I'm just curious if they really had to mention how the Tiger could destroy a Sherman or a T-34 from 2000m since it was almost nonexistent. The only well known person who has succeeded this was Kurt Knispel.
The Tiger I had frontal hull armour 100 mm (3.9 in) thick, frontal turret armour of 100 mm (3.9 in) and a 120 mm (4.7 in) thick gun mantlet. The Tiger had 60 mm (2.4 in) thick hull side plates and 80 mm armour. This "test" is just a joke that proves nothing.
I was just playing my wot normally and game crashes, it says i cant play cause of scheduled maintence After about 35 minutes i enter the game, i get banned because i "left" the game Really?
T-34 wins in Armament, Armor, Chassis the Sherman has a advantage in Crew survivability, maintaining, Crew Comfortability, Ergonomics, easy to repair and had a comparable radio range to the T-34 (15-25 km total) stationary (14- 16 km) while moving I think compared to the Sherman's (16-24 km total) But we don't know if this is stationary or while movement
The Sherman has thicker Armor than the T34 The Soviet 85mm was less accurate than the US 76m. The 76mm has a better Anti tank round. The Sherman has a Stabilizer which allowed it to accurately shoot while moving 10-20kmh or slower. The T34 had to stop, wait for the hull to stop rocking, then fire. The Sherman also enjoyed better sights than the T34 and often the sights of the T34 were not properly mounted. Making the round go into an orphanage instead of an airfield.
Looks like so much fun! Both tanks are great. But for me the Sherman wins. Better ergonomics, stabilizer, gun depression, optics and maintainability. Also cal 50!
Just no - There are well documented statistics from WW2 showing that the survival rate of US Tank crews were very good. Loosing less than 1 man in average per knockout. Despite there are no total stats from the T34, the partial ones that are show much higher losses. It was very easy to get out of a knocked out Sherman compared to other tank models of WW2 - The Armor of the M4 is at least on par with the T34, in some areas even better. - Maneuverability of the M4 might not be the best but it was sufficient. Top speed was surely not as good, but top speed is not very important compared to maneuvering. Also, driving the M4 is much easier and less exhausting than a T34. Even in Soviet service the tank was known for that. Which brings me to a more important point: The M4 offers much better possibilities for the crew to get the most out of their tank. Ergonomics, optics, stabilization, maintenance, easier to operate… You should watch some video from the Chieftain. He is addressing the facts and myths about the M4 in several videos. Well researched and demonstrated.
@@Spaghetter813 no, unlike you, I actually study history, and not the history taught in American schools. I read articles and comments, and biographys wrote by professors, by American and foreign generals, difrent commanders, and regular soldiers from the ww2 era. Please give me one argument for how the Sherman tank was better. The t34 had better Armour, higher speed, higher caliber cannon, etc.
@@Spaghetter813 and explain why the Sherman was called ronson, which is a lighter company, or cigarettes, or something of that sort. It was called that because after one hit the Sherman would catch on fire. And why was the Sherman called Colin of 7 Brothers, and many other similar nicknames
True, this is because the soviets would pack the shells with low quality gun powder, this affected the overall penetration and velocity of the 85mm gun.
Seems to be an incorrect ballistic armor test. As the German Tiger Tanks has overall 100 mm = 3.937 inch thickness of overall armor. The Steel Plate in from of the car does not appear to be 100mm thick. T34 has a lower better superior sloped chassis and turret and more powerful Main Gun as compared to the Sherman.
No it does not. The 76mm gun was more accurate and had slightly better armor penetration than the 85mm gun on the T34. The effective armor thickness on the Sherman was nearly the same as the T34 but the Sherman had softer armor, much less prone to spalling than the T34.
I really didn't understand what they wanted to accomplish with that steel plate "test" aside from being fun to shoot, that didn't remotely resembled the thickness of the frontal armor of the Tiger I.
