I respectfully disagree. There's nothing that can't be fixed on a Sherman because no one can afford to lose a tank. It's often joked: German tank and crew unexpendable, US tank expendable crew unexpendable, USSR tank and crew expendable. While the US produced a lot of tanks, they had the highest quality tanks. Any part fit anywhere. Much care was taken that everything worked perfectly. Similar to the Germans. Only the Germans toiled over it by hand instead of using tools. Artisans instead of assembly lines. Russians were brutally efficient. Many American tanks are still functioning with original parts. Complex is not advanced. The Spicer gearbox (and stabilizer) are amazing examples of this. Syncromesh, Herringbone, Semi-automatic transmission. 43 gallon lubricant. Longest lasting transmission. Price is no object under martial law. Only time and in a command economy price can be whatever is chosen. None of the countries in WWII had a price for tanks. Only material and time. The Spicer was fast, easy, well understood, advanced, and ergonomic. You can say little of that of the contemporary transmissions. This small transmission drove most of the US tanks of incredibly varying weights which says a lot about it's ruggedness. 3rd Armored Division has 232 shermans on D-Day. By Berlin 648 destroyed, 700 knocked out, and all repaired ready for combat 1348+ tanks refurbished 1580 total 580% loss rate
Both have some distinct advantages over each other,such as the Sherman having stabilizer and having more machine guns,and the T-34 having better frontal armor and a better gun,but when it comes down to it,both are almost equally matched.
Firepower- equal The E8 makes a cleaner AP performance while the t-34 has more explosive filling Durability- equal Their frontal armor is good. Even if the t-34 looks to have better frontal armor on paper, it is crudely made. Speed- T-34 Optics- E8 Logistics- E8 Overall historical combat peformance- E8
@@anushmikael2540 first off, both tanks gave slopped armour, second both tanks faced Panthers and Tigers, third T 34s were killed in the dozens just like the Shermans, fourth the Sherman did have better optics, fifth the Sherman was much more reliable and had better build quality
So yes, the T-34 was invented and manufactured deep inside the Soviet Motherland but the factories had been built by American architects and engineers, and much of the machinery had been imported from America in the 1930s
In the Korean war, the Sherman was prefered over it succesor; the Pershing. Why? Better mobility. The Sherman had better optics then the T34/85. And the North Koreans did not know how to use the T34/85 to maximum effect.
T-34-85 and M4A3E8 Sherman were both balanced, but the T-34-85 had its issues, the Sherman Easy Eight does have a way morw better optics than the T-34-85 and yeah the Americans knew how to fight in a tank, North Koreans were not tank people so they didn't really know how to use big weaponry that were from the Soviets
caif4 So yes, the T-34 was invented and manufactured deep inside the Soviet Motherland but the factories had been built by American architects and engineers, and much of the machinery had been imported from America in the 1930s. That sir is literally a fact, and I’ll provide sources if wanted.
So yes, the T-34 was invented and manufactured deep inside the Soviet Motherland but the factories had been built by American architects and engineers, and much of the machinery had been imported from America in the 1930s
I believe the Sherman is the best tank of WW2, Sure the T34 and Panzer 4 may be easy to produce and the Tiger and Panther may be mighty, but the Sherman, was reliable, easy to use and could mount basically anything
The T-34 and M4 are essentially equals, in all but one regard, and it's the aspect that everyone seems to overlook. The interior Compared to the T-34, the M4 was a dream to operate. The T-34s sloped armor may have been great at keeping shells out, but it caused the tank to be cramped on the interior, while the Sherman had plenty of room. The crew hatches are another big one. The T-34's hatches were horrendous. They were placed in inconvenient places and took too long to get open. M4 hatches were right above each crew member and were spring loaded, meaning you press something and it flies open. Much of the time whenever the Soviets got the chance, they would trade their T-34s for Shermans.
I have a big problem with all the Shermans having rapid burnouts and exploding easily. For tanks on all sides, rapid burn outs and explosions were from the way they stored their ammo, not from gasoline or diesel, and the 2nd gen shermans like the Easy 8 model changed their ammo storage system, reducing rapid burnouts massively while the T-34 was not upgraded in this way. In fact, the T-34 was just as prone to rapid burnout/blowing up as the early shermans were, and because they were so cramped it was harder to escape, so for US tanks, when hit, on average 3 of 5 crew members made it out alive while on T-34's, only 1 in 5 crewmen made it out alive. Also, when those tanks actually fought each other in Korea, the results were 49 T-34's destroyed in return for 8 shermans.
I agree with most of what you say, the Sherman was an excellent tank and the T34 was tough to escape from. But as for the clashes in the Korean war you also have to look at overall army quality. The US army was better than the North Korean. Training, tactics, communications, command and coordination would all have been superior for the US. That would have played a massive part of the lop sided loss rate. Put the Shermans in North Korean hands and the T-34 in the US hands and everyone would be saying see the T-34 is better. The Sherman had the edge because of gun stabilizer and wet stowwage, but in basic design I think the two were equal.
Shermans wrecked T-34s in the Korean War because the U.S. Army had better training, leadership, logistics, pretty much better everything. It's not because the Sherman was a better tank.
Maxim Chintalov T-34 where built on American machines, not soviet ones. Have you ever researched deep into the history of the T-34? Stalin actually hired Americans in the 30’s to come in and help with the T-34
Well it looks like the outcome was similar to the one I suggested in the Pershing video. Though I'm puzzled how the T-34 was bouncing shots to the front so often, a clean hit to the front by the 76mm should have gone straight through most of the time.
cnlbenmc Shells in general in this game seem to bounce to much. No idea why. I mean one time a KV-1 bounced a long 88 shot from my Tiger 2, while IRL the shot should have just cut trought the armour like it was paper.
Both Sherman's and T 34s were designed to be cheap and easy to manufacture but also effective. It would a close match up but my edge would go to the T 34. The T 34 was produced far more than the Sherman and took down way more panzers.
