Comments by "Horatio82" (@horatio8213) on "TIKhistory" channel.

  1.  @michaelwier1222  False... you didn't even check sources.
    1
  2.  @RussianThunderrr  Most fighting was done by man with rifle and artillery, tanks and planes still do much but not that much alone. Big numbers of T-34 starts showing into 2nd half of 1942, before that this tank didn't do so much in war effort. Before that T-60 was the most common tank of Red Army. Peak of efficency was done in 1943, later only big numbers give that tank significant. "Well, hmmbeef, there is a good reason why Soviets experimented with additional frontal armor on earlier T-34 tanks, but decided that it would be a lot more prudent to increase caliber of the main gun to the size of Tiger I, which will enhance not only its fighting capability of fighting other tanks, but also infantry support(Tiger I was excellent infantry support tank, while Tiger II was more of the tank destroyer), while remaining the most agile tank on the battlefield, turret armor also increased in T-34-85 where it matter." Soviets make huge mistake when they put that big hatch for driver in frontal armor! Sherman armor didn't have this weakness. First that was big target for AT guns( even 50 mm Pak 38 could penetrate or just shatter this hatch), second that mean armor is much more weaker because this big hole in plate. Next,original 2 man turret was dissaster, changed later into T34/85. Yes T-34/85 was good tank but still not that good in many ways like Sherman with 76mm. T-34 was so problematic that in 1941 Soviets made decision to skip it to modernisation called T-34M (A43). Basicly T-34 with few conceptions taken from tested in this time Panzer III. Much better tank in 1944/1945 for Red Army was IS-2 (probaly version with 100mm gun was much better option but they decide to 122mm), T-34 was produced because putting any new tank into soviet industry will take too much time, that's why they produce what they can. Also when Tiger II was tested in Kubinka soviet trails conclude that in comparisoin, AT ammunition of 75mm and 76mm of shermans was better in ratio 1.5 to soviet 76.2mm and 85mm (look on documents from trails). I think you downplay Cheiftan video, because he shown reasons why Sherman was such a good weapon. In any aspect Sherman was worse then T-34, if you take overall quality of production and reabilty T-34 was lesser evile for Soviets. Because A43 was much better tank, in some way T-44 can appear in early 1944 as a evolution of it. But Stalin decide othervise, becuse he didn't belive in option of creating new good quality tank before 1944.
    1
  3.  @RussianThunderrr  I'm refering to that you claim that Soviets weren't in any way impressed by Shermans when they compare to T-34. You really stand on claim that T-34 had better armor? If you take only turret in T-34/85 that is true. Frontal armor of Shermans didn't had big hole for hatch. Side plate of T-34 didn't in any way protect better than armor of Sherman and that way take lot of internal space. That way after WW2 noone use that design, even Soviets. Bigger hull give more space for crew and equipment. Better radio set in Shermans, T-34 for long time have problem with having any radio. Low quality of war production T-34 was legendary, basicly after WW2 USSR start general modernisation and repairs of T-34. Many times you need hammer to use gearbox in T-34. Falling rubber bandages were also problem in T-34, not only in M4. Yes Sherman wasn't perfect tank but was in bigger picture better and more modern tank then T-34. About difference in size: https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-cUTT98A0jQ4/V-CHYv5fVLI/AAAAAAAB3RI/XQ85Q-4bECIjXvwGJVUrqON0-aE_TZftwCLcB/s1600/Sherman_tank_worldwartwo.filminspector.com_6.jpg I saw both tanks standing near to eachother. In reality only hull of T-34 is lower but whole tank is similar in size to Sherman. Big thing you just don't speak is that Sherman and T-34 armor didn't protected against germans guns 7.5 or 8.8cm. That why M26 and IS series were developed.
    1
  4.  @RussianThunderrr  That is simple to anwser. In 1941 T-34 was in low numbers in Red Army (subjective because RA use in this time around 26000 tanks) and most of them were lost. After Barbarossa and evacuation of industry and blockade of Leningrad, soviet industry didn't produce large numbers of T-34. Just in 2nd half of 1942 production was set and start fast rise to large numbers. That mean that to this time most fighting was done by other models and T-60 was most produced model in this time. Easy to check.
    1
  5.  @RussianThunderrr  Just check history of development A43. And history of development of T-34 is well documented, later in war production and modernisation is problematic to folow. In case of A43, that was final product of early development of T-34. That was tank with 3 man turret, turret with coupola, torsion bar suspension. And lot of other changes taken from test with Panzer III vs early T-34 done before Barbarossa. If you look on T-50 development you can see how this trails influence soviet design before Barbarossa. T-34, T-50 and KW were new "triplex" for Red Army. If you look on specification of IS it was more like Panther, weight, protection, mobility, only arrament was unusual. But in many ways IS was rathee medium or even MBT in conception. Traditional doctrine of nameing tanks was problematic for tanks like Panther, IS and M26. This three were point of road to MBT. In this term Panther also should be named as a hevy tank.