i love both tanks esp the t34 but i think the sherman with its stabilizer being able to shoot more or less accurately on the move would edge it....but who knows...if i win the lottery im going to buy these two machines make them remote controlled with an auto loader and find out lol...and i would have a tiger 2 with a p51 and p47 fw190 and bf109 all remote controlled as well and have a ww2 recreation
Amador that man was not service man and doesn't understand in tanks .the sherman is m4a8 an improvement with 76 mm British antitan gun compare to mass sherman m4a3
For me the chassis and armaments of the T-34 are better, but the Sherman has better bells and whistles. I honestly don't know which tank I'd hop into if I found them side by side
Id go Sherman. I like the T34 dont get me wrong but the M4 Sherman is just, in my personal opinion, a better tank. My reasoning is that the engine options it had were mostly good to an extent. The only one that really wasn’t all that great was the Radial engine. The Ford GAA and the Detroit Diesel 12 cylinder were both great engines and while the gun wasn’t that great compared to the T34 but it was still very effective in combat. Against primarily the Panzer 4’s and Panthers cause we all know that the tigers were a rare sight. I know the Panther was too but it also had about 6500 units vs the Tigers 1500
The Sherman, hands down. Look up the tank battles of the Korean War, when the Shermans and T-34s (operated by North Koreans and Chinese) went head to head. The American war machine proved superior in the sizable majority of encounters.
@@thunderbird1921 stole the words out of my mouth. From what I read, advantages are wet storage, way less spalling (crew survivability), ease of maintenance, ranged accuracy, and traversing mountains. I think also crew comfort in the sense that crews would be in fighting shape longer with clarity of mind and breathing. Not sure about the spread of radios to T-34s Cold War Era. Soviets have the advantage on wave attacks, war crimes, info stealing, and other gangster sh17
Wich go's the Sherman. Idk where you got the statement "the T-34 was superior to the m4" There's was no such thing as a superior tank in ww2. It all came down to how affective and low maintenence cost and if it could be mass produced in high numbers and if the crew could drive the tank front line without any mechanical problems. Wich go's to the Sherman. The Sherman is widely regarded as the best tank of ww2. This is because of its very low maintenence, high reliability, great crew comfort and performance, and it was very versatile and could be mass produced in ridiculous amounts. So I'm not gonna say that the Sherman was "superior" to the T-34. But the Sherman was practically better in all aspects. And there's proff to back this up in the Korean War.
The T-34's turret armor was so slanted, they only had enough room for 2 crew members instead of 3. Plus, most T-34s lacked radios, meaning they had no practical way of communicating with each other or with hq in the middle of a battle.
the figure for Shermans lost was actually more like double that, and the losses were proportional to the fighting done. Most of the fighting in the European Theatre was done on the eastern front, so that's where most of the equipment losses were. Putting that aside, the number of tanks lost on its own is a poor indicator of which is the more capable tank if that is what you are implying
the t34 was mainly fighting armor battles and urban combat against the germans. so doesn't surprise me. it's like comparing Russia's navy fighting japans navy which the USA was handling against.
Panzerfäust say here come some noob try to take out tiger in close range (mowas2 moment) Tank need infantry support and infantry also need tank support or your turret will pop out
I'd go with the T-34 if given the choice between the two. The way the armor is constructed seems to offer more ricochet and protection from enemy shells.
The Sherman... was a tank, and was meant for tank on tank combat. The M4A3 (76)W HVSS has Better armor, better mobility, better gun (contrary to popular belief)
@@autistic_m4a3_76w_hvssIt was designed to take on just about everything that could pose a threat. Shermans faced far more infantry than tanks, so they were willing to sacrifice some anti-tank capabilities to better fight the remaining 99% of threats.
Far more T34s were destroyed and far more T34s crews were killed than ever had died in Shermans. In fact 2/3rds of all T34s produced during World War II were destroyed. The Sherman's armor was of much better quality than the brittle armor of the T34. And even effective armor thickness on both tanks was almost the same. The wide tracked T34 did offer better offroad maneuverability than the typical M4A1 or A3 Sherman however the Easy 8 version seen here also has wide tracks for improved offroad maneuverability. "Hero of the Soviet Union" Dmitry Loza fought The Great Patriotic War with a US Lend-Lease 76mm M4 Sherman and he was very impressed with it's preformance in Eastern Europe and the vehicle saved his life numerous times.