And if u put Shermans as the side who will rush against T-34-85, Shermans will be totally annihilated. Attackers always gets more damage than defenders
Not entirely true. The outcome of attackers over defenders are heavily dependent on pretty much everything. Attackers don't really need numbers that much, but you still kinda need to due to: -Enemy reinforcements -The momentum of your attack -If you need to capture a vital area to advance Defenders can mainly relax in their positions in general due the aforementioned circumstances above, but they often have much worse reaction times as they have to move when attackers drop a bridge on them. In general, it highly depends on the situation Easy 8s duking it out in elevated terrain will most likely stop T-34-85s in their tracks or catch them off guard as the Easy 8s simply have superior gun depression and reliability while vice versa with them in the in lowlands where the T-34-85's strengths are justified
In real life, both of these Tanks will win on the open fields in any environment depends on the Crew's experience and morale. A Sherman E8 and a T-34 are equally matched.
@@tantainguyen4290 yeah but angling isn't as easily achieved in real combat, especially with unskilled crew like the chinese and Koreans. The shermans wiped the floor with t34s in korea
The M4A3E8 Sherman outperformed the T-34/85 in Korea. Sherman and T-34 were comparable tanks, both could penetrate the other (with Sherman having better armor penetration due to HVAP) at normal engagement ranges. But deciding factor was: Sherman had better optics and fire control systems so higher chance of hitting the T-34 first. North Korean tankers were very well trained. Their T-34s had dominated first part of the war because the Allies only had M24 Chaffee light tanks deployed. When Shermans and Pershings arrived it was over with the T-34 domination and it was nicknamed the caviar can. Shermans were roughtly comparable to T-34. M26 vs T-34 battles were very very one-sided in favor of the M26.
You can't say the E8 is superior just because they did better in Nkorea. The Nkorean crews were no where as well trained as the American and they also had inferior tactics. They were always rushing without proper scouting making them easy to be killed by ambushing Sherman. The 85mm gun has much more explosives mass making it superior to support infantry. Also, the Sherman only has 38mm of side armor so it can even be penetrated by the Japanese 47mm guns.
I have no idea about the game, but IRL the main advantage the EZ 8 had was its ability to fire on the move because of its stabilization and "Eazy" ride. That, a better Commander's coupala, improved parascopes, wet ammo storage, ease of maintenance thru easy access and modular design, the availability of additional armor mods, impoved main gun, flame tanks, dowser tanks, anti mine chain whip tanks, rocket tanks, Cullen rhino attachments to overcome hedgerowes, amphibious tanks, the ability to take a variety of engines, greater main gun elevation, more reliable, higher quality, stronger welds and a full time gunner and TC. Over 50,000 total, over several variants, produced in 3 years, and used by the English, French, Chinese and Russians. And of course the U.S. Ya. The Sherman M4 Medium tank had A LOT to offer. Especially when fully upgraded.
The original sides showed a back and forth 2/3 M4 T-34. When swapped, the M4 was the clear winner being 3 and 0. This suggests that the side the M4 swapped to had the clear advantage. Overall it's a clear Sherman victory. I'm not sure how it's a T-34 victory ^^;
During the Korean War, each t-34-85 had a ammunition base of 5 rounds and the crew could only fire 2 rounds during training, which is why the t-34-85 lost to E8 in the battle. there.
When the Soviets invaded Japanese held Manchuria they asked US to ship 300 Sherman’s to Vladivostok as that was easier that shipping all the Soviet armor from Europe on the Trans-Siberian Railroad. T-34’s did serve in big numbers but the Russian correctly realized Japanese armor, compared to German tanks, was pretty puny. Sherman’s were more than enough.
The Maximum Gamer Maybe for the early Sherman variations, but around the end of the war the new Sherman variants proved to be some of the best tanks in the war.
T-34 is the most overrated weapon in human history. Sloped armor that made it proof against the smallest early war German guns like the 37mm and the 50mm. The T34/76 had half of the turret armor of an early M4A1 and its F-34 gun was just as useless on the front of panthers and tigers as was the 75mm M3. Inferior automotive components, atrocious cramped interior that led to very low survival rates when penetrated compared to the Sherman.
Bad tactics, poor or no supporting arms, no recon,inappropriate terrain, inexperienced crew, bad leadership/orders, political restraints, low morale, lucky shot, equipment malfunction and on and on.
Ironically the video was fairly accurate overall, save for the rather head-scratching conclusion. The E8s won every battle when they switched sides but the T-34s lost one when they had the favorable side. That's not a T-34 victory at all. However, onto the vehicles. The T-34 and M4A3E8 are roughly equals and the one with the better position would win, assuming both had equally skilled crews. The M4A3E8 had slight advantages in every regard: Slightly thicker armor (effectively speaking with sloping and layering taken into account, not enough to matter), slightly better armor penetration (not enough to matter much), it was a much more reliable vehicle (not important to the provided scenario), it wasn't nearly as cramped as the T-34-85 meaning smoother operation and less crew fatigue, the shells were lighter meaning the crew could reload faster and with less effort, and the main gun was stabilized unlike the T-34-85. Yeah the M4A3E8 had a lot of small edges but functionally they were equal in the two factors that mattered in such close combat. Armor and armor penetration were nearly identical with only slight edges to the M4A3E8.
All I want is a Korean war game with these vehicles engaging each other. One of the wars where American and Soviet vehicles from World War 2 opposed each other. And that firefight at the end was unexpected but pretty cool. Because it was so common it's easy to forget just how big and powerful the 85mm gun actually was, against tanks like this it's fairly potent. Only 3 mm short of the 88.
Soviet tanks in ww2 were very narrow compared with American tanks. It gave tank crews way bigger combat stress and fatigue. More over firing rate, FCS and mechanical reliability of t-34 were worse than m4. In tank warfare, armor thickness and ammo size are not all. See to the fact that in middle eastern war, Arab’s tank crews had a hard time for keeping up the long lasting tank warfare with soviet tanks.