    1
  6.  @RussianThunderrr  Yes T-34 was important tank, but before 2nd part of 1942 didn't put on front that many tanks. In numbers Lend Lease tanks, ealier soviet models and T-60 were main force in RKKA. Later when production in mew fqctories on Ural starts beeing significant T-34 start replecing this mix. Earlier low production and high lossew keep this number very low. T-34 star to beeing main tank into 1942/1943. Charkov was lost in first month of war and productiom have to be set in different places. Later problems with war losess and production push to production T-60, not T-34.
    1
  7.  @RussianThunderrr  But also Leningrad was important in cooperation chain to whole soviet tank production. Not only KW.
    1
  8.  @RussianThunderrr  Two man turret was problematic in many ways. Not only as a gun mout. First commander didn't have good vision, second he have to operate gun, command and try do all other important stuff in the same time. That why A43 get new turret. M4 from start was with 5 man crew and 3 man turret. Early models were wothout coupola but that change fast. Next thing is that Sherman hull give much more space than hull of T-34. Cost of sloped side armor.
    1
  9.  @RussianThunderrr  Frontal armor of T-34 had big hole (driver hatch), that mean that all advantages of sloped armore was nullified. You cant cut plate whitout make it weaker. In case of side armor, sloppeing even 45 mm plate didn't protect better against guns up from 50mm. That was effective against 3.7 cm, nothing more. Panther with similar plate was underprotected there.
    1
  10.  @RussianThunderrr  Have you ever been inside both tanks? In Sherman you have space to work and operate. Inside of T-34 you have not that much space left after you out ammo. Just proper work space in T-34 was luxury that crew never get. This is typical for soviet tank design school. That is why soviet tanks were smaller then western designs. Not mention how fast in T-34 crew have to open hatches to ventilate tank. About slopped armor, Germans didnt use it because of transmition they use in their tanks and problems with space. They change attitiude after they saw T-34 in action.
    1
  11.  @RussianThunderrr  Look maybe you will understand my point when i say that T-34 in 1940/1941 was as a design one of best tank in the world. But still not the best. When I wrote about it I compare to contemporary designs. Soviets in 1941 tested Panzer III vs T-34. After test only in two points Pz III was worse then T-34. Armor protection and gun. That why deep modernization A43 was planned. But Barbarossa make it impossiable. Sherman was later design, which take at count many things that designers of T-34 didn't know earlier. Frontal slopped armor wasn't so much new concept. But slopped sides were mistake. That way you lose much of internal volume of space whithout any significant change in armor protection. Side plate are to thin to make the difference.
    1
  12.  @RussianThunderrr  1. All claim about "better range, a lot faster and more maneuverable tank" are based on catalouge values of T-34, not real life perfomance. Faulty transmition, weak gearbox cause that war production T-34/76 never get close to speed and maneverabilty that was possiable with W2 engine. Reality was that soviet production standards make T-34 unreliable as a vehicle. You can't finde it in soviet books because of censorship, after 1991 we can check that in soviet war documents and that was a shock for T-34 fanboys. 2) Poor communication inside and outside. Each M4 get radio and internal communication. That was key in cooperation on battlefield! T-34 have no communication for whole crew, you just use own voice. Radio only in 20% of tanks! 3) 5 crewmembers can work much more effective, than 4 in T-34.They spot enemy faster, fire ratio is much higher and coordinatin thanks to communication advantage was in Sherman on higher level. 4) Both tanks ( M4A2 vs T-34/76 model 1942) frontal armor was around 90mm effectivnes (slope and relative thickness, quality of steel), but in T-34 you have huge hole with driver hatch. No such weakness in Sherman. Then which plate is better? I'm sure that M4 is in advantage here. Side plates, yes T-34 with slope armore have some advantage. But in reality guns like Pak 38 5cm and Pak 40/ Kwk40 7.5 cm didn't have any problems with penetration. Reality is that M4 and T-34 side plates were match for 37mm guns,even Panther have this problem with it's 40,, side plates. 