The Sherman had better Armor than the T34, was faster (due to the Gearbox on the T34 not working properly)thus more maneuverable, and had 3% mortality rate compared to the T34's 3% Survivability rate
@autistic_m4a3_76w_hvss the sherman went 38-46 kmh while the t34 went 54kmh. Sherman had a bit thicker armor but the t34 had it at a 60 degree angle. That allowed them ti save materials by using less armor while keeping the effectiveness (I hope you understand why the 60 degree angle helps. America used the Sherman in very very small amounts, because they fought very little on land, mostly only against Japan out in the ocean. But the British have used the American Sherman in relatively high quantities in Africa against Germans, and if you look at what they say, there was a lot of negative comments about it, most of them saying how dangerous it was compared to other tanks. The Sherman had never been in any major tank battle unlike the t34, so of course mire t34s were destroyed then Sherman's, because Sherman's gave seen relatively little combat
@@user-os4hs2ki4k please explain to me then. then why did was it called Ronsons, ronsons is a British lighter company or something of that sort, because the Sherman was very flammable. why was it called coffin for 7 brothers. and other similar names
@@krossbolt4100 So, Over heat treated armor constantly getting shattered by panzer 3, spalling reducing crew survivability, bad scopes, gun being inaccurate and only a tad bit faster than the Sherman's 75mm, while having poor fuel and ammo storage bursting the tank into flames more frequently than the Sherman, is better than a Reliable, easy to fix, easily upgradeable, comfortable, tank that has better armor, and accurate gun with a stabilizer and high survivability like the Sherman? The T-34 is the real death trap here, at least the Sherman crews actually survives, the Soviet tank crews actually preferred the Sherman over the T-34 because they have a chance to live after getting hit.
this steel plate is not showing the frontal armour of a tiger
This is the content we want!
There is no "who is the best"
We all know they are both chads
I love the happy music while the tanks crush the TV and office stuff
I'm just curious if they really had to mention how the Tiger could destroy a Sherman or a T-34 from 2000m since it was almost nonexistent. The only well known person who has succeeded this was Kurt Knispel.
2000m not 2000 km
2000km lol
right from the moon
@@DeIeteduser1234 Oh yeah. Just had a brain fart.
@@LazyBuddyBan LOL
i mean, they didnt have to mention that the t34 (85) could go as fast as they said it would, since the ordinary t34 wouldnt be bale to go 30 kmh-
*How it feels like to be in Korea 1950*
The Tiger I had frontal hull armour 100 mm (3.9 in) thick, frontal turret armour of 100 mm (3.9 in) and a 120 mm (4.7 in) thick gun mantlet. The Tiger had 60 mm (2.4 in) thick hull side plates and 80 mm armour. This "test" is just a joke that proves nothing.
Shallow statistical comparison that proves nothing.
Both the T-34-85 and M4A3E8 guns could penetrate the frontal armor of a tiger 1 just fine at ranges 1000m and more so your statistics prove nothing
I was just playing my wot normally and game crashes, it says i cant play cause of scheduled maintence
After about 35 minutes i enter the game, i get banned because i "left" the game
Really?
The automatic system will ban you if you left several battles, not just only one ;) -DelhRoh
@@azu957 Indeed, once... But what about the other times? Cheers! -DelhRoh
Is that steel plate realy 100mm, i am no expert but should not be ticker?
Spot on correct. 100mm =3.937 inches that's almost 4 inches in thickness!
Much ticker
Would be nice to see the tiger and tiger II firing someday 🙏
They Probably wont any time soon :(
The M2 browning, one of the most powerful machine guns ever made. To demonstrate its power various pieces of glass were shot and destroyed.
T-34 wins in Armament, Armor,
Chassis the Sherman has a advantage in Crew survivability, maintaining, Crew Comfortability, Ergonomics, easy to repair and had a comparable radio range to the T-34 (15-25 km total) stationary (14- 16 km) while moving I think compared to the Sherman's (16-24 km total)
But we don't know if this is stationary or while movement
The Sherman has thicker Armor than the T34
The Soviet 85mm was less accurate than the US 76m. The 76mm has a better Anti tank round. The Sherman has a Stabilizer which allowed it to accurately shoot while moving 10-20kmh or slower. The T34 had to stop, wait for the hull to stop rocking, then fire. The Sherman also enjoyed better sights than the T34 and often the sights of the T34 were not properly mounted. Making the round go into an orphanage instead of an airfield.
the video was pretty informative.
But Tiger experiment was really funny
Great job, thank a lot❤
The Soviets also used the Sherman
When?
@@balboboogins2511 WW2
@@balboboogins2511 ww2
Yes on a very limited basis.
They pretty much preferred the Sherman over the T-34.
Looks like so much fun! Both tanks are great. But for me the Sherman wins. Better ergonomics, stabilizer, gun depression, optics and maintainability. Also cal 50!
