Author Topic: US evaluation of T34-76 in 1942 (Read 4248 times)

Fariz · « **Reply #15 on:** January 23, 2002, 04:06:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nath[BDP]

It must also be noted that the Kursk offensive was consistantly delayed from originally beginning in May all the way to June, due to people higher up in OKW wanting to wait for the "new panzers" such as the Panther. The two month delay gave the Russians time to build up their defenses in the Kursk salient. Which in turn were attacked on July 3 by the Germans, who, by Hitler's own ignorance of aerial photos and advice by his officiers that the Russian defenses were too much proceded with the attack. Which entered a stalemate only 10 or so days after its beginning, with the two Germany Armies gaining only marginal ground with high losses--Model's 9th Army lost 20,000 men in the first week and eventually only gained about 12 miles of ground.

The attack was abandoned on July 13th.

Such is war. Soldier's lives should never be put in the hands of such a stupid fool.

I think we shall be happy with germans Kursk mistakes, because other way war would continue longer and eventually create bigger loses. It's clear, than after 1942 Germany lost the strategic chances to win. I think that even depriving Soviet Union of the Caucasus oil would not win war for Germany, and actually after fail of "blitzcreege" (sp?) Germans had no chances, but I agree that it's discussable.

I think that for any one who studied the story of ww2 it shall be clear that in 1943 Germany could not win the war. Success of 1943 summer assault in Kursk on in any other places would only affect the time this war continued, the loses and destructions, but not the final outcome.

Fariz

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #16 on:** January 23, 2002, 04:16:59 PM »

Some of you severly underestimate the importance of a full three man turret crew of gunner loader and commander. And you alsp flippingly dismiss lack of radios and adequate gun sighting and crew visibity. It just proves just how little you know about tanks.

Fariz · « **Reply #17 on:** January 23, 2002, 04:54:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Some of you severly underestimate the importance of a full three man turret crew of gunner loader and commander. And you alsp flippingly dismiss lack of radios and adequate gun sighting and crew visibity. It just proves just how little you know about tanks.

Yet in the 1941 tIVs 75mm at any distance could get t34 only when hitting the metal bar above the engine at the rear part of the tank. Still Germany had so good trained tankers than they often could get t34 even by hitting this part of it, which required extremely high skills. 37mm anti-tank gun, which in the start of eastern compaign was the DOMINANT german anti tank gun could not get t34 at all, it only could disable it if very lucky. Also t34 was just much better in case of Soviet union weather and road conditions, and diesel engine instead of german tanks oil engine let it to sirvive much better (german tanks till the end of war were infamoust for catching fire and bursting very easily). Yes, lack of radio and bad "commander's" position views, along with bad optics prevented the effective use of tanks, but high loses of this tanks in 1941 shall be explained by the soviet quality of planning, very low level of tank crew training, and dominance of LW in the air. Also lot of tanks were destroyed by Soviets during retreats of first war months. When used correctly 34 was absolutly unstopable in the first part of war in east. Read Manstein's and Gott's memoirs to understand how highly they rated this tank.

I think licensing and building t34 by US in 1942 would not be a good idea anyway, because in just one year it was outclassed by German panzers in many aspects. t34/85 was a good tank, but t-5 and t-6 were yet better.

And btw comments like "It just proves just how little you know about tanks" only proves that you has no culture of argueing, and nothing else.

Fariz

Boroda · « **Reply #18 on:** January 24, 2002, 02:06:10 PM »

For Lynx - it's a very funny article in Russian.

Shermans were considered "very good tanks. For peacetime service" in USSR....

Pongo · « **Reply #19 on:** January 25, 2002, 02:19:56 PM »

Most tanks in WW2 are over engineered if all you are going to do is an armoured human wave attack or drive them threw a mine field..
That concept of war has been discredited however..You pretty much need a police state to force the meat into the grinder.So maybe the opinion that well engineered reliable well ballenced design in AFVs is a peace time luxury is discredited as well. I know the Arabs that tried to defeat Isreal with tanks designed to that concept have since changed their minds..so largely have the soviets...

