scared the fuck out of the Germans in 1941 along with the KV tanks. But alas let it go op. She had done her holy duty to defend the motherland, let her rest.
>>29506272
They lost Shermans at a similar rate in the Balkans.
Thats what tends to happen when you purge your army of any competence, then raise 500 divisions in 6 months.
>>29506597
The Sherman is functionally just a T-34 but with adequate crew quarters and better reliability.
Same three inch gun, about the same armor protection, same weight.
>>29507026
Better armor than the T-34 m80.
was the US 76mm superior to the USSR 85mm?
>>29508440
Better penetration (slightly), worse HE and less impact force behind the shell.
>>29508440
It was the munitions that were significantly better.
The 75mm was roughly equal to the Soviet 76.2mm in penetration but far better at HE performance.
The 76mm was at least comparable to the 85mm in armor piercing, as seen in Korea.
The optical sights were also better, and people will argue the stabilized gun was another advantage but it was so complicated that, at least anecdotally, no one bothered to use it.
You can see how complex the gyro-stabalizer was here: http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675076237_M4-medium-tank_gunner-seated_turret-motor_traversing-turret
>>29506082
No.
If you wish to know about tanks (specially slavshit tanks) without memes, then /k/ isn't the answer. Altho you could ask the /thg/guy. Read books my nigga.
Anyway, the 85 was superior compared to German counterparts except for the Panther - hell, it can even penetrate Tigers 500m away, short distance, but hey, Slavs could make 10 of those in exchange of a single Tiger. Also, 85s had better acceleration and maximum speed in contrast to the 76s.
did the US install these gyros in soviet lend lease shermans?
I watched a vid on T62s and T72s and even those had incredibly shitty stabilization
>>29506082
I don't know if the second or third best tank of the war can be called shit, but yeah, it was worse than a Sherman.
>>29506082
Yes AND no.
Some improvements made it better, and some problems were never ironed out. /k/ too often forgets that nothing is perfect.
>>29506122
Also you'll need a hammer to knock the gear stick into gear
>>29506082
It was awesome and really best for the time it was first deployed. It was reasonably good and cost-effective, during WWII, Quite outdated at the end of the war and after it. In 1944-1945 it wasn`t replaced by T-44, simply because the re-tooling of production lines was going to seriously slow down the army`s advance. And later, even better T-54/55 took the place of mass-produced tank (and was more then adequate for the time of deployment also).
>>29506597
>It was better than the Sherman.
No. It was like an inferior cousin of a Sherman with down syndrome.
>>29509852
had worse gun than sherman
had worse armor than sherman
was more unreliable
9 out of 10 t34 crew died when a round penetrated compared to 1 out of 4 in the sherman
cant fire on the move like a sherman
no room inside so ivan is inefficient
t34 a shit
>>29506082
>>29506122
It had a cool basic design, lots of slopped armor, a big gun, and decently fast but when you get to actually using it it's a bit of a nightmare.
The seats are cramped, getting in and out is time consuming at best and difficult at worse. The gunsight offers a very narrow view and not a lot of magnification. The armor was deceptively thin so soviet tankers would ram their enemies and end up wrecking their tanks. Most importantly, the transmission stuck which hurt maneuverability.
>>29506597
The Sherman actually outclassed most german tanks when it was first deployed and scared the crap out of most german tankers. They eventually figured out that one good penetrating hit would set off the ammo but that was eventually fixed.
It wasn't until the Panther and later Tiger tanks came out that the M4 began to show flaws and even then the 76mm gun firing HVAP rounds could penetrate at range.
>>29509839
was great tank only brits and usa think they were super bad, but they bias to communism so they badmouth anything good from russia
t34 carried the whole world war
>>29511791
Y'know, looking at them both side by side I'm thinking that we americans stole the designs from the Soviets and made them better.
Food for thought.
>>29511796
top bait.
/k/ never change
>>29511816
No.
>>29511816
They share nothing in common
>>29506082
yes
>>29511816
The T-34 design is actually the evolution of the BT tanks design by J. Walter Christie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BT_tank
>>29506082
>was it really
Who ever said a T-34-85 was shit?
Fucking who?
>>29511816
go back to class
>>29511816
The T-34 is a derivative of the BT-7, which was itself a copy of the Christie tank.
The Sherman is based around a completely different chassis and suspension system.
>>29506082
How many 88mm shells did you eat to drive the facists out of the motherland?
Yeah thought so
>>29514637
America, especially after going head to head with then in Korea.
>>29514910
Shermans ate a fair number helping the Slavs.
>>29511816
The Americans were the ones that sold the design to the Soviets in the first place. Real food for thought is that if we didn't help them they wouldn't even have that tank in the first place, nor the industry needed to make it.
Also, the Canadians designed the Sherman's distinctive profile, it being derived from the Ram series. In other words, the T-34 is more American than the Sherman.
>>29514952
Wasn't the Sherman complete, sans the turret, before Canada started work on the Ram?
>>29514914
T-34-85 the soviet union ramping up to produce the first MBTs sent over as excess tanks vs. new shit from US
Who wins?
The m4a3e2 jumbo sherman was the best tank of ww2.
Pzkw V Ausf. F best paper tank.
>>29511816
These are the people who post in tank threads on /k/ and act like experts.
Food for thought.
>>29511695
One should note that Soviet tank crews were intentionally made up of manlets. The 'cramped' issue isn't as much of an issue for the people that were actually driving them. IIRC soviet tankers were usually around 5' 6"