Sherman is a death trap, bad armor, slower than t34, and is not as maneuverable
Just no
- There are well documented statistics from WW2 showing that the survival rate of US Tank crews were very good. Loosing less than 1 man in average per knockout. Despite there are no total stats from the T34, the partial ones that are show much higher losses. It was very easy to get out of a knocked out Sherman compared to other tank models of WW2
- The Armor of the M4 is at least on par with the T34, in some areas even better.
- Maneuverability of the M4 might not be the best but it was sufficient. Top speed was surely not as good, but top speed is not very important compared to maneuvering. Also, driving the M4 is much easier and less exhausting than a T34. Even in Soviet service the tank was known for that. Which brings me to a more important point: The M4 offers much better possibilities for the crew to get the most out of their tank. Ergonomics, optics, stabilization, maintenance, easier to operate…
You should watch some video from the Chieftain. He is addressing the facts and myths about the M4 in several videos. Well researched and demonstrated.
@@ilyashokov9820 sounds like you get all your information from the "History" Channel.
@@Spaghetter813 no, unlike you, I actually study history, and not the history taught in American schools. I read articles and comments, and biographys wrote by professors, by American and foreign generals, difrent commanders, and regular soldiers from the ww2 era. Please give me one argument for how the Sherman tank was better. The t34 had better Armour, higher speed, higher caliber cannon, etc.
@@Spaghetter813 and explain why the Sherman was called ronson, which is a lighter company, or cigarettes, or something of that sort. It was called that because after one hit the Sherman would catch on fire. And why was the Sherman called Colin of 7 Brothers, and many other similar nicknames
T34 transmission was so unwieldy that it rarely got up to speed.
Not really look at footage of them from the war they definitely got up to speed especially once quality control improved in 1942 onwards
@@klxnone1014 *Lazerpig intensifies*
The T34's 85mm gun was not more powerful than the 76mm gun on the Easy 8. That's just not the case.
Finally some who understands that gun thicknes doesnt matter
True, this is because the soviets would pack the shells with low quality gun powder, this affected the overall penetration and velocity of the 85mm gun.
@@autistic_m4a3_76w_hvss-- would still kill German tanks and the 75 mm wouldn’t.
@@Charles-k9g5y The 75mm did kill Tanks, and it did it with an Alarming Regularity
85mm is bigger can pen more armor and do more damage then yes is more powerfull
Sehr gut gemacht. 👍
so now, there are no TVs & Monday's in the office!!!
To paraphrase Bruce Lee: Cars don't shoot back. 😉😉
Destroying beers and Cokes is a WAR CRIME! 😁😁
Seems to be an incorrect ballistic armor test. As the German Tiger Tanks has overall 100 mm = 3.937 inch thickness of overall armor.
The Steel Plate in from of the car does not appear to be 100mm thick.
T34 has a lower better superior sloped chassis and turret and more powerful Main Gun as compared to the Sherman.
No it does not. The 76mm gun was more accurate and had slightly better armor penetration than the 85mm gun on the T34.
The effective armor thickness on the Sherman was nearly the same as the T34 but the Sherman had softer armor, much less prone to spalling than the T34.
@@tinman3586 Show proof of the 76mm being as good or better. You wont, because you can't.
3:27 , we agree 😄
Poor bottles of coke and pitchers of beer 😭😭🤣
5:25 is it just me or is the Sherman's gun depressing a bit?
I thought he would hit his head.
I really didn't understand what they wanted to accomplish with that steel plate "test" aside from being fun to shoot, that didn't remotely resembled the thickness of the frontal armor of the Tiger I.
i love both tanks esp the t34 but i think the sherman with its stabilizer being able to shoot more or less accurately on the move would edge it....but who knows...if i win the lottery im going to buy these two machines make them remote controlled with an auto loader and find out lol...and i would have a tiger 2 with a p51 and p47 fw190 and bf109 all remote controlled as well and have a ww2 recreation
T34 85 ❤👌
That's two tanks meet was in korean war
Uh dude the t34 is an t34-85
They just mean it in a General sense. The Sherman is an M4A2 (76)W HVSS. Yes, I agree that they should be more specific.
Why you destroy those drink & fruit... Just give it to me rather than being shot with gun 🤣
8:33 it's looks lika a Pz. I C's armour
Korean war: Sherman beats T-34
Isn't that is T 34 / 85 because the turret look more bigger than the T 34
yes but that was also a m4a3e8
These were both the best versions of the respective vehicles when they were produced during World War II.
