I would say that the only thing is T34/76 best at, is dying. otherwise m4 is better and more efficient unit.
It's
not more efficient. It costs more and its armor isn't even that much better. If you want to talk 1v1 I will agree with you all day that the Sherman is better, but in teamgames you're
not keeping mediums like that just because there's only so long Allied medium tanks get to stay effective in long teamgames. When the panthers hit the field, Shermans get bullied off while T34s can still be used for flanking & utility because they're cheaper.
But...my initial point was, that USF have a top tier AI stock medium that is not used, because why would you, if you can barrage your opponent to death? No reason to build an AI medium tank and invest all that micro and attention in it, if you have much more efficient and less micro intensive option like Scott?
And I agree with you. Why would you waste your time on a squishy medium tank that gets bullied by panthers when you could make a cheaper scott?
It's the opposite actually. The HE Sherman deals AI damage more quickly because of main gun alpha damage which makes it better at hit and run tactics, which makes it better in teamgames because the compact nature of teamgames means sustained fights are dangerous for generalist mediums
I never said that this wasn't the case. Using T34s in teamgames, I use them to harass and bait the enemy into my defenses. Medium tanks don't last long in teamgames, which is exactly why being cheaper is better. I can happily lose a T34 after having used it to bait a Panzer 4 into a conscript AT grenade and finish it off. A Sherman doesn't have that. All you gained was a 10 fuel advantage and you lost 60 munition plus the cost of snare.
It's also better against blobs because of its huge AOE profile. I'd always go for a Sherman unless I'd go heavy with elite infantry, while I'd usually pass on a 76 for something bigger or a Katy.
Look, maybe this is a learn to play issue, and I'm a huge idiot or something, but T34 always has a place in my army composition. I'm naked without at least one. If the enemy is going hard for panthers and heavy tanks, I'm going to be getting one T34 at least, for a snare. And plus on top of that I can use it to bully infantry. The only thing the Sherman has going for it in that situation is bullying infantry. But it can't control blobs, because the panthers and heavy tanks will eat its ass for dinner.
A much bigger investment being 20 more fuel and some munitions, that comes with the added utility of self repairs, smoke grenades as well as AA on top of better performance in both AI and AT. Easily worth it.
Easily worth losing? It's just barely worth losing to a panzer 4, meanwhile for the same price point a soviet player gets 2 mines and 20 fuel off their next tank, all the while USF's tank destroyer costs 15 fuel more than the Soviet one. To me it's an easy comparison to make. Comparatively it's just not worth it.
Like Klement said, the Scott is doing the job better.
And yes, all that utility is great, but its meh in teamgames.