Hey... plz say T-34 or t-34 next time not just T34 cause the T34 would win every time if you know what it is... (the T34 is from the T29 project and has a 120 mm cannon)
Mike Gerringer anyone with knowledge of this subject, T34 and T-34 are 2 comepletely different machines, the T34 was a US prototype, and the T-34 was a shitty excuse for a tank that was mass produced and weren't even welded together properly
no one really cares and nor have they heard of this obscure prototype that the us made while i have heard of the prototype the T34 that is more commonly known is the Russian T34, and all you are really accomplishing is making your self look like a know it all.
@@wolverines5279 a know it all? Why are you even here if you don't know simple things such as T34 and T-34 are very different. Stop being ignorant and try to learn for once
the battle results all stated that it was E8's clear victory though....out of three times, E8 won out on all of them. The conclusion is merely speculation of what didn't happen. In truth the T-34 or most Russian tanks at the time had to rush up to close range, otherwise they are simply not accurate.
You have T-34-85 with 85mm gun accordingly. Is non canonial version of T-34. This upgrade model was join in army in middle of 1944, and join in war's action in the wnd of 1944. This tanks do not have a radiostation in each machine, only in a command tank... T-34-85 is do not have some optical aim.. only polished metal detail in the ocular. In fact his was blind in the battle area. Sure, Sharman have tall body, but is nit enough for T-34-85 in the significant interval.
chelsea esperance actually, This cannon could be even better than it was. Unfortunately, there were problems with the shells quality, it was poor. It is pretty understandable, you know, if you lose several millions civilians, big amount of them were qualified workers, it is obvious that you will have some problems with quality...
Using the standard ap rounds and at a 90 degree slope, the t34/85's gun could penetrate around 107mm of armor at a range of 1km, beyond that distance penetration was reduced significantly but it was unlikely for the t34 to put a shot on a tank anyway because its gun was inaccurate at long range. By comparison the tiger's gun using the standard apcbc could penetrate up to 138mm of armor at a range of 1km, and 116mm at 2km, and given the fact that the tank had also superior optics it meant that it could frontaly penetrate most allied tanks at a range of 2km. With the use of the apcr rounds (which were usually in short supply) muzzle velocity, and penetration ability were even higher. Keep in mind that in combat conditions it was difficult for both tanks to engage targets at very long range. Any comparison with the panther's higher muzzle velocity gun is also false.
@@maisonraider4593 Russian and German optics were on par with each other. I've also never seen any real proof that either the D5t or S53 were inaccurate.
This was inaccurate because both tanks would not have any shells bouncing off their main guns would easily penetrate each other’s armor it would be a matter of who shot first
Should have been a Russian victory ... all Shermans destroyed with 6 - 8 T34-85s remaining. The T34 has an edge in just about every category. The only edge the Americans had was they were better organized and had radios in their tanks for better communication.
Actually no it doesn't, The M1A2 76mm gun has roughly the same penetration as 85mm and the T34-85s hull was never up armored, its 45mm front hull sloped is only effective ~88mm. The Shermans hull is also equal to 90mm of RHA.
I agree with carl. The T-34 was also built as a crude tank (the russian command even said they want it to so they could spend less and get more) it was only good in paper really.
yeah....There is also the accuracy problem. While it is true that the Soviet union could probably field more, the counter is that the United States can field enough Shermans to off set that. That means that the Soviet union would have A SIGNIFICANTLY harder time overwhelming the Americans with numbers cause the Americans has an UNTOUCHED logistics production center, while the Russians do not. Another thing is to consider that the T-34 had quality issues. While on paper it sounds great, but in actuality, its armor was crudely made, there were several weak points at random sometimes, the crew survivaibility wasn't really a factor....so if you lose a tank crew....yu lose a tank crew...that means you not only lose the tank, but the experience one would get from getting shot. Their shells also had production and quality issues, making them less effective than what would be theoretically. There is also optics....the Americans simply had better optics....Between the two, the Americans would excel at long range combat. Simply because the Russians would have A TOUGH TOUGH TIME hitting back....the Russian tank optics simply was trying to send as much round down range before you get hit, hoping to hit something.
@@carlvanlugpin9984 wrong, the T34 has better explosives mass so it's better when support infantry. The myth about the Russian having crude armor is also false, it may have been true in the early variants but not after 1942. Besides, t34 armor is better sloped making it easier to bounce shots, and with the Sherman having only 38mm of side armor, it could even be taken out by anti-tank rifles or medium caliber anti-air gun which is pathetic.
I love tanks, especially German armour, that said I am no expert. Would any gunner, without the benefit of a gyro stabilised gun even attempt to hit a moving target, especially if his tank was also moving??????
The T-34 could be easily destroyed by the same German guns as the Sherman. The T34/76 was just as useless against the front armor of tigers and panthers as was the Sherman. The Shermans engine and transmission was VASTLY superior. The Sherman had a much higher survival rate during armor penetration. Don't believe the "top10" video bullshit.
Все это вранье, Т-34-85, на голову превосходит по своим техническим характеристикам "Шерман"... У Т-34-85 и орудие мощнее и броня под более рациональными углами наклона и профиль ниже и ходовая часть более надежная. "Шерман" же, очень высокий, орудие слабоватое, проходимость у него не на высоте... Так, что показатели у него хуже, чем у Т-34-85... Поэтому не нужно так откровенно лгать. "Шерман" не когда не был хорошим танком. И не идет не в какое сравнение не с Т-34-85, не с "Пантерой" немецким средним танком...
T34tank front hull armor had 60mm thickness and not 45.T34s had 45 untill 1942. After they upgraded their hull. T34/85 had a much better gun and korean war proved that cause only M26 tanks could fight T34s with good results. Shermans was slitly better than PZ IVs i mean the Last version of Shermans and not those M4s with the 75mm main gun.