@@Starter102 No. The tank they used her was an M4A2 (76)W HVSS
Amador that man was not service man and doesn't understand in tanks .the sherman is m4a8 an improvement with 76
mm British antitan gun compare to mass sherman m4a3
Sherman Easy 8’s in Korea mopped the floor with T34s. Wasn’t even close. 115t34 destroyed vs 20 Sherman’s.
Most of T-34s destroyed in Korea was due to air strikes, artilleries, mines…or get shot by M26 Pershing not the Sherman
@@tuanskywalker8240 but the sherman easy 8 mopped the floor with t 34 85s and t 34s
@@m36489 This reply confuses me
@@autistic_m4a3_76w_hvss ik
@@autistic_m4a3_76w_hvss plot twist pershings mop the floor with t 34 85
British fire flys could take out a tiger.
For me the chassis and armaments of the T-34 are better, but the Sherman has better bells and whistles. I honestly don't know which tank I'd hop into if I found them side by side
Id go Sherman. I like the T34 dont get me wrong but the M4 Sherman is just, in my personal opinion, a better tank. My reasoning is that the engine options it had were mostly good to an extent. The only one that really wasn’t all that great was the Radial engine. The Ford GAA and the Detroit Diesel 12 cylinder were both great engines and while the gun wasn’t that great compared to the T34 but it was still very effective in combat. Against primarily the Panzer 4’s and Panthers cause we all know that the tigers were a rare sight. I know the Panther was too but it also had about 6500 units vs the Tigers 1500
The Sherman, hands down. Look up the tank battles of the Korean War, when the Shermans and T-34s (operated by North Koreans and Chinese) went head to head. The American war machine proved superior in the sizable majority of encounters.
@@thunderbird1921 stole the words out of my mouth. From what I read, advantages are wet storage, way less spalling (crew survivability), ease of maintenance, ranged accuracy, and traversing mountains. I think also crew comfort in the sense that crews would be in fighting shape longer with clarity of mind and breathing. Not sure about the spread of radios to T-34s Cold War Era. Soviets have the advantage on wave attacks, war crimes, info stealing, and other gangster sh17
Question. Do want a 3% mortality rate, or 3% survivability rate? Choose wisely
Kudos for celebrating soviet fascism with "Kulak Stalina" inscription.
The T 34 is superior to the M4. It all comes down to training and which 1 has the better crew.
Wich go's the Sherman. Idk where you got the statement "the T-34 was superior to the m4"
There's was no such thing as a superior tank in ww2. It all came down to how affective and low maintenence cost and if it could be mass produced in high numbers and if the crew could drive the tank front line without any mechanical problems. Wich go's to the Sherman.
The Sherman is widely regarded as the best tank of ww2. This is because of its very low maintenence, high reliability, great crew comfort and performance, and it was very versatile and could be mass produced in ridiculous amounts.
So I'm not gonna say that the Sherman was "superior" to the T-34. But the Sherman was practically better in all aspects. And there's proff to back this up in the Korean War.
The T-34's turret armor was so slanted, they only had enough room for 2 crew members instead of 3. Plus, most T-34s lacked radios, meaning they had no practical way of communicating with each other or with hq in the middle of a battle.
V8 Motor?
Der sherman Sherman M4A1 panzer hatte einen 9 zylinder Stern Motor verbaut mit 400 PS und der Sherman M4A3 hatte einen Ford V8 und 500 PS.
The one used in the Video has 2 Diesel Engines stitched together.
2800 shermans detroyed...45000 t 34's detroyed
Both are tanks of equal rank, the fact is that the t34 was used carelessly and rushed into combat without advanced tactics
the figure for Shermans lost was actually more like double that, and the losses were proportional to the fighting done. Most of the fighting in the European Theatre was done on the eastern front, so that's where most of the equipment losses were. Putting that aside, the number of tanks lost on its own is a poor indicator of which is the more capable tank if that is what you are implying
the t34 was mainly fighting armor battles and urban combat against the germans. so doesn't surprise me. it's like comparing Russia's navy fighting japans navy which the USA was handling against.
@@defensor174 nesse caso.
What did you want in real life
Noooo not the beer🥲 my german heart dies slowly😷
Panzerfäust say here come some noob try to take out tiger in close range (mowas2 moment) Tank need infantry support and infantry also need tank support or your turret will pop out
can you add a tkv 2
♥♥♥T-34♥♥♥
I'll still take the Sherman.
Bạn làm hay lắm chúc bạn luôn thành công nhé
Also... Is it sherman with 6 pounder?
