People extremely underestimate the importance of US Lend-lease towards the USSR. The US sent over 11,000 Planes, over 6,000 Tanks and over 300,000 Logistical vehicles which significantly fixed the Logistical nightmare the Soviets were facing at the start of the war
@@ДимаДима-ы9ч The USSR were quite fond of the Aerocobra. Most Soviet Aces even went so far as to call it the best Aircraft they've ever flew which was quite risky to say during Stalin's rein. The M3 Lee would've never been called a "mass grave of six" as the M3 Lee had a crew of 7. Instead it would've been called "a Coffin for Seven Brothers" however I was unable to find an actual source for that claim, although it is true that the Soviets didn't like the M3 Lee. However the soviets did like a bunch of other Vehicles that were brought in via lend-lease, like the Valentine, the Matilda II, the M4A2, the M3 Half track, the Spitfire, theGMC CCKW 6x6 truck, the jeep, the list goes on...
Even General Zhukov admitted had it not been for American food supplies they'd of all starved to death. He was having to survive on spam for awhile which says something when a General is having to live on what your average grunt was.
You plagiarised, I searched if they did that on Google, and the response was the same word for word. However, as a person who was born in the US, and had parents who were raised in the USSR, I am glad that the two superpowers cooperated that well.
On production rates, the Shermans wre set to eclipse the t-34's until America realized they were going to win with what they had and then drastically cut down production in 44 and 45.
Interesting video, both tanks were built in great numbers and as such overwhelmed their respective battlefields against for the most part high quality opponents, I must admit to being a little surprised to seeing a number of M3 Lee/Grant tanks in your video’s when speaking about the M4 Sherman.
Yes haha. This is because there is only so much footage of Sherman tanks available for free or cheap enough for a TH-cam video. So some footage has to be of other vehicles unfortunately
Yes haha. This is because there is only so much footage of Sherman tanks available for free or cheap enough for a TH-cam video. So some footage has to be of other vehicles unfortunately
T34 is superior for number of reasons, sloped armor, lower silhouette, wider tracks, simpler wheels and suspension, and diesel fuel (less easy to burn). I'm a Sherman fan, but T34 was better. Tactics were another thing.
0:30 “sloping armour legend” I don’t know if this is just a small moniker to add in the intro or a reference to the myth the T-34’s use of sloped armour was revolutionary (perpetuated in normie circles typically) Edit: 1:12 there are WWI tanks with sloping, and post WWI french tanks with 100% intentional sloping (I make that distinction since WWI examples *could* be debated). I hate to be that “aktually” guy but this isn’t true
Aktually aktually, his claim was that the T34 was the first tank that combined sloped armor with a 76mm gun that was effective against all armor that it initially faced. Is that not true? I'd add the caveat that during Operation Barbarossa, the Fascists mainly fielded lighter tanks than the iconic Tigers and Panthers, which were developed later in large part as a response to the effectiveness of Soviet armor. Early in the war, it was Panzer II and Czech Pz.38t tanks, and StuGs, facing off against mainly obsolete models like the BT-7, with some more advanced tanks like the T-34, KV-1, and Panzer III occasionally in the mix. History regards the T-34 as a nasty surprise for the Germans, who lacked sufficient armor to resist the 76mm, and whose 37mm and 50mm guns were completely inadequate for penetrating the T-34. The T-34 entered service over a year earlier than the Sherman, and going into production just in time for the Nazi invasion made all the difference.
Dmitry Fedorovich Loza (Russian: Дмитрий Фёдорович Лоза; 14 April 1922 - 22 May 2001) was a Ukrainian Red Army Colonel and Hero of the Soviet Union. He served as an Armor officer during World War II, fighting in the Vienna Offensive and in the Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation. Loza was awarded the title Hero of the Soviet Union for his leadership of a tank battalion in the Vienna Offensive. Postwar, he was a senior lecturer at the Frunze Military Academy before retiring from the Soviet Army in 1967.[1]
@@rabbaniazzahra1784It really wasn't that smaller than the Sherman, so it wasnt that harder to hit. And once it got hit, you would rarely get out with a T-34.
@@tinman3586The Americans was on the run from T-85's until the M-26 made it to the battle. That was the Tank that changed the playing ground. The M-4 didn't have the punch for Korean tanks but the M-4 was a fine tank for the early part of WW-2. After that it was out classed and took out easy by most mid and heavy tanks.
@@neganrex5693 From info I found on interweb of a survey done after the war out of the 119 tank battle between T-34 and US tanks 97 t-34 tanks were destroyed with 50% coming from the M4 and 32% coming from M26.
@neganrex5693 During the start of the conflict, South Korean and Allied forces had only the M-24 light tanks, which couldn’t stand up to the T-34-85s. It was when heavier tanks like the M4A3E8 Shermans and M-26 Pershings (as well as British Centurions) arrived that changed the battlefield. The Pershing outmatched the T-34-85, but the Sherman was far more reliable while still having the firepower to kill North Korean tanks. The Pershing was eventually removed to be replaced by M4A3E8 Sherman and M47 Patton tanks.
The Tank Museum's "Tank Chats" are well worth a watch for anyone interested in a bit more detail on these machines. Obviously 10 minutes to cover both doesn't do either tank justice. As for which was better... both were often "good enough" on the day, just with different strengths.
