Was the T-34 all that?

[Rich46yo]

Interesting read http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html

[JimmyD3]

Interesting, thanks for sharing.

[Squire]

All WW2 AFVs had drawbacks and design issues not just the T-34.

The author completely ignores the comparative industrial capacity and raw material production of the various combatant nations. "War winning indeed". Yes it was...the T-34/76 drawbacks aside was exactly what the Soviets needed to equip their Armored Divisions. It wasn't made to last 5 years...it did not need a lot of fancy extras...it was not "the best tank of the war" it didn't have to be. They needed 1000s of them and they needed them next week. It was good enough for what was required of it.

Compare the industrial capability of the Soviet Union to the USA and Germany from 1941-45 and then see how many AFVs they made. It's an astounding figure. They made good practical combat vehicles designed to last a few months of hard service crewed by inducted men with not a lot of formal training. To do it any other way would have spelled disaster for them.

...and all the fancy Panthers, Tigers, StuGs and other expensive, labor intensive, overly complicated and over designed AFVs that Germans had, looked great after the war in Soviet Military Museums.

[PR3D4TOR]

He tries too hard. In late 1941 and for most of 1942 the T-34 was unrivaled as the best tank in the world, and a rude shock to the Panzerwaffe. By late 1942 the title was claimed by the Tiger, and the M4 Sherman entered service as an equal to the T-34 in most respects. 1943-1945 there was little to choose between the M4, T-34 and PzKpfw IV.

[pembquist]

He tries too hard. In late 1941 and for most of 1942 the T-34 was unrivaled as the best tank in the world, and a rude shock to the Panzerwaffe. By late 1942 the title was claimed by the Tiger, and the M4 Sherman entered service as an equal to the T-34 in most respects. 1943-1945 there was little to choose between the M4, T-34 and PzKpfw IV.

What he said.

[Jabberwock]

Speaking as someone who first became interest in WW2 through a love of tanks, there's been a bit of a push to denigrate the design and the performance of the T-34 in the last decade or so. There's also been a counter-argument to this.

The standard historical narrative for a long time was that the T-34 was a brilliant basic design that shocked the Germans when it first appeared, but the design had some weaknesses and was let down by these flaws, as well as poor Soviet training and tactics.

About 2006-2007, a translation of a Polish book called 'T-34 Mythical Weapon' came out. Its a very long history of the tank, but its underlying premise is that the T-34 was a terrible design that really shouldn't have made it to production/should have been replaced ASAP. Itspends a considerable amount of time attempting to substantiate this.

This started quite a bit of 'the T-34 was rubbish' band-wagon jumping, both in print and online.

Following this, there's been a bit of push-back from some serious armour historians that have pointed out that there were serious flaws with probably every WW2 tank design, getting each into production was a job in itself and that the T-34s flaws, while they were many, weren't unusual for the period and probably weren't any worse than any other design of the mid 1930s.

My take is that the T-34 was a very solid overall basic design for the late 1930s/early 1940s - good armour, mobility and firepower - that probably suffered from a lack of more aggressive development in the immediate pre WW2 period and up to around the middle of 1942. I feel that when it was introduced, it was as good as any tank in the world. When the war finished, it was middle of the pack, and fading fast.

The T-34's design and some of its flaws were also reflections of shortcomings in Soviet industrial design capacity and engineering/production philosophy of the period, as well as a reflection of Soviet command and control and armoured warfare doctrine of the period.

The tank was probably under-armed and slightly under-armoured by mid-1943, and was outclassed to a degree by the German cats and tank-hunters in the final 24 months of the war, even in its 85 mm armed version. There were better Soviet designs available - the T-34M with a bigger turret,  revised engine and transmission, better ergonomics and improved visibility - but the exigencies of the war meant that they weren't introduced.

[JVboob]

The US (i believe) captured and operated a Panther from Spain to Germany and it did outstanding something broke while it was in Germany and there were no spares for it so we (the US) left it at that point.

Ive got the story some where ill see if I can remember to post it.

[mthrockmor]

"Spain to Germany"? Do you mean France?

Anyway, as a former US Army tanker for the me the big question is that of accuracy. the T-34/85 had some awesome design features.

1. It was super easy to operate, which is important when the primary operator not highly educated.
2. It was fast, which made for a difficult target to hit. And speed 'cross country' is the biggest factor in open combat
3. Sloped armor made for 'thicker' armor, which provided protection at longer rangers. Inside X yards everything is dead.

This adds up to a fast tank, hard to hit, and when hit, sloped armor provided great protection. What I suspect is the accuracy of the main gun, while a great gun was mediocre at best. I suspect the T-34 won by simply swarming German armor and killing them at shorter ranges. I've read many, many accounts of German armor killing T-34s by the dozens, beginning at 1,500 plus meters, and simply not being able to kill enough before the Commies closed in for the kill. I've never read of T-34s making kill shots at 1,500 meters. I'm guessing it happened, I've not read it.

If this is the true then the "Rule of Professionals" holds true. That is, 'amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics.' If you can field tanks at a ratio of 10 to 1, and have the supply train to get them on the battlefield, you will win.

If this is true, the tank itself is inconsequential. The fact that the Soviets built tens of thousands of them won the contest. And the mystique of the T-34 is a facade. just as the Sherman won by overwhelming German armor, the T-34 did the same.