Por mas que no te guste, el Sherman fue un excelente tanque, y ya con el problema de la municion solucionado, tenia el mejor ratio de supervivencia de la tripulacion.
@@gonzalodrew7626 Amigo, es simple estadistica, a mi me gustan mas los tanques rusos, porlomenos de la segunda guerra mundial, pero el Sherman siendo tan inseguro es solo un mito, cuando la verdad es todo lo contrario.
In Korea the Sherman had a 2:1 kill / loss ratio against the t-34/85 but interestingly the newer M48 had a 3:2 advantage . Check out the Mark Felton episode here on You Tube.
It wouldnt. It may shake the crew, but it wouldn't kill them generaly speaking. 152mm may be big, but when you're using munitions from WW2 against modern armor? Not to mention your average caliber guns for modern MBTs are 120/125mm, which are superior to KV-2's 152 when it comes to tank combat Also that's assuming you actually hit the Abrams, when the Abrams is gonna be dishing out hurt accurately while moving at longer range (by hurt, I mean one shot kills)
Battle of the expendables
I have all of these tanks and I must fight.
I hoped for theSherman tanks to win and they wonI’m surprised they won
Its cold war
USA M4 Sherman
USSR T-34
I respectfully disagree. There's nothing that can't be fixed on a Sherman because no one can afford to lose a tank. It's often joked: German tank and crew unexpendable, US tank expendable crew unexpendable, USSR tank and crew expendable. While the US produced a lot of tanks, they had the highest quality tanks. Any part fit anywhere. Much care was taken that everything worked perfectly. Similar to the Germans. Only the Germans toiled over it by hand instead of using tools. Artisans instead of assembly lines. Russians were brutally efficient. Many American tanks are still functioning with original parts. Complex is not advanced. The Spicer gearbox (and stabilizer) are amazing examples of this. Syncromesh, Herringbone, Semi-automatic transmission. 43 gallon lubricant. Longest lasting transmission. Price is no object under martial law. Only time and in a command economy price can be whatever is chosen. None of the countries in WWII had a price for tanks. Only material and time. The Spicer was fast, easy, well understood, advanced, and ergonomic. You can say little of that of the contemporary transmissions. This small transmission drove most of the US tanks of incredibly varying weights which says a lot about it's ruggedness.
3rd Armored Division has 232 shermans on D-Day. By Berlin 648 destroyed, 700 knocked out, and all repaired ready for combat
1348+ tanks refurbished 1580 total 580% loss rate
Both have some distinct advantages over each other,such as the Sherman having stabilizer and having more machine guns,and the T-34 having better frontal armor and a better gun,but when it comes down to it,both are almost equally matched.
Firepower- equal
The E8 makes a cleaner AP performance while the t-34 has more explosive filling
Durability- equal
Their frontal armor is good. Even if the t-34 looks to have better frontal armor on paper, it is crudely made.
Speed- T-34
Optics- E8
Logistics- E8
Overall historical combat peformance- E8
sherman is also more reliable
@@СнежныйДжони And safer.
Benjamin Jestel thx to wet stowage, preventing fires into their tanks
@@anushmikael2540 first off, both tanks gave slopped armour, second both tanks faced Panthers and Tigers, third T 34s were killed in the dozens just like the Shermans, fourth the Sherman did have better optics, fifth the Sherman was much more reliable and had better build quality
Ooooooh I like the new camera angles
So yes, the T-34 was invented and manufactured deep inside the Soviet Motherland but the factories had been built by American architects and engineers, and much of the machinery had been imported from America in the 1930s
In the Korean war, the Sherman was prefered over it succesor; the Pershing. Why? Better mobility. The Sherman had better optics then the T34/85. And the North Koreans did not know how to use the T34/85 to maximum effect.
The T-34 wasnt even built to be used in full effect in the first place
Sherman did not have better optics. The US claimed Soviet optics were best in the world
@@caif4 Total bullshit, I've actually looked through the optics of an M4A1 and it's a damn sight better than any junk the Soviets could muster up.
T-34-85 and M4A3E8 Sherman were both balanced, but the T-34-85 had its issues, the Sherman Easy Eight does have a way morw better optics than the T-34-85 and yeah the Americans knew how to fight in a tank, North Koreans were not tank people so they didn't really know how to use big weaponry that were from the Soviets
caif4 So yes, the T-34 was invented and manufactured deep inside the Soviet Motherland but the factories had been built by American architects and engineers, and much of the machinery had been imported from America in the 1930s. That sir is literally a fact, and I’ll provide sources if wanted.
So yes, the T-34 was invented and manufactured deep inside the Soviet Motherland but the factories had been built by American architects and engineers, and much of the machinery had been imported from America in the 1930s
The suspension design was American
Even without the things america brought to the ussr, the ussr would still have gotten the materials it was only a matter of time.
Россия заплатила за это золотом как и за ссаный ленд лиз с 1943 года когда победа пошла за Россией.
I believe the Sherman is the best tank of WW2, Sure the T34 and Panzer 4 may be easy to produce and the Tiger and Panther may be mighty, but the Sherman, was reliable, easy to use and could mount basically anything
And it had the best crew survival ratings compared to most other tanks at the time.
The T-34 and M4 are essentially equals, in all but one regard, and it's the aspect that everyone seems to overlook. The interior
Compared to the T-34, the M4 was a dream to operate. The T-34s sloped armor may have been great at keeping shells out, but it caused the tank to be cramped on the interior, while the Sherman had plenty of room. The crew hatches are another big one. The T-34's hatches were horrendous. They were placed in inconvenient places and took too long to get open. M4 hatches were right above each crew member and were spring loaded, meaning you press something and it flies open. Much of the time whenever the Soviets got the chance, they would trade their T-34s for Shermans.
In T-34 u shown wrong weight. This version had increased weight to 31 tons because of turret and new gun mainly.