The T34 was revolutionary when it came out. The M4 was the superior vehicle though, far more reliable, better drivetrain, engine, and armor. The T34 had the better gun for anti-tank warfare until the 76.2 mm gun was put in the Sherman. Both classic tanks, the Sherman had the advantage of coming out later and being more modern (better optics, radio, etc). The engagements between Shermans and T-34s after WW2 showed the Sherman's superiority.
11 years a go i had the chance to ride along in a T34 . Started in the front but after 5 minuts i hang out the turret . What s noice inside . IAfterwards I spent 2 days coughing up diesel soot and dust. But is was a great experion
The M4 never, ever gets an even break. The T34/74 vs M4/75 cannons and calculated sloped armor protection were identical, (except US armor was better quality). The T34s ergonomics, reliablity and crew survivability compared to the M4s is laughable. The main Soviet critique of the the M4 was it was too well built and too reliable to waste on a battlefield. As a result, they generally used their Lend-Lease M4s to train their tank crews.
M4 was first developed in 1943 and saw combat in early 1944, T-34 was made in 1939, mass produced in mid 1940 and saw combat in 1941, later stronger variant of the sherman as said in the video is around 1944, while T-34-57 starts in 1943 and T-34-85 starts in 1944
M4 was first developed in 1943 and saw combat in early 1944, T-34 was made in 1939, mass produced in mid 1940 and saw combat in 1941, later stronger variant of the sherman as said in the video is around 1944, while T-34-57 starts in 1943 and T-34-85 starts in 1944
Little Willie in 1915 was the 1st tank & the 1st to incorporate to have sloped armour in it's construction. Even the British Valentine, Churchill (A22), Cromwell (A27M), and Comet I (A34) all had sloped armour which these 4 tanks made up 1/2 of all British conventional tank production. Matilda II & some of the early war British tanks had sloped armour. What is really impressive about the T34 is over 84,000 made with decent enough, armour, mobility & gun. Even if it had issues 269,500 rubbles to eventually 135,000 at the end of the war is cheap for what they got. converted that is $2700 to later $1379 roughly. The Cheapest Sherman M4 was just over $40,000 in 1945 with most expensive M4A6 at over $64,000. Cost is the Reason all the world post ww2 purchased T34 then later T55 the most built tank in human history to date. I'd prefer a Sherman M4 unless I'm the one paying for it as fvck that give me T34 out of the 2 tanks in question. You can easily 30 T34's for the price of 1 M4 Sherman & i don't think a M4 will defeat 10 T34's at a 3rd the price. German Field Marshall Paul Ludwig Ewald von Kleist ''The finest tank in the world'' Heinz Guderian described the T34 as ''vastly superior'' to German tank doctrine who he shouted & spoke out against Adolph many times for his poor decision concerning tanks. German called M4's ''Ronsons'' as a pun on the slogan “lights every time. Tommy-Kocher=Tommy cooker referred to the ww1 cooking stoves & how Tommie/British would be lit a blaze in a Sherman M4. Personally the M4 Sherman was an amazing tank in 1942 in north Africa & Sicily-south Italy but by 1944 post D-day it's age was showing & countless modifications-upgrades by both Britain & the USA only managed to keep it competitive. T-34 was not perfect but it was the perfect tank for what the Russians needed on the 'Great European Plain'. Sherman M3 was an all rounder suited to the global use but that had a compromise / price to be paid. This video is ridiculous!
Guderian said that earlier in the war, when Germany didn’t even have anything to counter the T-34. The slogan “lights up every time” was not used until the 50s. The Nicknames were the result of big fires caused by ammunition fires, but they blamed it on the fuel. They cut corners to make the T-34 cheaper, leaving many without seats, lights, mismatched road wheels, etc. Shermans and T-34s did fight each other in Korea and the Middle East in the 60s-70s both times the Sherman came out on top.
@@brennanleadbetter9708I put that down to the competence of Israel crews then the M4 Sherman being superior to the T34. T 72's are proofing to be slightly better suited then USA Assets & German armour being a joke. I see USA tanks as product of their military doctrine as a global army since roughly mid ww2 were the USA was gradually gifted over global hegemony from the British empire. M4 Sherman is modest reliable tank in large numbers but has it's limitations. T34 on was made for one reason of mass mobilization for only environment being the flat vast plains & steppes of the former USSR. T34 & M4 Sherman are comparable in numbers produced but the similarity & purpose ends there. I have been to Eastern Europe & central Asia. I would favour a T34 for such unusual flat expanse. Sherman M4 is a jack of all but master of non. Served the allies well being in desperate need of armour as British resources & welding were preoccupied air & sea construction. Tanks are 1 part industrial warfare & I can think of dozen thing more crucial from the top of my head with 1st being air as no aerial recon, Aerial Support, interception & Close air support for a start you have already lost the war. I rather a good enough cheap like the Russians have before neglecting more important assets. Only the USA has ludicrous amount of money to throw about at problems & even they have limit to their national funds. USA extensive capital & population historically could allow them to suffer the greatest defeats in history on both sea & land like pearl harbour & the battle of big horn. The USA's strength is not it's mediocre military & arms but it's immense Domestic industrial capacity it sold much of over seas. USA pride has always been a problem & it clouds their judgement as your corrupt politicians sell your country by the dollar much like how my nation is sold by the pound but mine are at least aware of it resisting were we can as a public.
