I noticed some Matilda and Valentine tanks scattered among Soviet Tank Brigades in 1944. Guy Sajer, in "The Forgotten Soldier", mentions Sherman Tanks (?!) attacking his GrossDeutschland Company during the German Retreat across the Ukraine.

Now I know the Allies sent tanks to Russia. But how many were actually used? I always imagined that most of them went straight into smelters and eventually emerged as T-34's......

Paul McD.

The lend-lease allied tanks etc were used actively while the soviets got their crap together with the T34.

American troops were surprised to see Sherman tanks rumbling towards them across the river Elbe. The tanks stopped and out came the Soviet troops who began walking across a bridge. The Soviet troops were amazed and proud that their Sherman's were being used by the Allies! The Soviet tankers were told that the Shermans were made in Russia! Mingling amongst the American tankers some of them soon learned the truth about who really made them!

One of the first things you learn about Communists is that they lie, about Everything!

Guys, I am sorry but what is that bull@@@t you are saying. I am reading the memoirs of a Russian tanker, the Hero of the Soviet Union, who fought during the war on many lend-lease tanks like Valentine, Matilda and Sherman. I also read some memoirs of other tankers and nobody says those were Russian tanks. Tney all knew that they were lend lease tanks, as many trucks, airplains, etc. Even canned meat.
They all say lend-lease tanks were more comfortable than any Russian tank but were poorly armoured and armed. Also, they had bad driving capability.
It is really embarassing to read what some of you wrote. I advise reading more books on history by famous historians. It helps, believe me.

I have a book on the Stuart with many pics of the lend lease give aways. Accoding to the book the Soviets thought they were under armed and armored. Noticed in the pics that the controls and guages were in English so I don't think they thought they were Russian made. Then again, what do I know, wasn't there.
Perry

Actually, the Sajer book describes the Shermans as attacking right alongside the (obviously Superior) T-34's....

I don't think it BS. I read about the event in the book "Thunderbolt" about Creighton Abrams. If Abe said it, I'll believe it. Abrams' recollection was limited to the Soviet troops that he met that day at the Elbe and not a blanket statement.

T-34 superior to the Sherman? Not so sure about that. We lost 4-5 Shermans against each Tiger, the Soviets lost considerably more for each Tiger taken out. Was it the tank or their tactics? What do some of you like about the T-34 over the Sherman?

... and don't be comparing the late model T-34 with the early model Shermans

ummmmm,
T-34 = $69
Sherman = $400

but I'm sure that's not what you meant

LOL Very Funny!

Always try to do comparisons with similar years, say a 1942 Sherman M4, M4A1, M4A2(Diesel) versus a '42 T-34/76

Hi guys check out this link for russian armour and lend lease, under foreign armour just click on the pictures for more info on each http://www.o5m6.de/

Cheers Ian

Low profile...Christie Suspension....these might have given the T-34 an "edge".....

T-34 had wider tracks for better overland performance, from what I read its main weakness was tactics and lack of radio coordination. This is how even with just pz III's and pz iV's the germans were able to deal effectively with them. I think the t-34 was a better overall tank and its gun ( 76.2mm ) was superior to the original 75mm Sherman.

Also faster . . . saw footage of a pair of t34's at full speed jumping over a hill about 7ft tall. handled like a dirt bike . . . [X(]

Phinneas

If I had to pick one to go into battle with it would be the Sherman. The 3 man turret crew is much more effective then 2. I believe the Sherman was also more reliable, able to go further before needing maintenance and repairs. Easy 8s versus T34/85s were a pretty even match up during Korea.

Gentlemen, Gentlemen,

Can we not just learn to get along together,, and get back to shooting at each other?

Who's not getting along? Did I miss something?

The T-34 used the same gun and power plant as the KVI. The KVI was King of the battlefield at the time till the Tiger emerged. It could KO any tank on the battlefield at normal ranges.

The lighter weight, heavily sloped armor of the T-34 with the KV gun was a real improvement.

The Sherman was similar once the gun was upgraded AKA Firefly.

Interesting discussion.

Maybe Eugenirus remark, he took exception to soviet tankers thinking Sherman's were soviet made. From what I read of the soviet army, it consisted of everything from the educated to the barbarian tribes, so anything is believable.

Just kiddin' Swath!

Didn't mean to upset or alarm ya. We Texans are wierd that way sometimes, well, most of the time, O.K., all the time.

"Maybe Eugenirus remark, he took exception to soviet tankers thinking Sherman's were soviet made. From what I read of the soviet army, it consisted of everything from the educated to the barbarian tribes, so anything is believable."

Barbarians? Seems so. Some former Soviet republics like Kazakhstan (watch BORAT movie), Uzbekistan, Tadzhikistan, Kirgizstan are really poor and many people there are illiterate even now, not to mention 60 years ago period.
Now many of them come to Russia to get their bread. They are used as cheap work power.
From the tankers' memoirs I found out that people of other nationalities dispised asians (Kazakhstan (watch BORAT movie), Uzbekistan, Tadzhikistan, Kirgizstan) for their low IQ.

More reliable??? I am thinking of whether to question that or to leave it as is...
Maybe those were the good old days when America made good, reliable weapons. Take for example the comparison the M16 and AK74 - reliability and idiot-proofness goes to the Russian weapon, while accuracy and quality goes the American way. How times change...[X(]

I would definitly choose the T34 but it's only my opinion

Wasn't there a "tanker" Movie set in Afghanistan that implied that very thing? IThe wife loves it but I don't recall the name..

(The real Barbarian in the film, by the way, wasn't any "Tribesman"..!)

The running gear was more reliable and easier to repair. T-34 crews had to be careful that small rocks wouldn't get in between the guide teeth and ruin their day. Their diesel engine was less durable then the Wright 9 cylinder radial aircraft engine. Shrapnel punctures the radiator of a T-34 and it'll overheat and stop running eventually. Diesel fuel must be kept free of water and contaminants too.
Some say the Sherman's 75mm gun was more accurate and reliable then the T-34s 76mm. I don't know. The Sherman did have superior optics. Crew comfort was superior in the Sherman as well and the 3 man turret made the tank much more effective in combat then the T-34s 2 man turret. In the T-34 the tank commander was also the gunner! This would explain the more then double loss ratio compared to the Sherman against the German Tiger I. All Shermans had radios to coordinate attacks, I think only the platoon leaders did with the T-34s.
I'll stick with the M4 Sherman. Alright, let's do a match up! Who's got a running M4 or M4A1 and T-34/76 we can borrow? We'll fire paint shells at each other!

BUT! If I had to pick one tank to fight WW2 in it would be the Buick M18 Hellcat! I know, it's not really a tank, it's a motor gun carriage. Despite the open topped turret and light armor not as many were lost compared to the Shermans. Speed is life! While that Tiger is waiting for his turret to swing around you gun the engine, flank him and put a 76mm round in his engine compartment or take an extra second aiming to shoot off one of his sprockets! Then move and shoot again!

I think the movie you're refering to is called "The Beast". The Germans shook their head why we would send to battle a tank like the Sherman. It was such an easy target, high silouhette, and would flame up right away. If Ferdinand Porsche and Heinz Guderian wanted to copy the T34, it says something about the quality and design of that tank.

Phinneas