5) Main guns were tested by Red Army and conclusion was that M3 75mm is better as a AT gun than F32 gun from T-34 in ratio 1.5 to 1. Check raport from Kubinka about fire test against Tiger II. 6)Here you will get information about trails between T-34 and Panzer III. Conclusion is up to you. "[....] летом 1940 года над Т-34 начали сгущаться тучи. Дело в том, что на полигон в Кубинку поступили два танка Pz-III Ausf.G, купленные в Германии после подписания пакта о ненападении. Результаты сравнительных испытаний немецкого танка и Т-34 оказались неутешительными для советской боевой машины. Т-34 превосходил «тройку» по вооружению и броневой защите, уступая по ряду других показателей. Pz-III имел трехместную башню, в которой были достаточно комфортные условия для боевой работы членов экипажа. Командир имел удобную башенку, обеспечивавшую ему прекрасный обзор, у всех членов экипажа имелись собственные приборы внутренней связи. В башне же Т-34 с трудом размещались два танкиста, один из которых выполнял функции не только наводчика, но и командира танка, а в ряде случаев и командира подразделения. Внутренней связью обеспечивались только два члена экипажа из четырех — командир танка и механик-водитель. Немецкая машина превзошла Т-34 и по плавности хода, она оказалась и менее шумной — при максимальной скорости движения Pz-III было слышно за 150 — 200 м, а Т-34 — за 450–500 м. Полной неожиданностью для наших военных явилось и превосходство «немца» в скорости. На гравийном шоссе Кубинка-Репище Pz-III разогнался на мерном километре до скорости 69,7 км/ч, в то время как лучший показатель для Т-34 составил 48,2 км/ч. Выделенный же в качестве эталона БТ-7 на колесах развил только 68,1 км/ч. В отчете об испытаниях отмечались и более удачная подвеска немецкого танка, высокое качество оптических приборов, удобное размещение боекомплекта и радиостанции, надежные двигатель и трансмиссия." Source: http://www.battlefield.ru/t34/stranitsa-4-razvitie-t-34.html That was reason why A43 /T-34M was designed. Whole problem with T-34 is that on paper is a great tank. But in reality quality production, bad layout, crew coordination inside and other problems cause that from good design you get weak and less effective tank.
    1
  13.  @nks406  "As for early shermans, they had cast hulls and gigantic "shoot me here" bulges for the driver and the radio operator, and they also lacked a turret hatch for the loader, not a very impressive design if you also consider that the manufacturing process for the sherman was much more expensive than for the T-34 which is a very similar tank in overall capabilities. " "Weak hull" as you named it, when both welded and casted hulls were similar in protection, casted were just thicker to compansate to welded. Hatches were on top of hull in any way making frontal armor weaker. In T-34 that was huge hatch in front plate. That make it less effective than any Sherman's. There is no way to make plate whit big hole as much tough like full plate. Also in any way Sherman was more expensive than T-34. You can't just claim that from air. Cost is based on numbers, workforce and material cost. If that was so expensive why was build in such large numbers like T-34? http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/data/sherman_production.html In comparison you have T-34 numbers. Not that impessive if you know whole picture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_combat_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II. "As for petrol, it is in fact a weakness especially when compared to the less flammable diesel which is harder to ignite. There is a reason why many cold war era tanks with diesel fuel had conforming ammo racks filled up with diesel effectively creating wetracks. " Reason why diesel is dominating is not because it is "is harder to ignite", because that is not true. Temperatures and surrounding elements in tank cause fire whatever iquid fuel you use. First lubricants start fire, do soviet diesel use other "fire resistant" lubricants? Next you have high temperature shell hitting hot surfaces of engine and fuel, enough ro ignate even diesel. You really don't know nothing about how fire starts in tank after hit. Plus statistic of destroyed tanks do not support your claim. Most of them were burned, but Shermans wasn't in any way worse in that T-34. M4A2 burn the same like T-34, both use diesel. Ammo storage and lubricants was main cause of fire, not gas or oil. "As for wet ammo stowage, they came a bit late to be really relevant, although if the ammunition didnt detonate from a direct hit, it could give a real chance for the crew to escape." That was point of using them, protecting life of crew members. Also this modification was use from February 1944 and was easy to implement in line tanks. That was important because most fighting Sherman did in West Europe into 1944/1945 and that modification did good job. Then not much irrrelevant as you claim.Easier is replace tank than crewman. Different than in USSR, where life of soldier didn't have value for commanders.