T-34, M-4 inferior to Panther, Tiger
American, Soviet production dominated German production

boo

PS Side note, I've read many places that America did not reach armor parity until they field the M-26 Pershing.

[PR3D4TOR]

He's probably thinking of "Cuckoo". An early Panther G the British captured in Belgium and pressed into service.

[FBKampfer]

mthrocker/boo perfectly assessed the situation. The soviets never wanted to build the best tank, they wanted an adequate one. Because their tanks simply had to be adequate, and the 5:1 production ratio they had over the Germans would take care of the rest.

Was the T-34 But for the sake of argument? Absolutely not. Their cannons sucked arse compared to German equivalent models. Well that's not entirely accurate. Their armor penetration performance sucked. Projectile weight and muzzle velocity were roughly comparable, which leads me to believe that the failing was in the geometry of the penetrator, or in the metallurgy.

While it was well protected, driving it was a nightmare. I've heard tales of drivers needing to keep a hammer in the cockpit just to shift gears. And what with the Soviet's world renowned craftsmanship and that rear drive sprocket, I'm not terribly surprised. But the point is that the driver is probably going to collapse after a few hours of manhandleing his machine around. A German or US Sherman though? You could fight your machine all day if you needed to.

It was cramped, limiting the off road speed below what the machine was physically capable of. You might hit 25mph off road, but your driver might hit his head and get knocked out. You can reach 25mph, but you won't always stop.


No, the T-34 was not without its faults. But part of the problem with living up to its reputation is that it's reputation essentially has it as the Jesus of tanks. Way too many people hear that the T-34 was invulnerable from the front (when in reality, the 50mm Pak 38 could deal with it from the front out to around 300m), that it's cannon was death to any German tank except the Tiger (when essentially all German tanks in service when they first met the T34 had 50mm or less of armor).

Nothing can live up to an exaggerated reputation. The Panther which, minus it's drive shaft in later models, was probably the best tank of WW2, couldn't live up to that reputation. A modern M1A2 couldn't. Nothing can, because no tank is perfect.

[PR3D4TOR]

Production numbers tend to focus too much on tank production alone. German production priorities were different than those of the allies. Germany produced many other armored combat vehicles like the StuG and turretless tank destroyers. Germany and the UK both produced around 50,000 tanks during the war. Britain also only produced a similar number of other armored vehicles. However, Germany produced over 300,000 other armored vehicles. In this respect they even outproduced the Soviets. The Soviets produced just over 100,000 armored vehicles of which 66,000 were medium and heavy tanks.

[Rich46yo]

Well let me ask you all this? Is it unfair to simply judge the tank on its own or should the overall philosophy behind it be judged? How do I ask this truly?

The T34 was designed to be part of a system of combined arms designed to beat the Germans. So to judge the tank itself should we also judge the support system behind it? The combined arms armor role it was designed to be part of? In other words the individual tank was designed to be part of the whole so shouldnt that "whole" be the one judged?

It seems to have been the right tank at the right time in the right place built in the right numbers and thrown against the right enemy with the right crews fighting in it. Thats what Im saying. As was the other componants of the combined arms offensives of the Soviets, trucks, planes, arty, ATGs, AA, infantry, that was able to throw back the Germans. And really, no diss to the Allies, win the war.

The German had unhappy times with the T34 starting at the beginning of the war. Luckily for them momentum was on their side and the Reds were uncoordinated. I dont remember when the two first met but German tankers and ATG crews found the T34 a rude shock even in 1941. Of course the individual tank is but a part of the whole. What good is the individual when the rest of the house is falling in?

So I think it was a great tank with faults, manned by very brave crews. I think Zhukov and his people knew exactly what they wanted and a polished Cadillac wasnt part of the plan. In the end they knew the power of combined arms offensives led by tank breakthroughs even better then their rivals, which stands to reason since they were the first to unleash the concept at Nomonhan.

[PR3D4TOR]

Germany invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941, and the first encountered T-34s in July at the battle of Riga, Latvia.

[MiloMorai]

These other 300K armored vehicles would be......

Some numbers from Zaloga: Germany had 13,362 armored vehicles on Jan 1 1945 of which 4,881 were on the Eastern Front. The Soviets had 16,200 armored vehicles.

[FBKampfer]

Production numbers tend to focus too much on tank production alone. German production priorities were different than those of the allies. Germany produced many other armored combat vehicles like the StuG and turretless tank destroyers. Germany and the UK both produced around 50,000 tanks during the war. Britain also only produced a similar number of other armored vehicles. However, Germany produced over 300,000 other armored vehicles. In this respect they even outproduced the Soviets. The Soviets produced just over 100,000 armored vehicles of which 66,000 were medium and heavy tanks.

Germany managed to produce just over 32,000 AFV's of all types, including rebuilt chassis converted into StuG, and other SPG platforms, Panzer II's, and early production models of the III and IV,  if I recall correctly from the tally I did.

Though this does not include Czech and French tanks captured and put into service, it does also include the Hetzer production.

The Allies, on the other hand, produced a hair under 200,000 of all types.

Granted this includes significant numbers of T-26's destroyed early in the Winter War, and in the opening acts of Barbarossa, the disparity is none the less quite daunting.


It's a testament to Soviet incompetency that they managed to get their arses kicked so severely for the first two years.