On paper, and in any rules I have looked at the T34 should rule the roost.  The diesel engine, sloping armour, 85mm gun etc.  But is there any mitigation in Korea whereby  Sherman crews might feel a confidence their predecessors lacked in WW2 ?   

I'd say no.

Crew quality, numbers, and overall more ergonomic, so crews were fresher......

IanS

If you're looking at the M4A3E8 (and I get confused by all the variant of the Sherman, so I'll stick to this one): It had the improved suspension, and a rather good 76mm gun.

Hull front of the T34/85 is 47mm @ 60^o. about 90mm straight on. The 76mm of the A3E8 could penetrate this with AP at 1000 yards. The Sherman's front armour was the equivalent of 93mm. If anything, I'd say the T34/85 and the M4A3E8 are reasonably matched. A much more even balance than say the M4A2 and the Panther.

The Sherman was also not the only US tank in the field. Unlike 1944, the Sherman could be relegated to secondary roles leaving better tanks like the M26 and M46 to do the hard stuff. However, the Sherman was better up hills than the M46 and perfectly adequate for an infantry support role.

In the wider context, the Sherman in defence would be quite adequate to take on advancing T34s,. and there weren't enough T34s to roll over the lines time an time again as there were on the Russian front. Additionally, the lack of an adequate Communist air force means that T34 attack could be assailed from the air.

"A 1954 Johns Hopkins study, "Tank-vs-Tank Combat in Korea," recorded that U.S. tanks were approximately three times as effective as enemy tanks. It noted that American tanks destroyed about 25 percent of the enemy tank force, largely due to higher first-round engagements and hits."¹

An analysis of tank losses shows 2 things: the very low number of tank losses and the effectiveness of the Sherman.
Type²       Kills      Losses      Kill/Loss
Sherman   47             20              2.35
Pershing   38             6                6.33
M46          12             8             1.5

So on a 1:1 the M4A3E8 and T34/85 would be at least comparable. The Korean war was essentially an infantryman's war, with armour being used more as mobile artillery than as tank killers.

¹http://www.koreanwaronline.com/arms/Documentation/Tanks%20and%20the%20Korean%20War%20-%20A%20case%20study%20of%20unpreparedness.html
²Steve Zaloga, M26 Pershing

I think Stewart and Ian have nailed it.  The T34 went into Korea with a very strong reputation that had been gained on the Eastern Front. 

The stats that Stewart has cited from the Hopkins study speaks for themselves. These are the kill counts.  UN tank aces like New Zealander  Jim Brown  are derogatory about both the crapped out state of the T34 "Caviar Cans " that Uncle Joe had supplied, and the low levels of training shown by communist crews.   This is 1950 Third World Korea and China.  Many peasants would  have no knowledge of the workings of an internal combustion engine or a mechanised tank.  When the war started, recruits were trained on the job.


Perhaps it is time that Wargamers followed the example of Military historians and Tank warfare veterans. There is a myth around the T34 that rule writers need to revise. The Easy Eight with wet stowage, superb mobility, modern comms, well trained crews and ....the tactical knowhow  of commanders who faced Tigers...would it have parity or possibly a +1 ?

This could add spice to the Korean table encounters between T34/85 and the Easy Eight.

One should point out that the Centurion was best of all the tanks in Korea.

Quote from: fsn on 07 November 2016, 09:53:08 AM
One should point out that the Centurion was best of all the tanks in Korea.

It was indeed a sweet time for British & Commonwealth tankers after the trauma of WW2  They were prone to 'swan' around on the edge of the killing ground, knowing they were impervious most of the red weaponry .  The accuracy of the 20pdr was also legendry.

Quote from: Sunray on 06 November 2016, 12:31:13 AM
On paper, and in any rules I have looked at the T34 should rule the roost.  The diesel engine, sloping armour, 85mm gun etc.  But is there any mitigation in Korea whereby  Sherman crews might feel a confidence their predecessors lacked in WW2 ?   

As pointed out by Ian and Sunray, any rules that only look at the mechanical stuff (engines, armour and gun) and neglect the 'soft' factors (crew training and morale, doctrine, communications etc) are missing half of the picture. Unlike their WWII comrades, Sherman crews in Korea are not facing Michael Wittmann & Co.

Quote from: fsn on 06 November 2016, 10:07:28 AM
An analysis of tank losses shows 2 things: the very low number of tank losses and the effectiveness of the Sherman.
Type²       Kills      Losses      Kill/Loss
Sherman   47             20              2.35
Pershing   38             6                6.33
M46          12             8             1.5

Thanks, fsn, I found those numbers really interesting - especially as I have a relative who was involved in one of those kills. (No, I don't mean my North Korean grandpa.)

Chris

Bloody Big BATTLES!
https://uk.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/BBB_wargames/info
http://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.co.uk/

Now we have the Russian reports on the Sherman, we know they rated it more highly in every aspect than the T-34 - it was far more reliable, more mobile (barring appalling snow where the narrower tracks weren't so good - dunno if they got any of the wider grousers?), shot as well or better (more accurate, faster to fire, as hard hitting if not harder - they reckoned the 75mm was a mild cut above their 76mm gun and the same for the US 76mm to the Russian 85mm) and much easier to operate.

But the most telling is the reliability and usability - you might repair a T-34 with a lump hammer when it breaks, but you the Sherman just didn't break down (for values of 1940's tanks ) - if you have a Sherman battalion you have a full battalion of working tanks, with crews that know what they're doing and are able to work the tank.

And the training & technical knowledge and support of the US crews was way better.

And that's before you get onto the Centurion

The Russians thought Sherman's a bit too heavy when traversing slopes!

Not overly, or to a dangerous degree - nothing that affected their combat power

Heck, even the German reports on captured ones say "can we have these, please". Of course they say can we also make thenm bigger, with a KT sized gun and armour etc etc but I think the desperation had kicked in by then

Quote from: mad lemmey on 08 November 2016, 07:47:33 AM
The Russians thought Sherman's a bit too heavy when traversing slopes!

Shockarooney, Mr Lemmey. Yellow Card!

.... ....

.... ....

.... oops ....

.... sorry .... 

What's th'e proble'm?

Very interesting topic. 

There's a couple of interesting videos on YouTube where Sweden is comparing the mobility of various WWII era tanks in extreme conditions - extreme for Sweden! Unfortunately I didn't bookmark it.

The Sherman (not an Easy 8, I forget which mark) had real difficulty with grip & climbing in sub-zero temperatures & deep snow, but was quite good at crashing through forests.