I have a big problem with all the Shermans having rapid burnouts and exploding easily. For tanks on all sides, rapid burn outs and explosions were from the way they stored their ammo, not from gasoline or diesel, and the 2nd gen shermans like the Easy 8 model changed their ammo storage system, reducing rapid burnouts massively while the T-34 was not upgraded in this way. In fact, the T-34 was just as prone to rapid burnout/blowing up as the early shermans were, and because they were so cramped it was harder to escape, so for US tanks, when hit, on average 3 of 5 crew members made it out alive while on T-34's, only 1 in 5 crewmen made it out alive. Also, when those tanks actually fought each other in Korea, the results were 49 T-34's destroyed in return for 8 shermans.
I agree with most of what you say, the Sherman was an excellent tank and the T34 was tough to escape from. But as for the clashes in the Korean war you also have to look at overall army quality. The US army was better than the North Korean. Training, tactics, communications, command and coordination would all have been superior for the US. That would have played a massive part of the lop sided loss rate. Put the Shermans in North Korean hands and the T-34 in the US hands and everyone would be saying see the T-34 is better.
The Sherman had the edge because of gun stabilizer and wet stowwage, but in basic design I think the two were equal.
Shermans wrecked T-34s in the Korean War because the U.S. Army had better training, leadership, logistics, pretty much better everything. It's not because the Sherman was a better tank.
Maxim Chintalov T-34 where built on American machines, not soviet ones. Have you ever researched deep into the history of the T-34? Stalin actually hired Americans in the 30’s to come in and help with the T-34
Maxim Chintalov also in 1943 the Soviets sent T-34 tanks to American proving grounds and hired American engineers to work out problems with the T-34.
Maxim Chintalov you would be amazed to know how much the Americans where involved with engineering the T-34 seriously
Well it looks like the outcome was similar to the one I suggested in the Pershing video. Though I'm puzzled how the T-34 was bouncing shots to the front so often, a clean hit to the front by the 76mm should have gone straight through most of the time.
cnlbenmc Shells in general in this game seem to bounce to much.
No idea why.
I mean one time a KV-1 bounced a long 88 shot from my Tiger 2, while IRL the shot should have just cut trought the armour like it was paper.
cnlbenmc its sloped
Just because its sloped doesnt mean it can bounce anything.
That is so over exaggerated its stupid, the T34s hull is proof against panzer iii 5cm gun and nothing higher.
The Sherman had problems against T34 85s in the Korean war.
Both Sherman's and T 34s were designed to be cheap and easy to manufacture but also effective.
It would a close match up but my edge would go to the T 34.
The T 34 was produced far more than the Sherman and took down way more panzers.
But the T34 can't match the M26 etc.
And if u put Shermans as the side who will rush against T-34-85, Shermans will be totally annihilated. Attackers always gets more damage than defenders
Not entirely true.
The outcome of attackers over defenders are heavily dependent on pretty much everything.
Attackers don't really need numbers that much, but you still kinda need to due to:
-Enemy reinforcements
-The momentum of your attack
-If you need to capture a vital area to advance
Defenders can mainly relax in their positions in general due the aforementioned circumstances above, but they often have much worse reaction times as they have to move when attackers drop a bridge on them.
In general, it highly depends on the situation
Easy 8s duking it out in elevated terrain will most likely stop T-34-85s in their tracks or catch them off guard as the Easy 8s simply have superior gun depression and reliability while vice versa with them in the in lowlands where the T-34-85's strengths are justified
Not really
@@ElkaPME the t 34 were fast as fuck ok
@@alvinpayus2552 but not a better tank than the sherman
In real life, both of these Tanks will win on the open fields in any environment depends on the Crew's experience and morale.
A Sherman E8 and a T-34 are equally matched.
SHERMANS ALL THE WAY!!!
That bouncy tank. That's why I love t-34 sometimes.
76 should go right through the front of a t34
@@angelcervantes6934 not if it was heavily angled at a long distance
@@tantainguyen4290 yeah but angling isn't as easily achieved in real combat, especially with unskilled crew like the chinese and Koreans. The shermans wiped the floor with t34s in korea
@@angelcervantes6934 well, I'm not talking about the crews here. Just the tank.
@@angelcervantes6934 M26s and aviation and bazook is what wiped the T34s ...
The M4A3E8 Sherman outperformed the T-34/85 in Korea. Sherman and T-34 were comparable tanks, both could penetrate the other (with Sherman having better armor penetration due to HVAP) at normal engagement ranges.
But deciding factor was: Sherman had better optics and fire control systems so higher chance of hitting the T-34 first.
North Korean tankers were very well trained. Their T-34s had dominated first part of the war because the Allies only had M24 Chaffee light tanks deployed. When Shermans and Pershings arrived it was over with the T-34 domination and it was nicknamed the caviar can.
Shermans were roughtly comparable to T-34.
M26 vs T-34 battles were very very one-sided in favor of the M26.
You can't say the E8 is superior just because they did better in Nkorea. The Nkorean crews were no where as well trained as the American and they also had inferior tactics. They were always rushing without proper scouting making them easy to be killed by ambushing Sherman.
The 85mm gun has much more explosives mass making it superior to support infantry. Also, the Sherman only has 38mm of side armor so it can even be penetrated by the Japanese 47mm guns.
You got any suggestion for future episode whether it's an idea or what ever, then let me know!
WarfareGaming artillery vs german fort ;3
WarfareGaming
Russian tank battalion vs 13 Maus tanks
Bt5-7 VS anti tank gun (light) 😍
T-44-100 vs M26
WarfareGaming hello!!!in November I wrote to you, to do something about Russian Revolution...think about it again...thank you anyway!!
