How good was the T-34? Really?

[save]

So how do you explain the bad K/D in the T34/85 against it's contemporary designs, even in the guards tank corps ?
Russians had numbers, that's all. The late IS2 was probably the the best tank they had.

Rubbish.

[Ack-Ack]

So how do you explain the bad K/D in the T34/85 against it's contemporary designs, even in the guards tank corps ?
Russians had numbers, that's all. The late IS2 was probably the the best tank they had.

I think you can attribute poor training as a major cause of losses for the T-34. 

[Zimme83]

Absolutely, but my Point is still valid, that the Russians (and the other allies) Always had both tanks and men to replace the losses. Simply because they could build tanks faster than the Germans could destroy them. U.S and Russian industrial capacity was simply too large.


In terms of Soldiers lost the germans wiped out the entire Red army 3 times and the Russians still had Both men and Equipment to put up an overwhelming force...

[shift8]

Absolutely, but my Point is still valid, that the Russians (and the other allies) Always had both tanks and men to replace the losses. Simply because they could build tanks faster than the Germans could destroy them. U.S and Russian industrial capacity was simply too large.


In terms of Soldiers lost the germans wiped out the entire Red army 3 times and the Russians still had Both men and Equipment to put up an overwhelming force...

But your conclusion is still invalid, that the ONLY reason the Germans lost was being out-manned and out-produced.

They also made a great many military mistakes, and had downright inferior equipment in a number of areas.

The superiority of the Wehrmacht is a rubbish myth that has no basis in fact.

[Zimme83]

I haven't said that they were superior either. I was only saying that Another tank would not have change the outcome, while Tigers and Panthers were expensive and complicated the various StuG:s (and PzKw IV) were not, and they were built in large number. StuG III for ex were both easy to build, cheap and it could defeat enemy tanks at decent ranges.

[save]

Stug's where good as  tank destroyers, but where very restricted in offensive operations

I haven't said that they were superior either. I was only saying that Another tank would not have change the outcome, while Tigers and Panthers were expensive and complicated the various StuG:s (and PzKw IV) were not, and they were built in large number. StuG III for ex were both easy to build, cheap and it could defeat enemy tanks at decent ranges.

[shift8]

I haven't said that they were superior either. I was only saying that Another tank would not have change the outcome, while Tigers and Panthers were expensive and complicated the various StuG:s (and PzKw IV) were not, and they were built in large number. StuG III for ex were both easy to build, cheap and it could defeat enemy tanks at decent ranges.

Your initial statement was that Germany did not lose for any reason other than that they were out manned and out produced. That sentence directly implies that they were superior in every other respect militarily. IF that is not what you meant, then I think you phrased that very poorly.

[GScholz]

It is true that the T-34 and the M4 are quite similar in effectiveness. However, the real difference between them is not in the quality of the vehicle, but in timing and its impact on the battlefield. When the T-34 first saw combat in the summer of 1941 is was undoubtedly the best tank in the world. It was a shock to the Germans who had very little they could counter it with. When the M4 entered combat in late 1942 the Germans had learned from more than a year of the experience fighting the T-34 on the eastern front and developed countermeasures against it. They had upgunned and uparmored their PzIII, PzIV and StuG III to counter the T-34, and developed anti-tank tactics using FlaK 88s and the new 75 mm PaK 40. There were even Tigers in service when the M4 showed up. So while the T-34 was "Gott im Himmel!" when it arrived, the M4 was "meh". Sort of like if the Spit I had showed up in 1941...

[GScholz]

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.

Thing is they built all the Panthers they could. It was not a question of money or resources, but in skilled labor and machine tools. They even made some questionable design compromises like the weak final gear to make the Panther more producible. Dropping the Tigers would have meant an increase in Panther production of little more than replacing the Tigers they built.

[Zimme83]

Your initial statement was that Germany did not lose for any reason other than that they were out manned and out produced. That sentence directly implies that they were superior in every other respect militarily. IF that is not what you meant, then I think you phrased that very poorly.

I disagree, I just said that the imbalance in industrial capacity and manpower was the factor that decided the outcome of the war and that no tank could have change that. Even if they had a million tanks they did not have the fuel they needed so more or better tanks had not changed anything.

[GScholz]

Germany could have won the war, if not for a string of really bad decisions made at the top level, typically made on racial and ideological grounds rather than reason. Germany lost the war because they were led by Nazis.

[Oldman731]

Germany could have won the war, if not for a string of really bad decisions made at the top level, typically made on racial and ideological grounds rather than reason. Germany lost the war because they were led by Nazis.

That was the 1960s party line.  When you take into account all the truly terrible decisions made by the French, British and Russians at the beginning of the war, 1939-41, the Nazis had an amazing string of good luck.  That's why they got as far as they did.  Otherwise the map and the industrial figures tell the tale.

- oldman

[GScholz]

I believe this has been posted here before, but for those who missed it:

[Zimme83]

It's a pointless discussion, the only reason that Hitler got as far as he did was all the mistakes made by his opponents. If there was no mistakes Hitlers dreams would have ended in 1940 with a French-British counter attack crushing his vulnerable armored spearheads...

[GScholz]

Yes. However, the allies did make mistakes, thus giving the Germans a chance to win. They didn't because they made some horrible mistakes of their own. After the Battle of France the Germans had every opportunity to keep what they had taken and thus win. Perhaps even gaining American support in attacking the Soviets. But America was just a country run by degenerates controlled by Jews, so what harm could come from declaring war...