It's misleading because many of the T-34's shortcomings were the result of expedience and desperation. The Americans studied an example and found it to be inferior to the Sherman for a bunch of reasons, but otherwise a serviceable tank.
Were Wartime (and even postwar examples) complete trash, barely fit for animals let alone people? Sure. But the quality of finish hardly relates to what the design specs were.
Eventually most of the design's problems were worked out, but even the Sherman had a rough development period to get to the excellent M4A3(w) 76 E8.
The T 34 was horrible until the 85 and was still horrible.
Sherman's were great at thier job.
It wasn't till it was facing tigers and panthers, which was very late war, that they needed an upgrade and even then the Sherman 75 was still the most common tank and did the job it needed too.
And the thing about T 34s that made them okay was the quick building capability of Soviet factories.
When they could they built more then them and better. IS series. T44... SU series.
All better then the T 34.
The thing about the Sherman was it was always a good tank.
It was the best all around tank of the war, and every country on the allies had one.
We can see in Korea just how diffrent they were for the crews and they were better made T 34s then as well