Stabilizers

[low_bidder]

Walrus, out of respect, what tripped your trigger? This seems like a low key, perfectly rational discussion to me. A sharing of different points of view, some of which I disagree with, some I don't. I agree with your point of view that this might not be the best venue for this discussion. On the other hand, it is polite and NOT any sort of flame war. War gaming is ABOUT politics and History. You cannot separate the 3. Nobody has mentioned anyone's mother, dog or pick-up. Which makes it civilized discourse by Internet standards. Plus nobody is reading or writing here that doesn't want to.
So WHAT is the harm? What exactly did you read that you took umbrage with?.
I can quit this at any time when requested to do so. All I will lose is the amusement as my debate opponents avoid putting forth any evidence to support their unsupportable claims.

So, as far as Sherman vs T-34, Both tanks had the features and benefits their respective high command wanted. That doesn't make one better then the other. It does make them different.
The overriding concern of the Soviet High Command ( Stalin) was cheap. The Soviets were in a pickle and couldn't afford anything costly. The second requirement of Stalin was off road maneuverability. The Soviet Union had no road net in 1941. They barely have one in 2010. Not anything surpassing a 3rd world nation. So off road ability was important, almost as important as cost.
The USA had a different problem. The War was 10,000 Km's away and our Allies in the Soviet Union needed help (a second front) As Soon As Possible. So our tanks were designed to be transportable by ship. It is no accident a Liberty ship would hold 54 Sherman tanks, which was a Tank Battalion in the Early war TO&E.
Western Europe in the 40's had one of the best road nets in the world. Germany itself had the best. So off road ability wasn't an issue for US Tanks. Reliability was. You don't build a tank and ship it across the ocean to have it break down on some French road...
So you can compare guns ( basically the same, with the US ammo being more reliable), Armor ( slight edge to the T-34 in the open field, advantage to the Sherman in terrain where it could use it's height advantage to get hull down position). Out on the grass lands of Eastern Europe, the T-34 was a 'better' tank. In the villages and small towns of Western Europe the Sherman was the 'better' tank. When the two meet in combat, MOST engagements were won by the Sherman. The Soviets claim that it was because of the crews. They claim that having a New Soviet Man as crew would have made all the difference. The root of this propaganda is true. Like all propaganda, there is a kernel of truth there. It IS men and not machines that do battle. Machines are just the tools. The lie in this propaganda is claiming that he New Soviet Man is genetically superior to any other 3rd worlder. People are people. Claiming that a Syrian isn't as capable of being trained as his 4th cousin from across the Volga is pure BS.
No, I don't buy that theory at all. Since nobody has every produced any evidence to support that theory, I feel justified in calling it bogus.
Training stories are a dime a dozen. They PROVE nothing. Except perhaps the incompetence of the trainer.
BTW, the Russian just moved some of their newest SAM's into the Moscow area. Best guess is they are there to protect the high altitude SAM's that the Soviets count as part of their ABM system. Only the new SAM's are the same type that didn't stop Israel from taking out that Syrian reactor. One wonders just what is going on? If you have weapons that don't work, by all means get more of them. Nothing like having big stacks of weapons that don't work laying around.
Maybe Pootie needs to fire some more Generals? Find some Colonel that is smart enough to understand that a weapon that doesn't work isn't a weapon and the money should be spent somewhere else. Then promote him.