0:38 "Some say the best tank of WW2" I never know that was the nickname of the tank XD
I have no idea about the game, but IRL the main advantage the EZ 8 had was its ability to fire on the move because of its stabilization and "Eazy" ride. That, a better Commander's coupala, improved parascopes, wet ammo storage, ease of maintenance thru easy access and modular design, the availability of additional armor mods, impoved main gun, flame tanks, dowser tanks, anti mine chain whip tanks, rocket tanks, Cullen rhino attachments to overcome hedgerowes, amphibious tanks, the ability to take a variety of engines, greater main gun elevation, more reliable, higher quality, stronger welds and a full time gunner and TC. Over 50,000 total, over several variants, produced in 3 years, and used by the English, French, Chinese and Russians. And of course the U.S. Ya. The Sherman M4 Medium tank had A LOT to offer. Especially when fully upgraded.
The original sides showed a back and forth 2/3 M4 T-34. When swapped, the M4 was the clear winner being 3 and 0. This suggests that the side the M4 swapped to had the clear advantage. Overall it's a clear Sherman victory. I'm not sure how it's a T-34 victory ^^;
By the way Korean war T-34/85 went up against M4A3E8s
The t34s were wiped out , so some research
That doesn’t prove the t34 is worse
During the Korean War, each t-34-85 had a ammunition base of 5 rounds and the crew could only fire 2 rounds during training, which is why the t-34-85 lost to E8 in the battle. there.
3:17 - Hard to catch it during the transition, but if you pay close attention, you can see the Sherman tank commander get domed by a 76mm AP shell.
When the Soviets invaded Japanese held Manchuria they asked US to ship 300 Sherman’s to Vladivostok as that was easier that shipping all the Soviet armor from Europe on the Trans-Siberian Railroad. T-34’s did serve in big numbers but the Russian correctly realized Japanese armor, compared to German tanks, was pretty puny. Sherman’s were more than enough.
i dont know if this is moduled in the game. but the T-34 -85 APHE have the same TNT equivalent of the Tiger II shell wish is leathel
And the Sherman 76 ha an APHECBC round ,the M62 round
LEGENDARY T-34-85 VS COMMON SHERMAN 76MM
Fury vs Rudy
You see a tank: PANIK
Its a Sherman: kalm
Brad Pitt was there: PANIK
That’s stupid
4:05 Russian Bias confirmed
Stick Master500 not bias. Just T-34 superiority
Everyone knows Sherman’s were the wrong tank in that war. Worse tank of ww2. That’s what the USA army generals said. Not us. Fact
The Maximum Gamer Maybe for the early Sherman variations, but around the end of the war the new Sherman variants proved to be some of the best tanks in the war.
T-34 is the most overrated weapon in human history. Sloped armor that made it proof against the smallest early war German guns like the 37mm and the 50mm. The T34/76 had half of the turret armor of an early M4A1 and its F-34 gun was just as useless on the front of panthers and tigers as was the 75mm M3. Inferior automotive components, atrocious cramped interior that led to very low survival rates when penetrated compared to the Sherman.
sherman only good bc of speed and communication russian t 34 said to be best tank in ww2 (i think it German tiger though
For a second there, I thought Sherman Calliope where going up against M4s
Callsign-YukiMizuki LOL
Rocket bias, they'll stop them cold, lul
Very funny !
If T-34/85 is weak like that!
How could it beat M48 Patton in Cyprus?
post war tanks doesn't had a lot of armor on the side and rear and get easily penetrated even by early ww2 weapons in those era.
Bad tactics, poor or no supporting arms, no recon,inappropriate terrain, inexperienced crew, bad leadership/orders, political restraints, low morale, lucky shot, equipment malfunction and on and on.
Hideri-chan couse its fucking good
David Rico its very funny couse us fanboys dont say that when we speak about korea and the gulf war
Didnt the t34-85 won 3 out of 5?
WOW that was close lol
To be honest am a big fan of this two tanks but im more of a Sherman type Sherman tank I just love em
Now do 30 Sherman and 30 T34s vs 20 tigers
Come on...I admire your work very much and I must say that there's no sherman in front of a T34...
Calliope?
no hay t 34 sobre sherman el sherman era mas fiable confiable comodo capacidad de reparacion alta
Communications would have given the Shermans a decisive edge.
“We’re all gonna die!”
come on sherman
Like=t-34 forever!
Ironically the video was fairly accurate overall, save for the rather head-scratching conclusion. The E8s won every battle when they switched sides but the T-34s lost one when they had the favorable side. That's not a T-34 victory at all.
However, onto the vehicles. The T-34 and M4A3E8 are roughly equals and the one with the better position would win, assuming both had equally skilled crews. The M4A3E8 had slight advantages in every regard: Slightly thicker armor (effectively speaking with sloping and layering taken into account, not enough to matter), slightly better armor penetration (not enough to matter much), it was a much more reliable vehicle (not important to the provided scenario), it wasn't nearly as cramped as the T-34-85 meaning smoother operation and less crew fatigue, the shells were lighter meaning the crew could reload faster and with less effort, and the main gun was stabilized unlike the T-34-85.
Yeah the M4A3E8 had a lot of small edges but functionally they were equal in the two factors that mattered in such close combat. Armor and armor penetration were nearly identical with only slight edges to the M4A3E8.
In real life the t-34/85 was better than Sherman
All I want is a Korean war game with these vehicles engaging each other. One of the wars where American and Soviet vehicles from World War 2 opposed each other. And that firefight at the end was unexpected but pretty cool.
Because it was so common it's easy to forget just how big and powerful the 85mm gun actually was, against tanks like this it's fairly potent. Only 3 mm short of the 88.
Soviet tanks in ww2 were very narrow compared with American tanks. It gave tank crews way bigger combat stress and fatigue. More over firing rate, FCS and mechanical reliability of t-34 were worse than m4. In tank warfare, armor thickness and ammo size are not all. See to the fact that in middle eastern war, Arab’s tank crews had a hard time for keeping up the long lasting tank warfare with soviet tanks.
Посмотришь-так Шерман супер-танк просто. И Тиграм башни срывает, и тридцатьчетверкам. Одно слово-"Ярость".
