Easy 8 vs. T-34-85

nevermind this is historical I don't know anything

the chi-ri wasn't mentioned in this thread, it wasn't ment to fight these inferior tanks

training room na east right now

In Korea Easy 8s had no problem with the T-34-85s they faced, although a lot of that probably had to do with the training levels of the crews. The Easy 8s had better sights, could aim faster with some gun stabilization, and firing their HVAP shells had no trouble penetrating the T-34-85s from any angle. And especially with Soviet tanks one penetrating hit is a dead tank.

Al though the easy 8 looks like the clear choice here, and in the end really is the better tank, we have to take into account the fact that north Korean tanks crews were nowhere near as well trained as their soviet counterparts. The other major area of concern would be that, while the NK army was employing soviet style tactics, their armored units were nowhere near as large or as well equipped as the units they were modeled after. In fact, the north Korean armored units of that era were just armor. No logistics, very little or no artillery at all, etc. Etc. Etc.
The truth is, yes the Sherman is the winner in this contest, but the clearcut advantage that our tank crews had was due to their training, availability of lavish amounts of indirect fire and air support, and in the U.S. abilitu to provide the logistical support to keep our units fighting.

Quite honestly no Soviet tank was ever built with anything but an afterthought to crew comfort or even survivability. Just like the tanks crews were an expendable resource to them. For example compare the evolution of the M4 and the T-34.

New models of the M4 gained improvements to its armor, mobility with better engines and suspensions, and firepower with the introduction of the 76mm cannon and even early vertical stabilizers. But they also gained crew survivability features. Improved ammunition storage in the floor and wet ammo racks reduced ammunition explosions. Vision cupolas gave the commander better view all around the tank while keeping him under armor and protected from snipers. But they also gained attitional hatches and improved versions of the hatches they already had, making it easier for the crew to bail out of the tank. 

Then the T-34. When being upgraded to the T-34-85 it gained a bit better armor and engine. It also gained a larger turret to finally allow space for a loader and a better gun. It still had extremely poor ammo storage, basically in boxes that made up the tank floor. It never had an actual turret basket making it dangerous for the loader or even the commander if he wasn't careful. Basic maintenance was difficult to do as all the hatches were bolted down. And even then the air filter required partially disassembling the air intakes. The tank wasn't expected to last in battle long enough for this to be considered a problem. The driver's hatch was difficult to open and use to exit the tank in an emergency. And Soviet build quality was always sketchy. Parts from one tank built in one factory could not be guaranteed to work in a tank from another factory. 

Even today crew survival is an afterthought to Soviet designed tanks. With the Israelis from the 60s on using western tanks to the few tanks knocked out in Iraq and Afganistan the crews usually survived the destruction of their vehicle. The same can not be said for all the T series tanks knocked out in all the Mideast wars. Their destruction was usually catastrophic. 

Ammunition boxes under the turret floor sure. Ammunition boxes AS the turret floor nope, I've only ever heard of Soviet tanks doing that. The loader in the T-34-85 was literally standing on ammo boxes covered by a tarp. So once the ready rounds were used if he had to break out more ammunition the floor he stood on would start getting more and more uneven. Not to mention the tarp moving around. And not to mention the lack of a turret basket in the first place, meaning the loader had to run around as the turret rotated and always be aware what direction the turret was pointed so that he wouldn't get crushed by the cannon breech when it fired. 

By 1944 the Soviets really had no excuse for still cutting corners and sloppy production quality on their tanks. Their factories were under no foreign threat whatsoever and they already had massive numerical superiority over the Germans. Theyy were no longer fighting for survival. They could have slightly slowed production and improved build quality, or even standardized parts. But that really wasn't a priority since the tanks and their crews were disposable. 

And your last comment seems to agree that the Soviets just didn't care about their crews. NATO tanks were also expected to be fighting in NBC conditions because that's what the Soviets planned to use against them. And yet they were still designed to be as crew survivable as possible. in some of the Chieftan's Hatch videos he shows that it would be very hard to even reach the escape hatches in the floors of the Soviet tanks. If survival wasn't an option did the NATO designers just waste their time with little things like useable hatches?

Okay the references I find to the Centurion say the ammo was under the floor of the turret. This was fairly standard in older tanks where ammunition was stored wherever it would fit. The Easy 8 stored ammo in a glycol solution in the floor of the tank as well. This is not the same as the ammunition actually being the turret floor. Besides becoming a more and more unstable surface the loader doesn't actually automatically get rotated along with the turret. This is not only dangerous but makes the loaders job a whole lot tougher, which makes the tank less efficient. Don't just take my word for it. Watch the Chieftan's Hatch video where he is crawling around inside a T-34-85. He says this is arrangement is a bad idea and as he is both a tanker and an armor historian I tend to believe him. 

A tired, hot, and uncomfortable crew is much less efficient at their job than they could be. It doesn't help when they have to fight their own tank to simply do their job. 

The Easy Eight was far more reliable. Easy maintenance...The T-34(-85) was a great tank, better deadly gun and armor, but it wasn't ment to do a lot of miles....And they weren't able to do a lot of miles because then they broke down. Most of the T-34 rolled out the factory to the battlefield and a couple hours later they were destroyed or broke. Also more difficult to do maintenance.