I love you Oozle, but there's so much wrong in your statment!
First off, you are way undermining the advantage the Russians had in equipment when you off-hand say "1 tank". The T-34 was a revolution in tank design! It's the reason we don't have those boxy tanks anymore in any modern military. The T-34 was the first to integrate a sloped armor design;, one that was so effective, that at times opposing tank rounds would just deflect off of the slopes of the thick armor. And also keep in mind that the warfare on the eastern front, with the exclusion of the Battle of Stalingrad, was largely dominated by tanks warfare. Were the Russians to have a tank that was less revolutionary, I doubt very much they could of beaten the Germans, at the very least gone toe to toe against them. Unlike with the American Sherman tank where you needed that numbers advantage (usually a 3 or 4 to 1 advantage), a single T-34 could take down a single Panzer with no problem.
Well, that "sloping armor" and deflecting rounds was not even a desired effect, simply an unexpected bonus.
The Soviets used an inferior metal for the most part, and had to find a way to make thicker armor without increasing weight to much. Some engineers realized if you put the armor at an angle, you effectively increased it's "line of sight" thickness, without thickening it at all. The true effectiveness was not realized until after it hit the battlefield, and the accidental secondary improvement was realized.
Plus they realized early on (against the Japanese) that gasoline engines were not good in tanks. Their earlier model tanks (rivets and all) were disasters in 1938 against the Japanese.
But as revolutionary as the T-34 was, it was a pretty crude tank engineering wise. Engine, controls, communication, optics, all in all it really was a crappy tank. It had an armor system though that was ahead of everybody else by accident though, which is why so many sing it's praises.
And yea, the Soviet tactics were pretty crude. Remember, this is where the "Warsaw Pact" doctrine was developed, primarily a modification of the German Blitzkrieg with more coordination between elements and ginormous artillery and rocket barrages prior to the assault (primarily frontal). This is the same tactics and strategy that a great many nations followed for the next 60 years (and many still do to this day).
And in watching how other nations used these tactics, it is quickly realized that they were only really effective against other nations that followed the same tactics. Every time they were pitted against the more fluid and dynamic "Western Style" strategies and tactics, they got their asses handed to them.
Iran and Iraq fought each other for a decade, both primarily using Soviet style tactics, assaults being led by massive barrages of rockets and artillery as fighters duked it out in the sky, neither side making any real significant advances. US goes to war against Iraq twice (both times with allies using similar tactics) and take them apart within days.
All of the Middle East strikes against Israel several times, following Warsaw Pact doctrine, with Warsaw Pact equipment. Israel destroys them every time.
Now notice I am not saying their tactics were not good. They were awesome, for the Soviet Union. But they had a manpower advantage that no other country other then maybe China could have pulled off. And they allowed them to bring this entire weight to bear against the Germans, where the more fluid style might not have been as effective.
And I never claimed the M4 Sherman was a good tank. However, it was a quick and easy to produce and maintain tank, which allowed them to be produced in the numbers needed to overwhelm the Germans. But also remember that tanks are
not designed to actually go up against tanks. Both the US and Western Allies and the Germans always tried to avoid fighting tank against tank if at all possible (unless the opposing tanks were vastly inferior or they had no choice). That was the role of the Tank Destroyer. TDs were the ones that went out hunting other tanks. However the armor and numbers of the T-34 allowed it to do rudimentary job as a tank destroyer. This was a role it was shoved into simply because they had no tank destroyers until late in the war (when the SU-85 then SU-100 came out).
