Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!cbnews!military
From: janf@nada.kth.se (Jan Frelin)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: German had the best weapons (was Re: M4 Tank Info)
Message-ID: <1990Jun4.202542.7161@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 4 Jun 90 20:25:42 GMT
References: <16246@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Distribution: na
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
Lines: 30
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: janf@nada.kth.se (Jan Frelin)

>>in charge of a WWII army, I'd want the T-34 as my main tank.  With
>>reliability thrown in, I might opt for an M-4 Sherman.
>
>
>    Where do you get your information that says the T-34 was not a reliable
>tank when compared to the M-4. I do not have a source in front of me, but
>from what I've read, with its diesel engine, the T-34 was reliable  (and
>very maneuverable for it's size and weight.) I would vote for the T-34/85 as
>the tank of choice for WW II ; it had the best compromise of speed, weight,
>armour, gun, range, maneuverability, reliability and ease of production.

Sweden bought a lot of "war junk" like usable tanks from the victorious nations
after the war. (the were bought in units like "road miles"  and "hectares"...)

My father had the opportunity to work with these (they were used to gather
intelligence) as an technical NCO in the late fifties. At the time, they had
shot all german tanks to garbage, but there were still som M4s and T34 around
that they worked with. I dont remember the exact details, but he seemed to
fairly impressed by both of them. (Should be, they were war-proven designs, 
after all). Specific comments I remember hearing from him was that the Sherman
was remarkably reliable and "nice-to-drive" whereas the T34 was very rugged
and easy to maintain on the field, no special tools or facilities were needed.

I may be able to get some more info out of him, if anyone is interrested.

	Jan Frelin, Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden