How good was the T-34? Really?

[nrshida]

How was I led off mark.

You're too gullable bud. You believed a nonsense Porsche anecdote. Be more critical. 

[DaveBB]

I've heard the only steering was the brakes. If you wanted to turn right you pulled the right brake. Let off both brakes you're going forward.

I've read somewhere that the very early T-34s were such crap that a hammer was standard issue to the driver to bang on the gearbox to complete the gear changes. Although rolling out of a tractor factory directly into the streets of Stalingrad may account for some of that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Something tells me you didn't watch the video I posted of Major Moran examining then driving a late 1944 T-34-85.  Not an easy tank to drive.  The steering consists of a brake and a clutch system for the tillers.  The transmission is horrid. To shift gears, for some reason you have to put it into reverse first (for the lower gears). 

[icepac]

You're too gullable bud. You believed a nonsense Porsche anecdote. Be more critical. 

Not concerned what you think because of your past postings meaning nothing short of being a chump.

I've personally seen documents when I was working at Garber restoration facility that I have yet to see online and I get access to armor (read T34) whenever I visit Reed Knight.

What's your level of T34 experience?......have you ever seen one in any state of disassembly and gotten to inspect it?

[nrshida]

Not concerned what you think because of your past postings meaning nothing short of being a chump.

 

What's your level of T34 experience?

Not in the least bit interested in the T34. Doesn't impair my ability to spot stupid apparently 

[FBKampfer]

Pretty God awful depending on what model and the time frame you're talking about.

Was the best tank in the world when it was first introduced, though not necessarily because the T-34 was particularly good, but simply because the only other mature tank designs were the Panzer III and IV, and they were hamstrung by divided duties, though.

Despite poorer armor geometry, the Panzer IV was upgraded to successfully counter the T-34 through the end of the war.

The T-34 was an excellent tank for what the soviets needed : an easy to manufacture tank with  good performance and maneuverability that can be treated as expendable. Later as manufacturing improved, it became a perfectly serviceable if not remarkable medium tank.

Overall, it was probably inferior to equivalent models of the M4, owing mostly to inferior main armament, optics,  crew ergonomics, and ease of maintenance/repair.

The biggest fault of the T-34 was probably the country it was designed in.

[Chalenge]

How was I led off mark.

I said "some" not "all" when referring to the t34s with forged armor.

The statement is true and also shows I knew that not all were forged.

What I was referring to in my post, by way of sarcasm, is that anyone can be led off mark with the T-34 if all you do is open one page, or even one chapter on its history. That's all.

The T34 was a significant design that, under better conditions of development and training, could have mopped up German forces. The problem the manufacturer faced was for the most part out of their control. By the time the T34-85 came out, it was the best tank in the world on paper, but outside of the factory it was another matter.

Again, because we don't have mechanical issues in Aces High these tanks are much better than they would be otherwise. What brings this tank up, also brings the M4 down. The M4 was probably the best tank mechanically, because they could go 1,500 miles without a problem. Especially, firing on the move, accurately, really brings this tank up in my estimation. In Aces High every tank may go much further, fire accurately on the move, and even climb steeper grades without a worry.

[Squire]

The Soviets worked miracles for the paltry resources they had especially 1941-1943. They had a very low industrial capacity compared to Germany and the USA. Despite this they manufactured and fielded very practical AFV designs in extremely large #s. They had the smallest economy of the 4 powers; USA, UK, Germany and Soviet Union but by 1944 their tank production was almost the size of the USAs. Anything less than that would have spelled defeat.

The T-34 was exactly what they needed. The Germans on the other hand with a much larger industrial base pizzed it away on endless new designs, endless modifications to existing designs and a backwards, ponderous mass production model that didn't get into high gear until 1942.

The biggest fault of the T-34 was probably the country it was designed in.

Substitute Panther, Tiger I and Panzer IV for T-34 in the above and you would have it. Great AFVs but over designed, too expensive and too few. In comparison the Soviets were absolutely fanatical about keeping complexity and build times to the absolute minimum. The T-34 series was a product of that strategy.

As a fighting AFV it was not as good as the Sherman or Panzer IV. The lack of refinements like 1st class radios and top end gun optics ensured that.

[Mister Fork]

Nicholas Moran, currently a Major in the U.S. Army Reserve, former M-1 TC in Iraq, and Bradley commander in Afghanistan, reviews the T-34-85.  His full time job is a tank historian for the Russian game "World of Tanks".  He doesn't cut the T-34-85 any slack though.

He's coming out with a book on tank destroyers if/when he gets it published.  Don't imagine there is a big market for that.

Here's the review

Jebus, Nick had to pat his head, jump on one foot, blink his left eye all while singing 'God save the queen' to shift it into neutral from reverse to drive.

Tank was not designed around the tanker, it was designed around the function.  Compared to the Panther, this was a typical Lada vs Porsche ...

[Ack-Ack]

It also didn't help that when the P-34 was introduced shortly before the German invasion, the majority of the T-34s were not trained properly, resulting in a large number of mechanical break downs.  It was estimated that out of the 1000+ T-34s at the start of the invasion, as little as 200 crews were properly trained on the tank.

[save]

That's how most tanks at the time worked, and even into the 80s and beyond.

I've heard the only steering was the brakes. If you wanted to turn right you pulled the right brake. Let off both brakes you're going forward.

I've read somewhere that the very early T-34s were such crap that a hammer was standard issue to the driver to bang on the gearbox to complete the gear changes. Although rolling out of a tractor factory directly into the streets of Stalingrad may account for some of that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[shift8]

The T-34 has a reputation that is not in line with reality: as much so as the M4 Shermans reputation has been overly demonized.

Much of this comes from alot of quoting the tanks performance from really early in the war, when it was up against 50mm and smaller cannon. This reputation stuck, despite being a much poorer armored tank than the M4 Sherman, which has received hugely unfair criticism.

To give you an idea of how lopsided the popular culture version of these tanks has become, you need only look at the Frontal protection of the two vehicles.

(to elaborate on the articles section on armor performance)
The T-34-85 for example has 45mm of armor sloped at 60 degrees. Against WW2 75mm APCBC, this had an effective resistance of 97mm RHA. This would make it penetrable at ranges around 1600m by the L48 75mm cannon in the Panzer 4. By comparison, a M4A3W Sherman has 64mm RHA sloped at 47 degrees, for an effective thickness of 118mm, capable to stopping the same gun at around 700m. This is assuming straight on shots. The earlier M4A1 Shermans would have had 90mm of protection due to cast armor issues.

The reasons for the difference in protection is due to the fact that the Russians used 450 Brinell steel, in contrast the basically everyone else using something between 250-300. Very high hardness steel resists extremely well when it faces with projectiles that are even or under matching to the base steel thickness of the plate.  However, its effective thickness deteriorates rapidly when it is faces with projectiles whose diameter over matches the base plate, even with slope.

Point is, alot of these vehicles had very different real protection than is what is generally assumed. I could got into alot more detail just on the armor alone, but that should give an idea of the complexities that are generally not even mentioned regarding this stuff.

[save]

Again, because we don't have mechanical issues in Aces High these tanks are much better than they would be otherwise. What brings this tank up, also brings the M4 down. The M4 was probably the best tank mechanically, because they could go 1,500 miles without a problem. Especially, firing on the move, accurately, really brings this tank up in my estimation. In Aces High every tank may go much further, fire accurately on the move, and even climb steeper grades without a worry.

M4 mechanic reliability was second to none in ww2, nothing even come close.
 I wonder how many tanks that survived to prove its relyability in Normandy campaign though, losses where horrendous,.
This was mainly because they where not supported by infantery units in a terrain not suited for them, not just because Germans had better designs, more than half at Normandy where Pz4.

At what surface could an M4 hit a tank target even at a few mph, and at what range ?

M4's had too narrow tracks to work good in typical russian muddy terrain, compared with the T34, same problems as the Pz4 and most narrow-tracked medium tanks faced.

Later German tanks had much wider tracks, hard lessons learned (as well as being heavier)

[SmokinLoon]

Different tools for different jobs.  The entire argument or debate on "which tank was best" should always evolve in to "which traits were better for what role", etc.

Stop and ask yourselves a few questions based on the info below:

Scenario: You're a tank unit commander in late WWII, say May 1945. The Soviets have proclaimed they are not stopping in Berlin and they are now heading towards France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, and eventually Spain and Britain. They're already firing on US and British forces. You've been tasked with taking a unit of tanks (say 50 tanks?) and spear heading a counter attack eastward and you can have any tank you want thanks to the stock piles available. Any tank can be yours to have in your unit. You will have plenty of infantry and air support, and the supply units will be close behind to repair and maintain your tanks all the way to Moscow.

Think of the armor, think of the main gun (AP and HE abilities worth while???), think of the MG's, think of the optics, turret traverse speed, turn radius, think of the fuel range, think of the speed, think of the mobility/maneuverability, think of ammo capacity and ammo storage, think of crew safety/comfort, think of the massive number of Soviet tanks you're going to face, etc, etc... are you going to pick a T34 of any sort???  Seriously, think about it.

I can think of a number of tanks I'd pick over the T34/'43 or the T34/85mm, starting with the Panther G.

I still think if the Germans would have put stopped putting all the resources in to BS projects they did (including the King Tiger and other "wonder weapons") and instead build more Panther G's, the Soviet would have lost far more tanks and men than they did. Heck, even refining the Panzer IV a bit more (better topics!) would have done Germany more good than wasting resources on some of the "wonder weapons" they did.

[Zimme83]

Germany did not loose because of any other reason than the fact that their enemies had an overwhelming superiority in both manpower and industrial capacity. No tank can ever change that.

[Squire]

Germany did not loose because of any other reason than the fact that their enemies had an overwhelming superiority in both manpower and industrial capacity.

Rubbish.