Shermans size was partly dictated by need to transport in Liberty ships. Therefore had to build a little high. T34 did wonderfully given that factories had to be torn down shipped east, and built using a lot of ad hoc suppliers in the Urals. The later versions of both were radically improved, for example decent transmissions for T34. Early Sherman’s weren’t liked in Russia because ammunition was poorly protected and would cook off. Also treads had to be reworked widened, for Russian mud and snow conditions. Inherent visibility/sighting problems of T34 compared with Shermans. If T34 had had universal decent radio communications they would have been vastly more effective in many situations, coordination, contact with superiors, outside range observers, etc. if 76 mm guns had been introduced AND ADOPTED by armored units, Sherman would have been more effective near end of war. In Italy during last year of war the 76 mm variants were integrated 1 to 3 75 mm variants in combat units vs German Armor. The 76 mm varieties had a slew of other improvements also. Apparently this compromise was very popular with troops/ ammunition could otherwise be a problem. Added knockout power for group available when needed.
Great Commentary & Comparison(s); Which was better? The T34 is over-rated, the M4 was under-rated. The M4 was, overall, a Much-Better platform in All Aspects / Respects; versatility, adaptability, reliability, ergonomics, surviveability, capability and longevity!!
I love the weapons of each country, what you listed for America I like, but then their was the STG-44 from the Germans, and the PPsH-41 for the Soviets that are also really good
If I had to have a Sherman tank it would be the one built by the British with a 17 pounder anti tank gun. You can actually see the difference between the tank destroyer and the infantry support vehicle with it 75 mm. I gave up trying to watch this clip so they might talk about the Firefly rather than watching footage of a General Grant.
A number of... Interesting but common errors and misconceptions are made especially about the T-34 Forgive me for this rant I will make There's a decent video that goes into much more detail than a youtube comment would provide, it's by lazerpig, go give it a watch even if you're skeptical Source for all of this info stems from the American review of the T-34 in the Aberdeen proving grounds report, of which was written by a soviet tank engineer sent with the tank wrote that report. -The gun The gun was known to be... Not exactly "accurate" or reliable and while the gunner's sights were pretty good, the rest of the viewports were at best barely usable if not completely useless. I will add on though with a grain of salt that apparently the supplied apcr ammunition had a nasty habit of misfiring. -The mobility The tank on *paper* had a high top speed but the godawful transmission required a crowbar to effectively shift into gear 3, and shifting into gear 4 was nigh impossible without potentially breaking the gear lever. Combined with the godawful Christie suspension, which aside from flat roads is absolutely awful for any real means of moving, provided not only terrible stability, took up large amounts of already precious space inside the very cramped tank, but also would limit the vehicle to about 10-12moh off-road and on road provided you could get to 3rd gear, maybe 20mph. The engine itself couldn't run for longer than about 50km range without it breaking somewhere, this happened with both the non filter and late/post war filter variants. -The cost/simplicity The T-34 when manufactured to American standards should be about the same cost as the M4 Sherman.It was for it's time somewhat sophisticated and somewhat complex actually. The thing people get mixed up is factories intentionally took a number of variably important things off the tank to speed up production to meet quotas, hence why you get T-34s with poorly spot-welded armour and missing lights and seats. -The Armour The armour was sloped yes, but it wasnt the first. Just about every tank uses sloped armor in some fashion somewhere. It increases the effectiveness of armor but decreases available room inside of vehicles. The t-34 is notoriously cramped and this is the main reason why. Additionally the armor was treated to an incredibly high level, to the point the armor was about as hard and brittle as ceramic glass. This meant shells hitting it would fracture plates, causing the armor to spell even if a shell didn't penetrate. Combined with poor welds, this led to armor plates occasionally just.. falling off or separating enough to compromise the already questionable survivability of the t-34. Much of the issue with the T-34 ultimately came to production though, with factories doing everything they could to get them out. It is a decent design, but the sheer amount of defects it commonly had, not to mention the flaws of the tank itself makes it... Quite shit -turning the tide of the war The T-34 was encountered in thousands in the opening weeks of operation Barbarossa, the tide changing is much more complex and out of the scope of this comment though. Tldr I'd rather have a Sherman any day over a T-34
An excellent summary. It has to be said though that General Guderian was full of praise for the T34, rightly recognising that when used well it was easily a match (or more than) for his Panzer IIIs and IVs. The variable build quality and poor ergonomics of the T34 would still have found me picking a Sherman if I'd had to be tank crew and was given the choice.
Lazerpig has been proven to be a cherry picking unreliable piece of crap...even in this video that made him go viral he got couple of mistakes there is a reddit post that dives deep into the errors in the video problem is his video has tainted the reputation of the t34 giving it way too much crap
Only 57,000 t-34s were made during ww2 compared to 50,000 Sherman’s during ww2 so I’d say the Sherman Tank was more important during ww2 since it saw combat in all theaters
Both the M4 Sherman and T34 were medium mass produced tanks but that's where the similarities end. In my opinion the Sherman was definitely the superior of the two. While the Soviets were desperate to build tanks as fast as possible Americans had the advantages of security from the Axis Powers and the larger industrial bases making for increasing improvements to the M4 and all its capabilities and upgrades really gave it the edge. The T34 was really built to survive only a few combat missions and was very crude in construction. The Soviets just needed tanks and made a lot of cost cutting measures to mass produced the tank at the expense of crew survival comfort and reliability. In North Korea during the Korean War M4 Shermans easily destroyed T34s at a ratio of 5 to 1. It really depended on who shot first. Most of the time the Sherman won because it could shoot on the move and had the better optics and rate of fire.
