What did the shitbox on the right do better than the t34 exactly?
>>18579668crew survivability
>>18579675And tank recovery.Most wikipedia-learning fags dont understand that the number of tank losses are heavily distorted because it doesnt show tank recovery.Sherman had an extremely high recovery rate, while Panthers and T34s etc were mostly lost when lost.
>>18579668Ease of repair and maintenanceCrew comfortReliabilityBeing an actual competent tank for its cheap price (as opposed to an expensive one produced cheaply)
Communists are idiots who think the human spirit and emotions are just pointless trivialities and are irrelevant to productivity or effectiveness. Shermans performed better than t34s because the crews had some level of actual comfort, they werent exhausted, on edge, and thinking about throwing themselves under the tracks the entire time they were using them. Thus they were more alert and able to identify and respond to threats faster
>>18579668Better ergonomics for the crew. T-34 was dogshit for the crew, Sherman was comfyBuilt sturdier with better materials. T-34's were built with the expectation that even though they were made so cheaply they'd be broken down in six months it wouldn't matter since they wouldn't last that longGun depression and stabilization
T-34 was cost-effective because it was an admittably good core design that was built by cutting every possible corner that doesn’t directly effect its main battle capabilities eg. armor and gun. If you got it in a tank battle, it performed admirably, but it was utter crud in every other meaningful sense.Sherman was designed to be cost-effective without needing to cut corners everywhere. Which made them logistically efficient, and unlike T-34 crews, their crewmen didn’t have to lose their minds to their tanks constantly breaking due to having utterly crap reliability. Stabilizer was also a rare luxury in tanks of that era.
