The Manticoran Empire wrote:Romextly wrote:Quick question. Is the T-34 a better tank than the M4 Sherman?
Depends on the metric. For the Soviet Union, it was. T-34s were cheaper and easier to manufacture than the Sherman. However, for the US, the T-34 would be absolutely the most useless pile of junk in the history of armored warfare. The T-34 worked for the Russians because they built it with planned obsolesence in mind and had rail lines to the factories. The US had to ship everything overseas. As such, while the Russians were alright in reducing the lifespan of a vehicle to reduce its cost and complexity, the US could not make that sacrifice. Anything that would be sent overseas HAD to be able to fight anywhere in the world for prolonged periods of time with the only maintenance facilities being a tent with a mud floor.
Military History Visualized channel basically had similar thoughts on the big three tank designs of the war(Sherman, T34, Panzer IV) more or less. Each tank was designed for a different purpose depending on the nation and more or less fulfilled the criteria and hence were in effect, "the right design for the nations in question". Hence all technically were the best but also the worse design in a sense more or less. Depending on the nations circumstances the right tank for that nation depended greatly.