There's a case to be made that that wasn't quite the case.
Start at about 8:35 here:
https://youtu.be/bNjp_4jY8pY?t=515

The only really serious flaw the Sherman had IMO, was its almost cartoonishly tall and chubby profile.

At least the Sherman was much roomier and comfortable for the crew compared to the T-34!

While you are correct I also suspect that in the overwhelming majority (75%+) of tactical situations the Sherman would be at no disadvantage to the only slightly lower T-34 pictured.

A smaller silhouette made a big difference in AT gun hit probability at the time.

Yeah, the T-34 is not vastly smaller, but you're still going to have shells missing or grazing it that would have struck a Sherman squarely.

Its not for nothing that the Soviets, with all their armored warfare experience, made a low profile such a high priority through their next 3 generations of tank designs.

All of which (T-54, T-62, T-72) were, IMO, inferior to taller western tanks (M48/M60, M1, Centurion, Chieftain)

The Sherman was a bit tall and slabsided. But what surprised me when I was at Aberdeen Maryland, was the size of the Panther. I expected the Tiger, but the size of the Panther surprised me.

ANYONE who has trained/lived to fight a tank knows that hull down is king.

Sherman vs anything hull down...

Yeah, dig a deeper hole, but in combat, in the maneuver battle, it's a 30% bigger target. Just a fact.

I am really skeptical/wondering about the stories of Sherman crews surviving catastrophic hits. Gasoline blows up REAL Good.

30% bigger would be very significant, but it's just not so:

More evidence:

It seems that the Sherman appears to be so much higher because it's narrower.

Making its overall silhouette smaller than if it both were taller and wider. It's also a bit shorter in length. In terms of square feet of area viewed from the front or side I suspect, but have not done the math to confirm, that the Sherman is less than 10% larger than the T-34.

NATO tanks didn't really become qualitatively superior until the '80s.



Every little bit helps, especially height wise, when you're dealing with low powered WW2 tank optics with crude range finding capabilities and AP ammo that has very poor external ballistics by modern standards.

Wherever the opposing sides respective sides tanks met in the 50's, 60's and 70's whether in the middle east or elsewhere the western tanks came out on top. Of course crew quality plays a big role but still the results were telling IMO.

bolded, that is the rub, and tactics. Soviet tanks also had a problem with depression of the gun barrel which hurt then in hull down position.

Mostly because Arabs, although India seemed to do well with its T-55s against Pakistani M48s in their 1971 war.



And the North Vietnamese ultimately did OK with their T-55s.



Regardless, none of these conflicts involved anyone with the resources and armored warfare experience of the Soviets.

sorry for the thread ressurection but I just rewatched this-


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrEtdMkFA00 (if link don't work)

another little known channel that does some really well researched stuff

Thanks bolox.

Looks like a good tanker channel.

Because T-55 tanks were rocket powered.



The Soviet Union's Rocket Tank Was an Explosively Bad Idea

Another videos at Felton production, you gotta wonder what the US and its allies did with all those recovered gold, platinum, silver, jewelry, precious stones they found that were hidden by Japan and Germany.

Today there are still ton of treasures hidden by Japan and Germany waiting to be found. Is it finders keepers?