Platform stability was on later variants. It was realized just as D day loomed that lots of units had never been trained to use the new stabilizers, and thought they didn’t work. Was a terrible botch on implementation of replacement upgrades, and the ignorance, understandably, went right up the line affecting tactical decisions-what is it possible for my men to achieve with this equipment?
Speaking of world war 2 tanks do you own a tiger 1 because they are very rare if working with only one in the world still 100% functional so it would be cool if you did a restoring of one if you have one
I'm going to answer this as if i need to choose one to go to war. The T34 would win hands down. Highly versatile tank, fast, low silhouette, reliable, a good gun and doesn't burst into flames when someone looks at it.
Then you know nothing about tanks. Versatile? The M4 sherman chassis was used in far more broader roles than the T34. Fast? The T34 gearbox issues were not solved untill 1943. They had to hammer the final drive with a hammer. Low silhouette sure, it also resulted in a very cramped tank. Reliable? You wish. Production standards varied So much you could have a decent tank or a nightmare. A good gun on paper, with very inconsistent ammo. And now the best one= Doesnt burst into flames. Are you kidding me? At the start of the war the M4 had the same burn ratio as any other tank. Because its the AMMO that burns, not the fuel. But US ammo burned relativly slow. And M4's had, spring loaded hatches for every crew member (well the earliest M4's lacked one for the loader it was added in 42). At the end of the war the M4 burn ratio dropped to 20% from 85. The PZIV & T34 remained the same, because their ammo was all over the hull and turret. And the T34 is incredibly cramped, is overloaded with ammo and has Horrible hatches. The Driver & hull gunner have this horrible design that takes forever to over and is heavy. The Commander & gunner faired a bit better but the loader had to exit last. Results= The M4 had a casualty ratio of 0.88 per tank. The T-34/85 has records thanks to the polish red guards= 1.88 per tank. And thats with the LARGE hatch T34's, wich means the more numerous T-34/76 suffered a WAY higher ratio. Panther tank had a very high crew fatality ratio aswel for the turret crew. There are plenty of video's on this, the chieftains 'omg the tank is on fire compilation" and the source for those stats are also in his video "myths of American armor", time stamp 37 minutes 20 seconds.
@@F4Wildcat wow! You have serious sand in your pants. The sherman chassis was used for a variety of mediocre armour, nothing to write home about. Slight upgrades on the American side and the firefly from the common wealth, that's the extent apart a recovery and artillery pieces. The tank hunters had even thinner armour, and i quote a crew member of a M10 Achilles " armour that if you lent on it hard wrote the tank off " end quote. Until the introduction of the wet, the sherman did light first time every time. Wafer thin armour that even a German 37mm could punch through at close range. I know enough about tanks and original crews too know no German tanker was ever worried about a sherman, apart from the Firefly, then it was first to go. As for original commonwealth crews I knew, they liked the sherman for ease of use but when something better came along they were more than happy to hand them to someone else. As for driving both, which I have, so from experience the sherman was easy to drive, but in the mind set that as I stated, thinking some hidden German gunner is aiming at you, big easy target. The T34/85 I've driven takes some getting used to, very much like all the vehicles of the time. Once you know the beast, it is a very capable piece of armour. That's my opinion, based on talking to the men that used the and fought against them, plus my personal experience driving them. So please calm down before you burst a blood vessel.
@Paul Waumsley Maybe, I'd imagine the stabilizer would help it out in the city though, plus by the time they met in Korea their guns could effectively go through eachothers armor, so I'm not sure how much a difference that would have made
People extremely underestimate the importance of US Lend-lease towards the USSR. The US sent over 11,000 Planes, over 6,000 Tanks and over 300,000 Logistical vehicles which significantly fixed the Logistical nightmare the Soviets were facing at the start of the war
And if the western allies hadn't provided aid to the USSR the war in the east might have gone very differently .
Most Soviet soldiers were not enthusiastic about the M 3 Lee and Aurocobra. as an example: the second name of the M 3 lee was "mass grave of six"
@@ДимаДима-ы9ч The USSR were quite fond of the Aerocobra. Most Soviet Aces even went so far as to call it the best Aircraft they've ever flew which was quite risky to say during Stalin's rein. The M3 Lee would've never been called a "mass grave of six" as the M3 Lee had a crew of 7. Instead it would've been called "a Coffin for Seven Brothers" however I was unable to find an actual source for that claim, although it is true that the Soviets didn't like the M3 Lee.
However the soviets did like a bunch of other Vehicles that were brought in via lend-lease, like the Valentine, the Matilda II, the M4A2, the M3 Half track, the Spitfire, theGMC CCKW 6x6 truck, the jeep, the list goes on...
Even General Zhukov admitted had it not been for American food supplies they'd of all starved to death. He was having to survive on spam for awhile which says something when a General is having to live on what your average grunt was.
You plagiarised, I searched if they did that on Google, and the response was the same word for word. However, as a person who was born in the US, and had parents who were raised in the USSR, I am glad that the two superpowers cooperated that well.
On production rates, the Shermans wre set to eclipse the t-34's until America realized they were going to win with what they had and then drastically cut down production in 44 and 45.
Interesting video, both tanks were built in great numbers and as such overwhelmed their respective battlefields against for the most part high quality opponents, I must admit to being a little surprised to seeing a number of M3 Lee/Grant tanks in your video’s when speaking about the M4 Sherman.