Should of had them both move but them Sherman had an early form of stabalizer
Stalinium rounds
John Erel Macahilig Correction. HVHEATAAFS Rounds.(High velocity, High explosive, Anti tank, Anti aircraft, Fin stabilized)
Tortoise vs Maus
100 T-34’s vs 1 Abrams
a BT-2 can penetrate even abrams at back
Panthers are laughing
The music reminds me of airline commander music
Hey... plz say T-34 or t-34 next time not just T34 cause the T34 would win every time if you know what it is... (the T34 is from the T29 project and has a 120 mm cannon)
Who fuckin cares guy?
Mike Gerringer anyone with knowledge of this subject, T34 and T-34 are 2 comepletely different machines, the T34 was a US prototype, and the T-34 was a shitty excuse for a tank that was mass produced and weren't even welded together properly
no one really cares and nor have they heard of this obscure prototype that the us made while i have heard of the prototype the T34 that is more commonly known is the Russian T34, and all you are really accomplishing is making your self look like a know it all.
Wolverines 527 my point exactly
@@wolverines5279 a know it all? Why are you even here if you don't know simple things such as T34 and T-34 are very different. Stop being ignorant and try to learn for once
How about 20 super Pershings vs 30 Pershings
Don't forget that a t34 is half the cost of a Sherman, a 30 vs 60 battle would've been far more balanced
Although T-34 won most if the time as seen in battle results
+greekmarine
This notion is based on what exactly?
Nathan Peterson In the end of the video
+greekmarine
My apologies. The "battle results" made me think you were trying to apply this game's very questionable results to real life.
the battle results all stated that it was E8's clear victory though....out of three times, E8 won out on all of them. The conclusion is merely speculation of what didn't happen. In truth the T-34 or most Russian tanks at the time had to rush up to close range, otherwise they are simply not accurate.
At first when I saw the title I thought it was T 74s versus Sherman's then I looked again and it said t-34s.
Stronk Sherman tenk confirmed.
I was hoping for the 76mm T-34 vs the 75mm Sherman and I think the title should have clarified the variation of the tanks
t34 would quickly knock out a Sherman tank....I know a Sherman tank could knock out a KV1 or t34....it depends on the experience of the crew.
That was a close one
You have T-34-85 with 85mm gun accordingly. Is non canonial version of T-34. This upgrade model was join in army in middle of 1944, and join in war's action in the wnd of 1944. This tanks do not have a radiostation in each machine, only in a command tank... T-34-85 is do not have some optical aim.. only polished metal detail in the ocular. In fact his was blind in the battle area. Sure, Sharman have tall body, but is nit enough for T-34-85 in the significant interval.
Наши победили!
с победой
Erwin Rommel спасибо герр Роммель, кстати рад видеть русскоязычных на этом канале.
German Empire ага
Глеб Бегунов и тебе привет рускоязычный БРАТ! Поздравляю с победой русского оружия!
+German Empire в вар тандаре у этих бы шерманов пукан давным давно б улетел на луну от советской вертухи
Historical? Of course T-34/85. I mean, dude they had 85mm guns almost perfect match for tiger's 88mm.. almost.. 😂
chelsea esperance actually, This cannon could be even better than it was. Unfortunately, there were problems with the shells quality, it was poor. It is pretty understandable, you know, if you lose several millions civilians, big amount of them were qualified workers, it is obvious that you will have some problems with quality...
chelsea esperance Whats your point?
Using the standard ap rounds and at a 90 degree slope, the t34/85's gun could penetrate around 107mm of armor at a range of 1km, beyond that distance penetration was reduced significantly but it was unlikely for the t34 to put a shot on a tank anyway because its gun was inaccurate at long range. By comparison the tiger's gun using the standard apcbc could penetrate up to 138mm of armor at a range of 1km, and 116mm at 2km, and given the fact that the tank had also superior optics it meant that it could frontaly penetrate most allied tanks at a range of 2km. With the use of the apcr rounds (which were usually in short supply) muzzle velocity, and penetration ability were even higher. Keep in mind that in combat conditions it was difficult for both tanks to engage targets at very long range.
Any comparison with the panther's higher muzzle velocity gun is also false.
Παναγιώτης Κάραλης D-5T, as well as ZiS-C-53, was a very good gun, even with production problems
@@maisonraider4593 Russian and German optics were on par with each other. I've also never seen any real proof that either the D5t or S53 were inaccurate.
The Sherman has better range
This was inaccurate because both tanks would not have any shells bouncing off their main guns would easily penetrate each other’s armor it would be a matter of who shot first
should be close..pather would beat either though
Should have been a Russian victory ... all Shermans destroyed with 6 - 8 T34-85s remaining. The T34 has an edge in just about every category. The only edge the Americans had was they were better organized and had radios in their tanks for better communication.
Actually no it doesn't, The M1A2 76mm gun has roughly the same penetration as 85mm and the T34-85s hull was never up armored, its 45mm front hull sloped is only effective ~88mm. The Shermans hull is also equal to 90mm of RHA.
I agree with carl. The T-34 was also built as a crude tank (the russian command even said they want it to so they could spend less and get more) it was only good in paper really.
also sherman has stab
yeah....There is also the accuracy problem. While it is true that the Soviet union could probably field more, the counter is that the United States can field enough Shermans to off set that. That means that the Soviet union would have A SIGNIFICANTLY harder time overwhelming the Americans with numbers cause the Americans has an UNTOUCHED logistics production center, while the Russians do not.
Another thing is to consider that the T-34 had quality issues. While on paper it sounds great, but in actuality, its armor was crudely made, there were several weak points at random sometimes, the crew survivaibility wasn't really a factor....so if you lose a tank crew....yu lose a tank crew...that means you not only lose the tank, but the experience one would get from getting shot. Their shells also had production and quality issues, making them less effective than what would be theoretically.
There is also optics....the Americans simply had better optics....Between the two, the Americans would excel at long range combat. Simply because the Russians would have A TOUGH TOUGH TIME hitting back....the Russian tank optics simply was trying to send as much round down range before you get hit, hoping to hit something.