No
I think you mean 17 pounder. But no. the Sherman has a M2A1 76mm
I'd go with the T-34 if given the choice between the two. The way the armor is constructed seems to offer more ricochet and protection from enemy shells.
Until you realize how poorly made the armor was.
You do realize the M4 has better armor then the T34 right?
Even if the T34s Armor ricochets a shell, the spall is gonna pepper you
@rowdymacias9393 right on
Т-34 Легендарный!
Great video exactly The Challenger.
100mm = 10cm
So it´s a 10 cm metal plate... xD -DelhRoh
Which is 3.937 inches thick almost 4 inches. The plate used in front of the car is nowhere near that!
wait isn't that the T34-85, the turret and the gun are different?...
You mean T34-85..
Bruh
they mean it in a General sense.
T34 has more armour
no it doesnt
No match of sherman with T-34-85 Tank the sherman was not a tank it was infantry support vehicle.
Sherman clapped T-34-85 in Korea. And a Sherman is a tank.
The Sherman... was a tank, and was meant for tank on tank combat. The M4A3 (76)W HVSS has Better armor, better mobility, better gun (contrary to popular belief)
@@autistic_m4a3_76w_hvssIt was designed to take on just about everything that could pose a threat. Shermans faced far more infantry than tanks, so they were willing to sacrifice some anti-tank capabilities to better fight the remaining 99% of threats.
T34 better
Not really
Tell me why then
:)
sherman fury the best
*smiles in T-54*
@@ae3464 oh frick 🏃♂️🏃♂️🏃♂️🏃♂️🏃♂️
I love shermans when i drive my KV-2
@@toastyread2008*Smiles in M60 patton*
Sherman is a death trap, bad armor, slower than t34, and is not as maneuverable
Far more T34s were destroyed and far more T34s crews were killed than ever had died in Shermans.
In fact 2/3rds of all T34s produced during World War II were destroyed.
The Sherman's armor was of much better quality than the brittle armor of the T34. And even effective armor thickness on both tanks was almost the same.
The wide tracked T34 did offer better offroad maneuverability than the typical M4A1 or A3 Sherman however the Easy 8 version seen here also has wide tracks for improved offroad maneuverability.
"Hero of the Soviet Union" Dmitry Loza fought The Great Patriotic War with a US Lend-Lease 76mm M4 Sherman and he was very impressed with it's preformance in Eastern Europe and the vehicle saved his life numerous times.
The Sherman had better Armor than the T34, was faster (due to the Gearbox on the T34 not working properly)thus more maneuverable, and had 3% mortality rate compared to the T34's 3% Survivability rate
@autistic_m4a3_76w_hvss the sherman went 38-46 kmh while the t34 went 54kmh. Sherman had a bit thicker armor but the t34 had it at a 60 degree angle. That allowed them ti save materials by using less armor while keeping the effectiveness (I hope you understand why the 60 degree angle helps. America used the Sherman in very very small amounts, because they fought very little on land, mostly only against Japan out in the ocean. But the British have used the American Sherman in relatively high quantities in Africa against Germans, and if you look at what they say, there was a lot of negative comments about it, most of them saying how dangerous it was compared to other tanks. The Sherman had never been in any major tank battle unlike the t34, so of course mire t34s were destroyed then Sherman's, because Sherman's gave seen relatively little combat
The Sherman got better turret armor, aint it
Sherman is a death trap, bad armor, slower than t34, and is not as maneuverable
@@ilyashokov9820 Sherman is by no mean a death trap, it's even better than T34
Someone already explained this in the other comment section here
@@user-os4hs2ki4k please explain to me then. then why did was it called Ronsons, ronsons is a British lighter company or something of that sort, because the Sherman was very flammable. why was it called coffin for 7 brothers. and other similar names
@@user-os4hs2ki4k Do more research. T-34 had many advantages over the Sherman.
@@krossbolt4100 So, Over heat treated armor constantly getting shattered by panzer 3, spalling reducing crew survivability, bad scopes, gun being inaccurate and only a tad bit faster than the Sherman's 75mm, while having poor fuel and ammo storage bursting the tank into flames more frequently than the Sherman, is better than a Reliable, easy to fix, easily upgradeable, comfortable, tank that has better armor, and accurate gun with a stabilizer and high survivability like the Sherman?
The T-34 is the real death trap here, at least the Sherman crews actually survives, the Soviet tank crews actually preferred the Sherman over the T-34 because they have a chance to live after getting hit.