Yes haha. This is because there is only so much footage of Sherman tanks available for free or cheap enough for a TH-cam video. So some footage has to be of other vehicles unfortunately
Yes haha. This is because there is only so much footage of Sherman tanks available for free or cheap enough for a TH-cam video. So some footage has to be of other vehicles unfortunately
T34 is superior for number of reasons, sloped armor, lower silhouette, wider tracks, simpler wheels and suspension, and diesel fuel (less easy to burn). I'm a Sherman fan, but T34 was better. Tactics were another thing.
Extremely powerful gun??? What the hell had the panther, both Tigers, and some mechanized kanons then??? Prop schooters?
Sloped armour was not a new design. It had been known for years before.
I agree. France had the first sloped armed tanks.
@@neganrex5693but the first wide use of it was with the soviets
@@rabbaniazzahra1784 and?
it's still wrong information and spread of soviet propaganda
@@rabbaniazzahra1784
So France making hundreds doesn’t count
@@johnhenry4844Hundreds compared to tens of thousands
0:30 “sloping armour legend” I don’t know if this is just a small moniker to add in the intro or a reference to the myth the T-34’s use of sloped armour was revolutionary (perpetuated in normie circles typically)
Edit: 1:12 there are WWI tanks with sloping, and post WWI french tanks with 100% intentional sloping (I make that distinction since WWI examples *could* be debated). I hate to be that “aktually” guy but this isn’t true
Aktually aktually, his claim was that the T34 was the first tank that combined sloped armor with a 76mm gun that was effective against all armor that it initially faced. Is that not true?
I'd add the caveat that during Operation Barbarossa, the Fascists mainly fielded lighter tanks than the iconic Tigers and Panthers, which were developed later in large part as a response to the effectiveness of Soviet armor. Early in the war, it was Panzer II and Czech Pz.38t tanks, and StuGs, facing off against mainly obsolete models like the BT-7, with some more advanced tanks like the T-34, KV-1, and Panzer III occasionally in the mix. History regards the T-34 as a nasty surprise for the Germans, who lacked sufficient armor to resist the 76mm, and whose 37mm and 50mm guns were completely inadequate for penetrating the T-34.
The T-34 entered service over a year earlier than the Sherman, and going into production just in time for the Nazi invasion made all the difference.
Correction: T-34s were abundant, not "occasional" at the start of the war
Many Soviet tankers preferred the Sherman over the T-34.
Dmitry Fedorovich Loza (Russian: Дмитрий Фёдорович Лоза; 14 April 1922 - 22 May 2001) was a Ukrainian Red Army Colonel and Hero of the Soviet Union. He served as an Armor officer during World War II, fighting in the Vienna Offensive and in the Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation. Loza was awarded the title Hero of the Soviet Union for his leadership of a tank battalion in the Vienna Offensive. Postwar, he was a senior lecturer at the Frunze Military Academy before retiring from the Soviet Army in 1967.[1]
Just because the space inside is way larger, so it’s more comfortable
@normally1728 Not just more comfortable. More space means it's easier to escape when the tanks hit.
@@corey1054Smaller = harder to spot = harder to hit
@@rabbaniazzahra1784It really wasn't that smaller than the Sherman, so it wasnt that harder to hit. And once it got hit, you would rarely get out with a T-34.
Shermans vs T34?? Look at the korean war, bet you will find an answer there ;)
Those was T-85 tanks. A little more armor and a lot more kick.
@@neganrex5693And the Shermans defeated the T34s in most encounters.
@@tinman3586The Americans was on the run from T-85's until the M-26 made it to the battle. That was the Tank that changed the playing ground. The M-4 didn't have the punch for Korean tanks but the M-4 was a fine tank for the early part of WW-2. After that it was out classed and took out easy by most mid and heavy tanks.
@@neganrex5693 From info I found on interweb of a survey done after the war out of the 119 tank battle between T-34 and US tanks 97 t-34 tanks were destroyed with 50% coming from the M4 and 32% coming from M26.
@neganrex5693 During the start of the conflict, South Korean and Allied forces had only the M-24 light tanks, which couldn’t stand up to the T-34-85s. It was when heavier tanks like the M4A3E8 Shermans and M-26 Pershings (as well as British Centurions) arrived that changed the battlefield. The Pershing outmatched the T-34-85, but the Sherman was far more reliable while still having the firepower to kill North Korean tanks. The Pershing was eventually removed to be replaced by M4A3E8 Sherman and M47 Patton tanks.
Love the Lee footage for Sherman
Yes haha as you can imagine there isn’t a huge amount of footage / free to use footage of Sherman’s so some footage had to be of other vehicles
The Tank Museum's "Tank Chats" are well worth a watch for anyone interested in a bit more detail on these machines. Obviously 10 minutes to cover both doesn't do either tank justice. As for which was better... both were often "good enough" on the day, just with different strengths.
Yes they make great videos!
The T34 was revolutionary when it came out. The M4 was the superior vehicle though, far more reliable, better drivetrain, engine, and armor. The T34 had the better gun for anti-tank warfare until the 76.2 mm gun was put in the Sherman. Both classic tanks, the Sherman had the advantage of coming out later and being more modern (better optics, radio, etc). The engagements between Shermans and T-34s after WW2 showed the Sherman's superiority.
Lets not forget the stabilizer that most sherman tanks had
@@optic_wt True, it was a game changer.