    1
  14.  @RussianThunderrr  Ok, let me give you few example of tanks with spoled armor build before T-34: FCM36 Souma S35 Christie prototypes in USA Char B1bis M2 medium tanks That is evidence that sloped armor is well konw conception before T-34. In realty that conception was taken from naval warfer. Nothing revolutinary in that. M4 for all production time keep high standards of quality and field usage. No big mechanic problems there.T-34 before T34/85 model was unreliable mechanically because of soviet standars in industry and maitance. Even in T-34/85 gearbox was weakest part of tank.That was first change in post-war modification. You really try to spin facts. I wrote about trails in Kubinka when they shoot to captured Tuger II. They use whole arsenal of tank and AT guns. F32 from T-34/76 was worse than 75mm M3 from Sherman. Proably that was caused by worse quality of ammunition, next problem with soviet production. L11 wasn't tested ther because in this time noone use it. That was effects of soviet trails, then no bias against F32! But the same effects were observed when american 76mm M1A1 gun was comapred to soviet 85 mm DT5 was used. Using standard (taken from production line) AT ammunition soviet guns have lower effectivness n comparision to US produced guns and ammunition. Problem with discusing with you is that you try skip contradiction in your statments. T-34/76 was produced from 1940 to 1944 and even with modification in thi time, still was unreliable mechanically. That model fought most defensive and offensive action in 1941 to 1944. Thats why I think you push T-34/85 as a example. To the end of production (for years in war) T-34/76 never became good product. After introducing T-34/85 biggest problem of T-34 was adressed, but still gearbox and transmition were weakest ponit of this construction. Yes they were better than previous models, but still not close enough to paper value that was official for this tank. I saw both tanks in Bovington in move and i didn't see in T-34 nothing special better than M4. And in this case that was post-war produced T-34/85 and Sherman was from war production series. In reality if I have to choose, my choice is M4A1 or M4A2 against T-34/76 (even with never turrets) and M4A1(76)W or M4A3E8 against T-34/85. They are in many ways better, but not perfect. Every tank have some weaknes. What i mean about "soviet" books? To 1991 legend of T-34 was undispiuted in USSR, today that is litte different but still Russians are biased angainst everything that is not with soviet label. Your arguments sound like taken straight from this books. You always point to T-34/85 as a better tank, but still it wasn't in comaparision as good as contemporary Shermans. Then tell me what you thik about this trails between T-34/76 and Panzer III? Not that good for T-34.
    1
  15.  @nks406  In M4A1 that bulges was part of this cast plate. Integral part, this way they didn't in any way compromise this plate. Not like T-34. Frontal armor of T-34 was in significant way weaker with this hole. You really don't understand that. You wrote about cost and production numbers. Americans didn't have that much militarised economy like USSR, Soviets industriqlisation was concetrated on weapons production fro 1930's. That is the difference, US economy could produce that amout tanks thanks to civilian industry. Soviets do it only cutting other fields of production, when they also have to move industry away from Germans. Plus money are only one factor. Manpower, technology of mass production ot even resources used in thi proces. That is real cost of producting a tank, that is way Germany can't win war with Tigers and Panthers. You also mention wet storage in T-55 and Japqness Type 90. Yes we all saw how efectiwe that was when most T-55 were destroyed by fire and ammo explosions. And Type 90 never was tested in combat.
    1
  16.  @RussianThunderrr  "In realty that conception was taken from naval warfer." -- What? Where do you getting that from? Have you ever heard about sloping armor in ships. Do you think that so much knowledge was didn't use in tank design? AP Shells and armor schemes in naval use were well known for tank designers from 19th century. Work on tanks like french Char 2 C series was supported by naval designers. Work on first tank was started by naval designers in UK, institution called Landship Comitte give you any suggestions? Whole armor penetration problem was worked from the time when first armor land on ships. Dear Lord, B1bis and other French tanks were study as a potential treat before 1940. Thats why Germans build Panzerjager I and prepare whole family of AT ammunition to deal with that treat. Yes, indeed T-34 was in that field, big step forward, but still in other countries they also work into development of that conception. M4 sloped armor front plate! Panther was a big tank and still his sloped side armor was well know weakness. Even soviet 45mm anti-tank guns can penetrate it. That was not good way to protect a tank. In case of Tiger II that was still not enough, plate there can't be thick enough to stop penetration. That is fact even today. You keep your claim that sloped armor on side plate was so good design feature. But that was first thing that disapear in T-44. Sloped sponsons were just ineffective with armore protection and take to many space. That is also important in turret armore protection, today noone slope side of tanks or turrets used on them. Only frontal armor is sloped, sides are mor curved but not that much sloped. Not even close like in T-34.
    1
  17.  @RussianThunderrr  Even on wike they know that history of AP shells: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armor-piercing_shell http://norfolktankmuseum.co.uk/types-of-ammunition/
    1
  18.  @RussianThunderrr  Plus FCM 36 design was in many ways similar to T-34. Sloped frontal and side plates! Diesel engine. Welded plates. All that in tank that was build years befor T-34.
    1
  19.  @RussianThunderrr  T-34 wasn't copied by Germans or anyone else. Panther just implement one design aspect nothing more, armor slope scheme. Any other element was taken from T-34. In any case Panther concept was copy of T-34. Maybe you talk about other tank, VK 3002 DB. For many years that myth was propageted as a evidence of greate influence on German tank desings, but that is far from truth.
