M4 Sherman Vesrus T34 Tank.?

Both tanks were really quite similar.

They could each be produced in massive numbers. They were both more reliable and easy to maintain in the field than their more sophisticated German counterparts. Both offered good mobility for their time. Both offered truly dual-purpose main armament. Both were designed to be immune from the most common anti-tank guns of 1940-41.

The early T-34 with 76mm gun (T-34/76 and T-34/85 are German, not Soviet designations) did offer better all-around protection than the M4 Medium, had a higher power-to-weight ratio, was faster and offered lower ground pressure. To the negative the initial T-34 models suffered horrible transmission problems (many photo's show a spare transmission lashed to the rear deck), carried less ammunition and suffered badly from having only a 2-man turret crew with no cupola for the tank commander. Not every T-34 had a radio either. Crew layout in the M4 was better with a proper 3-man turret crew to distribute the workload and much better provision for the commander to operate "heads up". The M4 was also much, much more comfortable. Gun performance of both tanks was remarkably similar - all the "common wisdom" about the M4 Medium's "puny" 75mm gun aside its performance was pretty much the same as the much revered 76.2mm Soviet gun. The T-34's diesel engine imparted almost double the range of the M4, even the diesel model M4's.

The T-34 Model 1944 (T-34/85) solved many of the T-34's shortcomings by adopting a 3-man turret with improved visibility for the commander, thicker turret (but not hull) armor and a better gun. By the time this vehicle arrived on the battlefield though the German's were fielding improved tanks of their own in greater numbers as well as much more powerful anti-tank guns and the T-34 had losts its technical edge. Still, one months production of the T-34 1944 was about equal to nearly a years output of Panthers and 10 good tanks will win wars far more readily than 1 great tank.

The M4 Medium gets a lot of bad press that it mostly does not deserve. The myth is that it was called the "Tommy Cooker" because its gasoline engine meant they burned easily when it. This is not true. Gasoline fires were actually quite rare. The nickname came from the North Africa campaign where British crews got in the habit of shoving as much ammunition in the tank whereever they could cram it. Thus when penetrated the tanks were much more susceptible to ammunition explosions. Much is also made of the M4's "inadequate" 75mm gun but such criticisms are almost always made out of context. The argument was this gun could not reliably penetrate a Panther or Tiger except at suicidally close range. But the American's did not encounter their first Panther until April 1944 and while the Tiger had been encountered a year earlier, they were so uncommon there was no point in introducing a better gun to deal with them. Few M4 crews ever saw a Tiger, let alone faced one in combat. The problem came in Normandy where intelligence failures resulted in the U.s. not understanding the Panther was not a heavy tank, but a medium tank for general issue to Panzer Divisions. Thus it was a nasty shock when 600 of them were encountered in Normandy in June. Still, after Normandy Panther's were rarely encountered again until December. 90% of M4 firefights were with infantry, not German uber-tanks. But nobody ever thinks about THAT! By December M4's with HVSS wide-track suspensions for improved mobility in the wet conditions of northern Europe, wet ammunition stowage for dramatically reduced fire risk and the high-velocity 76mm gun which could penetrate a Panther frontally at reasonable ranges (out to 1,600 yards in some accounts) started to appear in numbers and these addressed most of the complaints about the tank. But the M4's "bad rep" had been sealed in the months between June and November, 1944.

It is interesting to note that by 1944 neither the M4 not the T34 were sufficiently armored to keep out the majority of German anti-tank projectiles yet only the M4 gets a bad rap for this, even though 85% of T-34's hit by this time were penetrated.

In Korea the T-34 Model 1944 (T-34/85) and M4A3E8 76mm faced off. The M4's 76mm gun was about equal to the T-34's 85m gun and the M4's improved HVSS suspension gave it similar mobility. Wet ammunition stowage dramatically improved protection for the M4. Both tanks offered very similar performance in that conflict and in a tank-on-tank battle between them the better crew and whoever got off the first good shot was likely to be the victor. But there were only about 150 tank-on-tank encounters in Korea. Again, most of the war was spent in infantry support, which is a tanks primary job and always has been.

Both of these tanks were war winners!!!

The sheer numbers that they were produced in, approximately 50,000 each, made them war winners. Considering that the Germans were only able to produce a total of 6,850 Tigers and Panthers, you can see why they are considered war winners, simply by attrition! There were different models/upgrades of each tank, so I tried to average it out. The T34 /76 (Frontal Armor 70mm)becoming the T34 /85 (Frontal Armor 90mm). The M4 75Sherman(Frontal armor 90mm) metamorphosedd into the "Firefly" Sherman(Frontal armor 90mm) with the British 17pdr gun, which put it on par with existing machines.

On both tanks, the T34 has a better gun, The M4's 75/76mm guns were terribly underpowered and wasn't really a match for 76 mm gun on the T34.

The 17 pdr on the "Firefly" allowed the tank to fight at standoff ranges like their counterparts.

But because of the new turret on the 2nd models of the T34 85 offering a 5 man crew which allowed for better crew efficiency. And the 85 mm gun was on par with the Tigers 88. I give the T34 the edge in both categories!

The Chi-Nu was produced in very small numbers and never actually saw combat. Versus an M4A3E8 (most common Sherman variant in the Pacific theater) it would have been ripped to shreds. The HVAP round the "Easy Eight" fired would have punched through the riveted armor on a Chi-Nu like tissue paper. The 75mm gun on a Chi-Nu might have been able to destroy a Sherman depending on where the round struck but it isn't likely given the poor quality and typically low velocity of Japanese tank guns. Sherman tanks were much tougher than they were given credit for. As for Naughtums answer: Tanks in the interwar period weren't meant to fight other tanks. This has drastically changed since then. From 1944 onward tanks were almost entirely purpose built for engaging enemy armor. Modern tanks are designed to knock out enemy armored forces as efficiently as possible.

T-34 Tank

T34 had greater fire power and better armor, both were maneuverable and had good speed. Heads up would probably have to give it to the T34. Only other factor is the crew and I think the American crew was probably better trained, initiative was not condoned in the Soviet army.

what models are we comparing? There was great variation among the M4 and several models of T-34.

"The Shermans were not any good, until they were up gunned and turned into M-26's right before the Korean war."

No, the Firefly (M4 w/Brit 17-pounder gun) were very deadly.

Although I love the Sherman, it would be no match for the T34

The T34 was an excellent medium tank, hard to knock out with it's sloped armor and low profile, plus speed 50+ M.P.H.***************

THE TRUTH IS THE SHERMAN ( TANK ON TANK) IT TOOK SEVERAL OF THEM TO GET AROUND THE

TIGER WAS NEXT TO USELESS .

THE T34 WAS A GOOD ALL ROUNDER A VERY GOOD DESIGN.

T-34

There really is not any debate over this.

The Shermans were not any good, until they were up gunned and turned into M-26's right before the Korean war.

the T-34 would probably creme a little shermy lol.