@@carlvanlugpin9984 wrong, the T34 has better explosives mass so it's better when support infantry. The myth about the Russian having crude armor is also false, it may have been true in the early variants but not after 1942. Besides, t34 armor is better sloped making it easier to bounce shots, and with the Sherman having only 38mm of side armor, it could even be taken out by anti-tank rifles or medium caliber anti-air gun which is pathetic.
Churchill vs KV-1
Rare video of coldwar in wwII
Do 10 pershing vs 10 IS-2
repicmi IS-2 mod 1944?
Yeah, could be interesting
but Pershings cant go threw the IS-2 1944 upper plate
Poor pershings, a late era IS-2 is really something more than a tiger
I love tanks, especially German armour, that said I am no expert. Would any gunner, without the benefit of a gyro stabilised gun even attempt to hit a moving target, especially if his tank was also moving??????
what about make equal battle? I mean like both would charge and nobody just rush or defending. That's more comparable.
Do 1000 Abrams vs 1 ZSU-57-2.
USA: Slow and Study.
USSR: RUSSSSHHHHHHHHHH.
America!!!
T-90 VS abrams?
This ist true the Shermans were bouncing so many time this is a video game that not very real.
Haha cheap Russian thicc armor tanks go brrrrrrrttrrt
Let’s be real. We all know the Sherman’s were the wrong tank in that war. Worse than in that war. By far
What are you on about?
The T-34 could be easily destroyed by the same German guns as the Sherman. The T34/76 was just as useless against the front armor of tigers and panthers as was the Sherman. The Shermans engine and transmission was VASTLY superior. The Sherman had a much higher survival rate during armor penetration. Don't believe the "top10" video bullshit.
3:09 Ho-ho-holy shit
shermans were the superior tank , korea proved it
its the NK Korean crew and NK T-34 if Sherman fight real soviet T-34 and the crew it will be massive destruction
76 mm bouncing on the front of a 45 mm armor? I know it's angled but...
Nice vid anyway
Все это вранье, Т-34-85, на голову превосходит по своим техническим характеристикам "Шерман"... У Т-34-85 и орудие мощнее и броня под более рациональными углами наклона и профиль ниже и ходовая часть более надежная. "Шерман" же, очень высокий, орудие слабоватое, проходимость у него не на высоте... Так, что показатели у него хуже, чем у Т-34-85... Поэтому не нужно так откровенно лгать. "Шерман" не когда не был хорошим танком. И не идет не в какое сравнение не с Т-34-85, не с "Пантерой" немецким средним танком...
T34tank front hull armor had 60mm thickness and not 45.T34s had 45 untill 1942. After they upgraded their hull. T34/85 had a much better gun and korean war proved that cause only M26 tanks could fight T34s with good results. Shermans was slitly better than PZ IVs i mean the Last version of Shermans and not those M4s with the 75mm main gun.
m4a1 76, m4a3e3 76, etc better what t-34
Why didnt the shermans call in airsupport
Same with ussr
Wow he listened 2 me
And why shermans stay?)...
"T-34 would have won if they didn't rush" Just like the sherman... I don't see how the t-34 is better
T34 would defenitly win
And the soviet power? I thik the T-34 win
Though you make awful videos about esstern front (no offence), this one was... magnificent, great job!
Wasmn't that the T-34-85?
Sherman? Jajaja él encendedor de la segunda guerra mundial jajaja
Por mas que no te guste, el Sherman fue un excelente tanque, y ya con el problema de la municion solucionado, tenia el mejor ratio de supervivencia de la tripulacion.
@@gonzalodrew7626 Amigo, es simple estadistica, a mi me gustan mas los tanques rusos, porlomenos de la segunda guerra mundial, pero el Sherman siendo tan inseguro es solo un mito, cuando la verdad es todo lo contrario.
Él sherman es y seguirá siendo una lata
@@gonzalodrew7626 bro pero quien ha ganado aquí el Sherman jajajajajaja
Do 100 Sherman's vs 100 Panzer Mk4 H's
T34 are superior with speed and 20 degree sloped armor with enough firepower to take out a E8
Where did you get 20 degrees from? thats not even close to the actual angle.
Do Lav 25 vs BTR90
40 jumbos vs 20 kingtigers
While the e8 has superior armor and equal firepower but lacks in speed so pls add the sherman jumbo
Lacks in speed how?
Superior armor = kinda but not really
Equal firepower = no...
Lacking in speed = a negligible difference
yes penetration between the two guns is about the same with more explosive filler in the 85mm.
The t-34 runs about 50 kph
The E8 is in the 40 range
don't forget the Easy 8's apcr
T34 vs Tiger 1 has uno de esos dos enfrentándose
Love these videos. I got men of war: assult squad 2 just so I could do these. I don't know how to make battles like these. S.O.S?
Not what happened in korean war
Yea Sherman's cleaned the floor with t34s
In Korea the Sherman had a 2:1 kill / loss ratio against the t-34/85 but interestingly the newer M48 had a 3:2 advantage . Check out the Mark Felton episode here on You Tube.
lol only in games, reality the outcome would be completely different
10 KV-2s VS 1 M1 Abrams!
RIP KV-2 four times over
Callsign-YukiMizuki But the shockwave alone could kill the crew due to the massive high explosive shell it fires
It wouldnt. It may shake the crew, but it wouldn't kill them generaly speaking. 152mm may be big, but when you're using munitions from WW2 against modern armor? Not to mention your average caliber guns for modern MBTs are 120/125mm, which are superior to KV-2's 152 when it comes to tank combat
Also that's assuming you actually hit the Abrams, when the Abrams is gonna be dishing out hurt accurately while moving at longer range (by hurt, I mean one shot kills)
Callsign-YukiMizuki Yeah. I heard stories of KV-2s knocking out crews in WWII due to the shockwave from the shell.
It's understandable if it's from WW2 since armor back then weren't as effective as they are today