    1
  20. ""You ( RussianThunderrr) keep your claim that sloped armor on side plate was so good design feature. But that was first thing that disapear in T-44. Sloped sponsons were just ineffective with armore protection and take to many space." -- Do you think T-44 tank have "storage sponsons" that needs armor protection? And where can I find storage sponsons on T-44 tank?" Maybe you din't understand. But sloped sponson were in T-34 not in T-44. Sloped side plates is abbandon road in tank design, wich was basicly T-34 never litteration with implemented expirence from WW2 tank warfare. "Yes, but I think Leonardo da Vinci's "tank" predates French and United Kingdom's navy, and consistently coming up in a past 40 years in a debate of "Slope Armor" vs "Tsygano's theory", which are not exactly the same thing... " You really belive that Vinci tank was inspiration for WW1 and WW2 AP ammunition?! That is just absud rethoric. Naval warfare give inspiration for many designs in tanks and ammunition to penetrate tank armor. Look on design of AP shells, they were clearly taken from naval gunnery. Problem was the same, build shell that will penetrate armor, do not bounce and will deliver enough punch to destroy target. Any theory can't change fact that sloped side armor take to much space in tank.
    1
  21.  @RussianThunderrr  Porsche turret was designed and produce by Krupp. The same was with the Henschel turret. That projects in any way were similar to turrets of T-34. You also claim as smaller tank hull (T-34), with the same ammo storage and bigger amout of fuel can be compare with bigger M4 hull in work space. That is just not possiable, simple third dimension space don't allowed it. Then T-34 wasn't smaller than M4 or was much more cramped. That what it is? Because you can't get both. And i know that later was much worse in later projects. https://www.google.pl/search?q=M4+SHERMAN+LAYOUT&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=jaslsHgdeHypeM%253A%252CpYQRmfjingPT_M%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kRe09yhmsyHrWvzoZ7bxSVGJGJ1xg&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiquuC7st3hAhVIxhoKHSbOAm8Q9QEwBHoECAcQDA#imgrc=PwyJSlI1rR1IbM:&vet=1 https://www.google.pl/search?tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=qmW6XPmNDcWflwTT3rHQBg&q=t-34%2F76+internal+layout&oq=t-34%2F76+internal+layout&gs_l=img.3...18924.27362..28345...0.0..0.258.1058.15j0j1......1....1..gws-wiz-img.SSTivckKjyw#imgrc=huCNaxka5Jn3CM: And in T-34/85 turret was better, but still that was tank which get on front in second part of 1944. https://www.google.pl/search?tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=AGW6XOfgAo-MlwSAgrzwBw&q=t-34+LAYOUT&oq=t-34+LAYOUT&gs_l=img.3...144067.145985..146418...0.0..0.139.369.4j1......1....1..gws-wiz-img.......0j0i7i30.dW9KluKF30s#imgrc=0EALB1_2brnrCM:
    1
  22.  @RussianThunderrr  They shoot from all directions to check how to derstroy Tiger II. That was test for deweloping new tactics and check even older models of guns. Thats why they tested all main guns that were in service. Few years ago I read whole series of articules about ihis tests. Tested tank was captured in Poland and transport to Kubinka. After brief inspection they shoot it as a test for armor against guns they use. You ave to ask them why they conduct that test.
    1
  23.  @RussianThunderrr  Yes that is true face of T-34, because M4 didn't have this problem in any time of service. Also this long march to battle was big issue with keeping unit ready to fight. Many of this tank need maintance repairs before battle. Still bigger precentage than in Sherman units.And into Kursk T-34 was in service nearly 3 years, a little too late to name that as a succses.
    1
  24.  @RussianThunderrr  "-- I think 69.7 Km/h(43.3 mph or almost double its maximum speed) is unrealistic even from a step downhill(that you won't find in Kubinka), and they claiming, that Pz-III was faster then BT tank without tracks... " Then you don't know that Panzer III on start was designed to get to 70 km/h. Later Wermacht generals decide that to resign from this speed. Everything about that is in history of development of Panzer III. Then they mount mechanical blockade into Pz III, you have the same feature in M1 Abrams, unlock this and Abrams can go even over 80 km/h but that will cause massive consumsion of fuel and damage suspension. Also that was Soviet trials, then your claim have to be adressed to RKKA comanders. In some way at start Pz III was like soviet BT tank series on tracks only. Also you have problem witg noise that was generated by suspension in T-34, that was very noisy tank. And if you claim that 3 man turret was that problematic to mount on T-34 orginal hull... Then that hull wasn't that wide, hmmm.... That was caused by sloped sides :) Plus for Sherman, The even could mount turret from M26 on original Sherman hull (not that good idea in reality). https://www.google.pl/search?q=sherman+with+m26+turret&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=t_WqYdrEfue4tM%253A%252Cbcmtkh3W0_oPdM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kScBOrrf_Ry0PacnSHljOHvkQbiYQ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj2iJqPy97hAhXLzKQKHTTMCj4Q9QEwAHoECAkQBA#imgrc=t_WqYdrEfue4tM: Then look on tanks like T-34M (A43) and T-34/85. After this trails 2 man turret was critisied. There was more there, like every Pz III was equiped in radio. Pz III was shock in case of how easy was to product that tank (that was Soviet conclusion!). That was cause why projects of T-50 were very similar in construction to Pz III. Suspension and other design feauters. http://armchairgeneral.com/rkkaww2//galleries/T-50/T_50_bp.htm  Little thing like ventilation, something that was problem even in T-34/85. Also Pz III long 50mm gun wasn't that bad, but as a main tank gun in 1942/43 was obselete. Not enough power in HE shells. But with problems to produce more Panthers and Panzer IV cause nessesity to produce Panzer III with biggest gun they (Germans) could build into original turret. Basicly that trails was wake up call for T-34 project. After modification this tank could be much better. But that happen much later because of Barbarossa and Stalin's decision to concetrate on production not modernisation.
