You're viewing a single thread.
I'll always wonder what the gradbears make of this but I'll never know 'coz they banned me for bringing it up
Interesting, because Stalin himself said they'd have lost without lend lease. It's just not debatable.
Fun Fact: most trucks in the Red Army during the war were American made. While the Allies were a bit leery of making tanks and planes for Stalin, cars and trucks were something we were, at the time, the best in the world at mass manufacturing, so America basically made all the trucks for the Soviets, which let them pour related production into their own tanks (which were better anyways tbh)
Zhukov and Khrushchev also agreed that Lend Lease was crucial, along with many more members of Stalin's inner circle.
(which were better anyways tbh)
Why do you consider Soviet tanks to be better than their American counterparts?
The T-34 are usually considered the best all around tank of WW2, especially if you are accounting for things like production ease.
On paper their performance was relatively similar when accounting for mobility, armour, and fire power. The only real advantage of the T34 was that it had a lower profile and did better in the snow.
The real magic behind the T34 was the rate at which they could be pumped out and still go toe to toe with most anything on the field. They could slap together a T34 in 9000 man hours of work, compared to the 48,000 hours needed to make a Sherman.
The T34 had several huge issues though. Not the least that 1 guy had to load, aim and fire the gun, with a single periscope and optics not even worthy of a boyscout. While commanding his tank without a cupola, and all other tanks in his platoon, without a radio.
As a result, they usually lost 3 to 1 if they were lucky or 6 to 1 if they weren't. Though crappy training and early ammo shortages didn't help either.
The T34 was cheap and plentiful, but you get what you pay for. You can build more, but you're also going to lose more. Of course, that did fit pretty well with Soviet strategy at the time.
The T34 had several huge issues though. Not the least that 1 guy had to load, aim and fire the gun, with a single periscope and optics not even worthy of a boyscout. While commanding his tank without a cupola, and all other tanks in his platoon, without a radio.
Depends on what year you're talking about.... By 44 they had pretty much all of those problems worked out.
The extra hours weren't much of an issue given American industrial capacity. So I'd say the Sherman was better in most areas, especially in terms of build quality, ergonomics and escape hatches for the crew.
TIL, I thought we just shipped them enough food in the early 1930s during their famines, enough to feed millions of people for a year, until they got successful crops in the silos. They thanked us, we said "no problem, mayn" and trudged back to our Great Depression. There must be 90 year old people in the Russian Federation who remember eating our bread and butter. Can the revisionists take five and let the oldsters speak? I needed to get that off my chest. I'm having a "....Yeah, America's full of dicks. BUT YOU GOTTA HAVE DICKS, because yeah, dicks fuck pussies, but they also fuck assholes! If there were no dicks any more,then the assholes just shit all over and turn everything to shit!!!!" .....kind of moment.
(which were better anyways tbh)
I hope you're deliberately trying to be as non-credible as possible here, because you achieved it.
T-34's were only good on paper. They were cramped, had poor visibility, and had severe issues with armor spalling that often killed the crew. Plus the transmission was virtually impossible to shift into top gear, so the top speed was purely theoretical.
The only way you could consider a T-34 superior to an American tank during the war is if you compared it to an M3 Lee, and even that's a stretch