11 years a go i had the chance to ride along in a T34 . Started in the front but after 5 minuts i hang out the turret . What s noice inside . IAfterwards I spent 2 days coughing up diesel soot and dust.
But is was a great experion
A small error in your presentation, you mentioned the Sherman M4A1 having a 76 mm gun, it had a 75mm gun.
There's a 76 version
i want to own a tank when im older
Good idea 😎
Subbed, seen Joe with his new gearbox part ya gave him!
Yes haha! He’s great
The M4 never, ever gets an even break. The T34/74 vs M4/75 cannons and calculated sloped armor protection were identical, (except US armor was better quality). The T34s ergonomics, reliablity and crew survivability compared to the M4s is laughable.
The main Soviet critique of the the M4 was it was too well built and too reliable to waste on a battlefield. As a result, they generally used their Lend-Lease M4s to train their tank crews.
Y'all have to get another T34 for the museum.
Definitely!
The Sherman has sloped armor.
and More Armor
M4 was first developed in 1943 and saw combat in early 1944, T-34 was made in 1939, mass produced in mid 1940 and saw combat in 1941, later stronger variant of the sherman as said in the video is around 1944, while T-34-57 starts in 1943 and T-34-85 starts in 1944
T-34=Better suited for direct tank vs. tank fighting
Sherman=Better suited for a larger variety of combat roles
for god's sake, slow down. You're not delivering the legal information at the end of an insurance ad. That aside, great video.
M4 was first developed in 1943 and saw combat in early 1944, T-34 was made in 1939, mass produced in mid 1940 and saw combat in 1941, later stronger variant of the sherman as said in the video is around 1944, while T-34-57 starts in 1943 and T-34-85 starts in 1944
Little Willie in 1915 was the 1st tank & the 1st to incorporate to have sloped armour in it's construction.
Even the British Valentine, Churchill (A22), Cromwell (A27M), and Comet I (A34) all had sloped armour which these 4 tanks made up 1/2 of all British conventional tank production.
Matilda II & some of the early war British tanks had sloped armour.
What is really impressive about the T34 is over 84,000 made with decent enough, armour, mobility & gun.
Even if it had issues 269,500 rubbles to eventually 135,000 at the end of the war is cheap for what they got.
converted that is $2700 to later $1379 roughly.
The Cheapest Sherman M4 was just over $40,000 in 1945 with most expensive M4A6 at over $64,000.
Cost is the Reason all the world post ww2 purchased T34 then later T55 the most built tank in human history to date.
I'd prefer a Sherman M4 unless I'm the one paying for it as fvck that give me T34 out of the 2 tanks in question.
You can easily 30 T34's for the price of 1 M4 Sherman & i don't think a M4 will defeat 10 T34's at a 3rd the price.
German Field Marshall Paul Ludwig Ewald von Kleist ''The finest tank in the world''
Heinz Guderian described the T34 as ''vastly superior'' to German tank doctrine who he shouted & spoke out against Adolph many times for his poor decision concerning tanks.
German called M4's ''Ronsons'' as a pun on the slogan “lights every time.
Tommy-Kocher=Tommy cooker referred to the ww1 cooking stoves & how Tommie/British would be lit a blaze in a Sherman M4.
Personally the M4 Sherman was an amazing tank in 1942 in north Africa & Sicily-south Italy but by 1944 post D-day it's age was showing & countless modifications-upgrades by both Britain & the USA only managed to keep it competitive.
T-34 was not perfect but it was the perfect tank for what the Russians needed on the 'Great European Plain'.
Sherman M3 was an all rounder suited to the global use but that had a compromise / price to be paid.
This video is ridiculous!
Guderian said that earlier in the war, when Germany didn’t even have anything to counter the T-34.
The slogan “lights up every time” was not used until the 50s. The Nicknames were the result of big fires caused by ammunition fires, but they blamed it on the fuel.
They cut corners to make the T-34 cheaper, leaving many without seats, lights, mismatched road wheels, etc.
Shermans and T-34s did fight each other in Korea and the Middle East in the 60s-70s both times the Sherman came out on top.
@@brennanleadbetter9708I put that down to the competence of Israel crews then the M4 Sherman being superior to the T34.
T 72's are proofing to be slightly better suited then USA Assets & German armour being a joke.
I see USA tanks as product of their military doctrine as a global army since roughly mid ww2 were the USA was gradually gifted over global hegemony from the British empire.
M4 Sherman is modest reliable tank in large numbers but has it's limitations.
T34 on was made for one reason of mass mobilization for only environment being the flat vast plains & steppes of the former USSR.
T34 & M4 Sherman are comparable in numbers produced but the similarity & purpose ends there.
I have been to Eastern Europe & central Asia.
I would favour a T34 for such unusual flat expanse.
Sherman M4 is a jack of all but master of non.
Served the allies well being in desperate need of armour as British resources & welding were preoccupied air & sea construction.
Tanks are 1 part industrial warfare & I can think of dozen thing more crucial from the top of my head with 1st being air as no aerial recon, Aerial Support, interception & Close air support for a start you have already lost the war.
I rather a good enough cheap like the Russians have before neglecting more important assets.
Only the USA has ludicrous amount of money to throw about at problems & even they have limit to their national funds.
USA extensive capital & population historically could allow them to suffer the greatest defeats in history on both sea & land like pearl harbour & the battle of big horn.
The USA's strength is not it's mediocre military & arms but it's immense Domestic industrial capacity it sold much of over seas.