    1
  25.  @nks406  Just look on this : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6xLMUifbxQ Around 27 min you have part about production of tanks. M4A3 became main model because it was cheaper in production. Welding is easier and cheaper than casting because of many reasons. Workforce, tools, amterials, etc. Just logistic and economy of war. The same happend whit T-34 and IS series. Sloped side armor of T-34 was easly penetrated by even 50mm Pak 38. That not mean that was worse, but just uneffecive like 38 mm Sherman plate. Simple truth, side armor never gona protect you that god like frontal, thats why you have to avoid open flanks! Look on Panther armor layout and problems with it. Next you still claim that fuel make tank less likely to burn. Sorry but statistics don't match that conclusion. T-34 burn like candle after penetration. Oil, lubricants, ammuniton, crew equipment, all that burn before fuel. That is why wet storage was very effective, because protect crew from imidetly casualities from explosin and fire (first types of ammunition in Shermans were from high flammable gun powder). That was a reason why so many crew members of M4 survive hit and why so many T-34 tankers die inside the tank. Plus if you talking about luxury in M4, you probaly talk about thins like: - Seats for crew,(thing that was a big problem in T-34 in war production) - Radio set in all tanks, - internal comunication system - fire extinguisher - and lot small thing that make tanka as a wepon efective. Then i prefer buy a tank with working gearbox and transmission. With seats and radio in each tank. Because that way i can use it to fight and manueuver not for blind charges in blocks like T-34 was been used in first years of war.
    1
  26.  @RussianThunderrr  That was Soviet test! They lie to themself? Tell me what was the reason? Source is a soviet official document, now you don't belive them?
    1
  27.  @RussianThunderrr  Really, you know that Sherman is in use now in South America with M3 ligth tank! You should check your infos. Israeli Shermans with french 105mm gun were use to destroy even T-55. T-34/85 didn't get any significant modernisation and can't fight with compared tanks to T-55. That offensive was possiable because top units from Germany was send into Manchuria. Kwantung Army was weaker enemy than Germans that way terrain was only big enemy for advancing RKKA. That was big logistic sucsess. But in any way something special. If you use best trained unit that is effect, even with "miracle" like T-34.
    1
  28.  @RussianThunderrr  Paraguay was using them up to 2018. Bolivia use them in police atcion. Chile stock them in reserve. Probaly they can be "mothballed" in other countries. That is some of this sources: https://www.thevintagenews.com/2016/09/04/56306-2/ https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/this-is-why-a-south-american-country-still-uses-wwii-era-tanks
    1
  29.  @RussianThunderrr  Yeah that take 3 years just to project of 3 man turret. Then why they build T-43? If that was so easy to just put this turret on standard T-34? Because Soviets were force to re-design hull of T-34 to adapt new ring of wider profile. The you claim is invalid.
    1
  30. Russian Thuderrr"- Well, if this is the case why then Tiger II came out to replace Tiger I with armor that is "sacrifice internal volume"? Explain please, since things "does not add up" in your statement." Because they build tank that was technical improwisation, with no real time to develope and check all feauters. Just wartime rush.
    1
  31.  @RussianThunderrr  But stiil that was Sherman after modification. In case of T-34 only Egiptyian use modified turret with 100mm gun, but whithout any sucsess. Then you can see that Sherman was open for modernisation. not like T-34. Using very wise words : If you don't have modern tank and your enemy don't have modern AT weapons even old tank is enough. The don't "cry" when facts don't get aloneg with your arguments. In Manchuria best RKKA units fight with underequiped japaness Army unit. You should know that best units were still fighting with nationalist and communist Chiness armies. About Red Army in 1941, that is different story. But lose over 20000 tanks, few thousends of planes and artilery guns plus nearly 4.5 million killed or taeken as a POW of soldiers don't give Red Army good reputation in 1941.
