Quote:
Originally Posted by Kikaifan
Soviet optics, while not as good as German, were serviceable. Their real problem was lack of gunner position in the 34/76's 2-man turret and generally rushed crew training.
|
Not just optics, the T-34 is well known for poor visuals & cramped crew space. Even the best trained crew had difficulties operating within the confinements of the T-34.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kikaifan
While the Sherman was in most respects superior to the early model T-34s (T-34 still had better power-to-weight and wider tracks and so could handle worse ground), it also began production 2 years later, nothing by modern development standards but a lifetime during the rapid development cycles of WWII. Besides it's production numbers the T-34 is most notable simple for how ahead of its time it was.
|
Superior system in terms of reliability, materials and
soft equipment such as availability of radios, increased space & overall better visuals/optics made Sherman a better machine. Many T-34 battalions lacked cohesion and effective communication, thus contributing significantly to a great number of them being lost on the field.
As for production numbers, the Sherman series were produced in comparable numbers to the T-34, and the United States only started producing Shermans in 1942, or two years after Operation Barbarossa, where T-34s were already in service.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmic Eagle
You cannot compare the M4 to T-34 in terms of armour. And weapon-wise, T-34/85 was produced in much greater numbers than Firefly. The common Sherman cannot compare to the T-34/85 which was also fielded in increasing numbers towards the end of the war
|
But I wasn't comparing armor. I was comparing accessories, reliability and superiority of materials. The T-34 was not as reliable as people thought it was. Many were rushed productions, and lacked the quality control of the M4 series.
- Tak