USA pride has always been a problem & it clouds their judgement as your corrupt politicians sell your country by the dollar much like how my nation is sold by the pound but mine are at least aware of it resisting were we can as a public.
Shermans size was partly dictated by need to transport in Liberty ships. Therefore had to build a little high. T34 did wonderfully given that factories had to be torn down shipped east, and built using a lot of ad hoc suppliers in the Urals. The later versions of both were radically improved, for example decent transmissions for T34. Early Sherman’s weren’t liked in Russia because ammunition was poorly protected and would cook off. Also treads had to be reworked widened, for Russian mud and snow conditions. Inherent visibility/sighting problems of T34 compared with Shermans. If T34 had had universal decent radio communications they would have been vastly more effective in many situations, coordination, contact with superiors, outside range observers, etc. if 76 mm guns had been introduced AND ADOPTED by armored units, Sherman would have been more effective near end of war. In Italy during last year of war the 76 mm variants were integrated 1 to 3 75 mm variants in combat units vs German Armor. The 76 mm varieties had a slew of other improvements also. Apparently this compromise was very popular with troops/ ammunition could otherwise be a problem. Added knockout power for group available when needed.
They actually faced each other during the Korean War and the Sherman wrecked them.
Wrecked Korean crewed t 34s export shitty versions maybe ,with Soviet guard elite it would have been different
@@kurtman752Not much. You realize that a lot of the soldiers fighting in Korea were also new recruits right?
@@kurtman752cope lol
Great Commentary & Comparison(s);
Which was better?
The T34 is over-rated, the M4 was under-rated.
The M4 was, overall, a Much-Better platform in All Aspects / Respects; versatility, adaptability, reliability, ergonomics, surviveability, capability and longevity!!
Says an American
@@Charles-k9g5y
He’s not wrong though
At least some of the footage here is of the M3 Lee.
I have my faith in American design. Just look at the Thompson and Garand.
I love the weapons of each country, what you listed for America I like, but then their was the STG-44 from the Germans, and the PPsH-41 for the Soviets that are also really good
If I had to have a Sherman tank it would be the one built by the British with a 17 pounder anti tank gun. You can actually see the difference between the tank destroyer and the infantry support vehicle with it 75 mm. I gave up trying to watch this clip so they might talk about the Firefly rather than watching footage of a General Grant.
A number of... Interesting but common errors and misconceptions are made especially about the T-34
Forgive me for this rant I will make
There's a decent video that goes into much more detail than a youtube comment would provide, it's by lazerpig, go give it a watch even if you're skeptical
Source for all of this info stems from the American review of the T-34 in the Aberdeen proving grounds report, of which was written by a soviet tank engineer sent with the tank wrote that report.
-The gun
The gun was known to be... Not exactly "accurate" or reliable and while the gunner's sights were pretty good, the rest of the viewports were at best barely usable if not completely useless. I will add on though with a grain of salt that apparently the supplied apcr ammunition had a nasty habit of misfiring.
-The mobility
The tank on *paper* had a high top speed but the godawful transmission required a crowbar to effectively shift into gear 3, and shifting into gear 4 was nigh impossible without potentially breaking the gear lever. Combined with the godawful Christie suspension, which aside from flat roads is absolutely awful for any real means of moving, provided not only terrible stability, took up large amounts of already precious space inside the very cramped tank, but also would limit the vehicle to about 10-12moh off-road and on road provided you could get to 3rd gear, maybe 20mph. The engine itself couldn't run for longer than about 50km range without it breaking somewhere, this happened with both the non filter and late/post war filter variants.
-The cost/simplicity
The T-34 when manufactured to American standards should be about the same cost as the M4 Sherman.It was for it's time somewhat sophisticated and somewhat complex actually. The thing people get mixed up is factories intentionally took a number of variably important things off the tank to speed up production to meet quotas, hence why you get T-34s with poorly spot-welded armour and missing lights and seats.
-The Armour
The armour was sloped yes, but it wasnt the first. Just about every tank uses sloped armor in some fashion somewhere. It increases the effectiveness of armor but decreases available room inside of vehicles. The t-34 is notoriously cramped and this is the main reason why. Additionally the armor was treated to an incredibly high level, to the point the armor was about as hard and brittle as ceramic glass. This meant shells hitting it would fracture plates, causing the armor to spell even if a shell didn't penetrate. Combined with poor welds, this led to armor plates occasionally just.. falling off or separating enough to compromise the already questionable survivability of the t-34.
Much of the issue with the T-34 ultimately came to production though, with factories doing everything they could to get them out. It is a decent design, but the sheer amount of defects it commonly had, not to mention the flaws of the tank itself makes it... Quite shit
-turning the tide of the war
The T-34 was encountered in thousands in the opening weeks of operation Barbarossa, the tide changing is much more complex and out of the scope of this comment though.
Tldr I'd rather have a Sherman any day over a T-34
An excellent summary. It has to be said though that General Guderian was full of praise for the T34, rightly recognising that when used well it was easily a match (or more than) for his Panzer IIIs and IVs. The variable build quality and poor ergonomics of the T34 would still have found me picking a Sherman if I'd had to be tank crew and was given the choice.
Lazerpig has been proven to be a cherry picking unreliable piece of crap...even in this video that made him go viral he got couple of mistakes there is a reddit post that dives deep into the errors in the video problem is his video has tainted the reputation of the t34 giving it way too much crap
Was that a clip of 'Sahara'?