    1
  32.  @RussianThunderrr  If Pz III with with long 50mm gun was so obselete in 1942, why that was main German tank then?Into Fall Blau that was most common German tank. Why tha tanks could destroy masses of T-34 (because you should know that to 1943 Germans were destroying more T-34 tanks than soviet industry can produce. That was source for Kursk suprise for Germans, when soviet industry start mass production). Also 75mm use holow charge ammunition, enough effective to destroy T-34. Plus better HE roun than that from 50mm gun. Pz III never was designed as a tank destroyer, that was tank for cavalery. Created to replace in that role Pz II. Something like Souma S-35 in French Army.
    1
  33.  @RussianThunderrr  Cavalery was in use around 1945. Polish unit create by Soviet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Schoenfeld Geramns use cavalery even in Barbarossa. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Cavalry_Division_(Wehrmacht) (Division formed in 1939!) Pz III was fast cavalery tank, with canon capable to destroy tanks, but noone treat it in this time like tank destroyer. About ammunition for Kwk 37: K.Gr.rot.Pz. - Armour Piercing Capped Kt. Kw. K. - Canister Nbgr. Kw. K. - Smoke Gr.38 Hl - High Explosive Anti-Tank Gr.38 Hl/A - High Explosive Anti-Tank Gr.38 Hl/B - High Explosive Anti-Tank Gr.38 Hl/C - High Explosive Anti-Tank. Four last are HEAT, other known as a hollow charge! That is fact, not like you wrote:- You just "throwing anything out there, to see what will stick"? You don't have to do much deegging/reading to see that its not true, so stop with nonsense please." If you don't know that HEAT ammo was use in WW2 and there was transition period that cavalery in many countries change horse for tanks. Then you know really nothing about WW2. More I read you, more I'm sure you don't know that much as you claims. Everything i wrote is esay to check, bit you even check it, you just shout "that is not true". Sorry but you are wrong.
    1
  34.  @RussianThunderrr  You kidding. You know how many mistakes was made in design and production of Tiger II. You really have big holes in your knowledge about WW2.
    1
  35. For consideration about 7.5cm Kwk 37 ammunition: https://www.google.pl/search?tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=ZNi7XN6yBL6k1fAPrOmh0AQ&q=+Gr.38+Hl%2FB+-+High+Explosive+Anti-Tank&oq=+Gr.38+Hl%2FB+-+High+Explosive+Anti-Tank&gs_l=img.3...35932.54167..54974...0.0..2.63.389.7......3....1j2..gws-wiz-img.....0..35i39j0j0i67j0i30j0i5i30j0i19.BjwjwiAGLHg#imgrc=g7KhjrFsUYDD0M: http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/hollow-charge-german-75mm.html
    1
  36.  @RussianThunderrr  Dude that is only one example. There was lot of units. Wermacht and Waffen-SS form them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_in_World_War_II#Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Waffen-SS_units Soviet cavalery: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalry_division_(Soviet_Union) And what I mean about Pz III happend in 1930's, because in most armies tank forces were created on cavalery basis. That was in first concept tank for units that were transformed from cavalery to tank units! Elementary knowledge. Horse for most part of WW2 was main way of transport in many part of Wermacht. Don't brag with your ignorance.
    1
  37.  @RussianThunderrr  I see that when facts don't agree whit you, you just change subject or you try spin them. But that don't help you. Then how was with cavalery in WW2? German and soviet? How was with HEAT shells for 7.5cm Kwk 37? If you can't disprove that I assume you have to agree with me.....
    1
  38.  @RussianThunderrr  You really don't understand transformation of Wermacht. Cavalery units were form to become later a tank units. As a "cavalery" tank I mean just category of conception and design in case of Panzer III (used in german documents!), same case with Combat Cars (tanks) in american cavalery or french H-35 and S-35. The same proces was done in RKKA. ME: There was lot of units. (ABOUT WHOLE WW2) YOU: I'm sorry, come again how many cavalry divisions Wehrmacht had in operation Barbarossa? UNITS ARE NOT THE SAME AS A DIVISION! THAT IS CLASSICAL TACTIC OF CHANGENING NARRATION... Sorry but you wrote earlier: "Ah, Wehrmacht had cavalry? I did not know that..., let me check... -- No they did not, at least to the extend to create a special tank for it. Pz-III was designed from the beginning to fight other Panzers it come across." Wermacht and Waffen-SS HAVE CAVALERY UNITS! YOU JUST TRY TO CHANGE YOUR STATMENT. Basicly you don't reconize fact that Wermacht tank units take personel from cavalery! And still Wermacht have cavlery units! https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/wwii/horses-of-the-blitz-german-cavalry-in-world-war-ii/ https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057%2F9781137456335_4 https://ospreypublishing.com/axis-cavalry-in-world-war-ii-pb
    1
  39.  @RussianThunderrr  Plus what with HEAT amo in German tanks? Do this not exist? Do not Germans use it against soviet tanks? You try to push this asaide? You count that we can't read?
