(a) What were the significant differences between a Sherman tank and a Soviet T-34; one has the impression they were very much alike?
Alike in some ways, very different in others. For one thing, the sloping armor on the T34 was much greater than the T-34. The Sherman was larger in size, but slower than the T-34. The targeting mech and sites were better on the Sherman. The T-34 was up gunned as the war went on to the 85mm gun. The Sherman was up gunned to the 90mm but only in small numbers. The T-34 was similar in design and more rugged- but the crews had less training. The production numbers of the T-34 blew all the other nation's tank numbers combined, away- (b) A by-then-antique British Centurion tank has been the only tank I myself have ever seen up close, and operating (although not in combat, of course); how did that tank compare with the Shermans and T-34s?
The Centurion was a post WWII tank, are you meaning the Crusader? The Sherman was much taller in size and boxy. the T-34 was lower and 'sleeker'. The wheel patterns were completely different- see Christie suspension.(c) One gets the impression the Allies did in fact have some heavy tanks, comparable with the German Panthers and Tigers, but not a whole lot of them; some, but not many. What were such equivalent tanks? Did they demand a vastly different training and skill to use, as compared with Shermans, or only a little bit different?
The heavy Allied tanks on the western front were few. The Soviets had a JS-1 and JS-2 tanks than could be compared to the Tiger or Panther. Also, the Soviets went with a tank destroyer concept early on, creating a 122mm gun on a T-34 frame. Later they up gunned that to a 152mm gun.
(d) Why did tank tracks, things, last only 2,500 miles, or in the case of German tanks, 500 miles? To this professional civilian, such tracks look virtually indestructible, good for a trip to the moon and back.
The wear on the track system was very great. Track had to be replaced often. Further, the engines and transmissions took one hell of a beating, the more complicated the system- the harder it was to maintain. The big problem with the Panther was it was rushed into use before all the bugs were worked out of the transmission, rather than some flaw with the tactical design. That- and it was so difficult to make only a handfull- when compared to the T-34/85s- were made.(e) If the Soviet-made T-34 was the "best" tank of the war, why wasn't it adapted by the Allies, too--and remember, apparently the T-34 was American-designed in the first place.
National Pride, I think. The T-34 and Panther designs drove new tank design after the war and up to this day.(f) What is the current equivalent of the now-obsolete (one assumes now-obsolete) Sherman tank--light-weight, fast moving, smaller, but not so well armored as heavy tanks?
The Sherman was a Medium tank, as was the T-34. The Tiger was a heavy, we can argue about the Panther.
The Abrams is a Main Battle Tank, during WWII that would have been a medium- but it would have been called a heavy back then. The T-80 Main Battle Tank could fall into that classification, I suppose. Realistically, the Main Battle Tanks of WWII;
1) T-34
2) M4 Sherman
3) PzKfWg IV (notice I don't say Panther or Tiger- they were heavy tanks in special companies. The PZ IV was the medium tank of the German Army)
would all be similar to the Abrams or T-80.