Only 57,000 t-34s were made during ww2 compared to 50,000 Sherman’s during ww2 so I’d say the Sherman Tank was more important during ww2 since it saw combat in all theaters
Yes Russian made those tanks while being invaded while Americans were safe at home while making their tanks.
Both the M4 Sherman and T34 were medium mass produced tanks but that's where the similarities end. In my opinion the Sherman was definitely the superior of the two. While the Soviets were desperate to build tanks as fast as possible Americans had the advantages of security from the Axis Powers and the larger industrial bases making for increasing improvements to the M4 and all its capabilities and upgrades really gave it the edge. The T34 was really built to survive only a few combat missions and was very crude in construction. The Soviets just needed tanks and made a lot of cost cutting measures to mass produced the tank at the expense of crew survival comfort and reliability. In North Korea during the Korean War M4 Shermans easily destroyed T34s at a ratio of 5 to 1. It really depended on who shot first. Most of the time the Sherman won because it could shoot on the move and had the better optics and rate of fire.
Platform stability was on later variants. It was realized just as D day loomed that lots of units had never been trained to use the new stabilizers, and thought they didn’t work. Was a terrible botch on implementation of replacement upgrades, and the ignorance, understandably, went right up the line affecting tactical decisions-what is it possible for my men to achieve with this equipment?
Speaking of world war 2 tanks do you own a tiger 1 because they are very rare if working with only one in the world still 100% functional so it would be cool if you did a restoring of one if you have one
Not yet! I hope that one day we do haha
SHERMAN WAS BETTTER T 34 JUNK
Шерман худший плохой... Т-34 легендарный лучший танк второй мировой войне. Т-34 это мощный чем Шерман...
Remember: germans also made tiger 1s panthers and a bunch more nazi weapons
The t-34 looks but ugly.
Tiger claps t34
classic American
@@nfs123nfs12I’m not American
I'm going to answer this as if i need to choose one to go to war.
The T34 would win hands down. Highly versatile tank, fast, low silhouette, reliable, a good gun and doesn't burst into flames when someone looks at it.
They're both pretty maneuverable though, and the Sherman's short stop stabilizer would give it an advantage in a good amount of situations
Then you know nothing about tanks. Versatile? The M4 sherman chassis was used in far more broader roles than the T34. Fast? The T34 gearbox issues were not solved untill 1943. They had to hammer the final drive with a hammer. Low silhouette sure, it also resulted in a very cramped tank. Reliable? You wish. Production standards varied So much you could have a decent tank or a nightmare. A good gun on paper, with very inconsistent ammo.
And now the best one= Doesnt burst into flames. Are you kidding me?
At the start of the war the M4 had the same burn ratio as any other tank. Because its the AMMO that burns, not the fuel. But US ammo burned relativly slow. And M4's had, spring loaded hatches for every crew member (well the earliest M4's lacked one for the loader it was added in 42). At the end of the war the M4 burn ratio dropped to 20% from 85. The PZIV & T34 remained the same, because their ammo was all over the hull and turret.
And the T34 is incredibly cramped, is overloaded with ammo and has Horrible hatches. The Driver & hull gunner have this horrible design that takes forever to over and is heavy. The Commander & gunner faired a bit better but the loader had to exit last.
Results= The M4 had a casualty ratio of 0.88 per tank. The T-34/85 has records thanks to the polish red guards= 1.88 per tank. And thats with the LARGE hatch T34's, wich means the more numerous T-34/76 suffered a WAY higher ratio. Panther tank had a very high crew fatality ratio aswel for the turret crew.
There are plenty of video's on this, the chieftains 'omg the tank is on fire compilation" and the source for those stats are also in his video "myths of American armor", time stamp 37 minutes 20 seconds.
@@F4Wildcat wow! You have serious sand in your pants. The sherman chassis was used for a variety of mediocre armour, nothing to write home about. Slight upgrades on the American side and the firefly from the common wealth, that's the extent apart a recovery and artillery pieces. The tank hunters had even thinner armour, and i quote a crew member of a M10 Achilles " armour that if you lent on it hard wrote the tank off " end quote. Until the introduction of the wet, the sherman did light first time every time. Wafer thin armour that even a German 37mm could punch through at close range. I know enough about tanks and original crews too know no German tanker was ever worried about a sherman, apart from the Firefly, then it was first to go. As for original commonwealth crews I knew, they liked the sherman for ease of use but when something better came along they were more than happy to hand them to someone else. As for driving both, which I have, so from experience the sherman was easy to drive, but in the mind set that as I stated, thinking some hidden German gunner is aiming at you, big easy target. The T34/85 I've driven takes some getting used to, very much like all the vehicles of the time. Once you know the beast, it is a very capable piece of armour.
That's my opinion, based on talking to the men that used the and fought against them, plus my personal experience driving them.
So please calm down before you burst a blood vessel.
@@DJ_Monkey246 very much so, but the T34 hight and armour give it the advantage in that quarter.
@Paul Waumsley Maybe, I'd imagine the stabilizer would help it out in the city though, plus by the time they met in Korea their guns could effectively go through eachothers armor, so I'm not sure how much a difference that would have made
No American forces at El Alamain
But that’s where the Sherman was first used
British lend lease M4s were used before US troops were actually deployed. Britain simply called it the "Sherman 1, 2, 3" so on.
lol go back to your basement kid