    1
  40.  @RussianThunderrr  "And what does that have to do(what happened in other Armies) with Wehrmacht panzer force? Wehrmacht did not count on having cavalry as a main elite force of "Blitzkrieg", it was never a part of their strategy." Cavalery tank is doctrinal and technical term. That not mean the same like tank for "horse cavalery"! It is a tank for units that were cavalery and in future will become tank units and will act like "tank cavalery"! That is simplest way I can adress your ignorance of terminology. Do american cavalery use horses? No those units today use helicopters and AFV! But still they use cavalery names!
    1
  41.  @RussianThunderrr  "How was with HEAT shells for 7.5cm Kwk 37?" -- It did not performed well against T-34 tanks, and was gone by the end of 1943." Penetration around 87 or 115mm is not enough to punch armor of T-34? You just amuse me with that wild lies. 700 tanks just disapper without shoting to enemy....
    1
  42.  @RussianThunderrr  First you claim that Wermacht didn't have cavalery. Now you claim that i wrote about divisions. I will tell that one more time, I wrote about units! Are you see difference! If not, discution with you on this subject is pointless. You can't understand difference! Also that still is not in anyway connected to development of Panzer III. You just change subject! In origin Panzer III was cavalery tank! But cavalery in doctrinal and technical sence! Basicly all medium tanks in pre-war period were cavalery tanks. That why Panzer IV was in category of heavy tanks! All this names have doctrinal roots, not just like you claim .
    1
  43.  @RussianThunderrr  Panzer III was as tank was develope to "cavlry" type warfare. Doctrins of Wermacht change in many ways befor war! That's all. Technicly you are right but, but Pz III origin is in mechanization of cavlry, in Wermacht this branch use cavlry colors even today! That was just doctrinal evolution! Tanks were in that doctrin like heavy and light cavlry and merchanized infantry became modern dragoons. Specially for infantry Germans create StuGs as a substiute of british special tanks. Do you now understand nuances? And that was german terminology not only british! About Pz III N, that was a tank that was a second standard tank. Problem with Kwk37 wasn't penetration but accuracy. Over 500 meters it was wery unaccurate. 50mm in tanks became obselete because changes in battlefield, not because problems with penetration. Germans start producing also much more powerfull tanks, but problem with production puxh them to use what they jave. Just like RKKA with T-60 and early T-34.
    1
  44.  @RussianThunderrr  HEAT was early developed into war, not used because Hitler affraid that this give chance to copied this by germans enemies. Second reason was that before Barbarossa standard AT shell were good enough against enemy tanks. Problem with HEAT is that in this time over 500 meters accuracy from rifled barrel was ot that good. Long 7.5 using normal AT round were much better.
    1
  45.  @RussianThunderrr  "- Why is that so hard for you to understand that "fire support vehicle" is not supposed to engage enemy tanks, but its armed with howitzer and it main target is enemy infantry and enemy AT guns." Any way Kwk 37 is horovitzer. And even fire support tanks were equiped in AT shells to fight with enemy tanks.
    1
  46. "BTW on the fuel burning subject... What burned is fuel vapor aka mixture of fuel and oxygen. In a sealed fuel tank, if there is no or very little oxygen it won't ignite or burn. And gasoline is vaporizes a lot easier and faster then diesel fuel, and hence easier to ignite and to burn then diesel fuel." Not really, you get vapore when fuel tanks are not air-tight. That why first Panther burn like crazy. When water storage was put in Shermans they burn in ratio 12-15%. Not like earlier 80%. This itself is disproving your argument about that subject. T-34 was burnig like other tanks, no evidence for diesel engine were more resistant to fire.
    1
  47.  @zidan1hao917  Exacly, but that don't match to "diesel was better" narration. Russian just have problem to understand that soviet tank were good but in any way the best.
    1
  48.  @zidan1hao917  When M26 destroy Panhter in Colonge, german tank burn like candle, when there was no hit to engine. That is one of the best single example for thing you wrote,
    1
  49.  @zidan1hao917  That is a point. Guard units didn't get Sherman without good reasons. In opposite, as a elite, Guard take it because in amny ways Sherman was better then T-34.
    1
  50.  @zidan1hao917  Indeed, T-34 was the best Soviet can get. But many flaws make this tank in many ways ineffective. People forget that tank is not only gun, armor and engine. That is why I am sure that Sherman is better tank than contemporary to him T-34.
    1