The sherman was the way it was not because the US couldnt design a better tank. But because their doctrine maintained that Medium tanks should not fight other tanks..Tank destroyers would do that. So they focused on a gun that had excellent HE capability. The short 75mm. Flawed concept of war as no one got the Germans to agree to play that way
It didnt matter all that much in Italy as there was very little German armour there. But Normandy was different. There they ran into scads of german tanks that were designed to and did dominate the T34. And they paid a horrible price. The russians could have told them...The british allready had...

Boroda · « **Reply #20 on:** January 27, 2002, 10:46:57 AM »

Pongo, tank is a combat vehicle. If a tank has a built-in stereo and coffee-machine - it will not give it any advantage in combat. Average tank survives only 20 minutes in a battlefield. (it's a Soviet estimation, made in 1970s, when USSR had tanks absolutely superior to any Western nation, maybe except Germany).

This summer I was in a Poklonnaya Hill open-air museum. When you compare a mid-war production T-34-76 with Sherman - you'll see the difference. Soviet tank is all covered with caverns, welding isn't polished (tankers should tear their clothes climbing in), it looks like a piece of toejam against a shining Sherman. But Sherman looks about two times taller, it's tracks are narrow and it does look like a sitting duck... American tankers burned in a comfortable compartment of a technologicaly superior and more expencive tank

You pretty much need a police state to force the meat into the grinder.

You need desperate people fighing for their land. That's all. Do you think that Russians rose into bayonet attacks against machineguns because they were afraid of "police state"?

Pongo · « **Reply #21 on:** January 27, 2002, 04:26:21 PM »

Boroda.
The tanks lasting 20 min on the battle field is a self fufiling prophecy. Not a statistic. Can weapon systems be over engineered for their purpose..yes. Do the soviets have some excellent examples of crude but very effective weapon systems. Yes. But they often erred on the side of under engineering their weapons systems as well. The T34 and to a lesser extent the T54/55 and T62 are examples of this.
If the T34 was so effective. And supperior. How did it take the Russians 4 years to force the under manned and poorly equiped Germans out of Russia?

Because the T34 has severe weaknesses that make taking advantage of its strengths on the battlefield very difficult. So lighter armoured and slower vehicles with higher profiles are actually more effective if used properly.
This is true of all soviet tanks at least to the T72.
The T34 would have been deemed a failure in the West.
The write up that started this thread tells why. Its not about coffee machines. Its about gun laying and fire control and reliablility of the engine and comunications and ergonomics and armour hardness etc etc etc.
A high price was paid for the ballance of small size, heavy armour and 76mm gun in the T34. Other counties were never willing to pay that price in the effectivness of the tank. The soviets were. And they could make enough of them to win anyway. But at a cost that no other county(and not them again by the way) could ever consider success.
Thats why I hope we get a T34/85 in the game. Its the one that really made a difference and was the best ballenced of the T34 series(and best looking)

Fariz · « **Reply #22 on:** January 27, 2002, 08:31:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Boroda
You need desperate people fighing for their land. That's all. Do you think that Russians rose into bayonet attacks against machineguns because they were afraid of "police state"? [/B]

Boroda, a kak zhe zagrad otrjady? Nuzhny bili by oni, esli geroizm byl by massovym i vseobshim?

Po rossijskim zhe dannym, pochi kazhdyj 20j sovetskij soldat, pogibshij v toj vojne, byl rastreljan posle suda tribunala. Zagrad otrjadnyje v eti dannyje tozhe estestvenno vkljucheny.

A shtykovaja ataka na pulemety -- eto bol'she glupost' nachal'stva, i skotskoje otnoshenije k ljudjam, chem doblest'. A ne vstanesh v ataku, shtraf. roty, i voobshe pizdecz. Ty pogovori s veteranami, slava bogu poka est' s kem. Bojalis' vsje zhutko, osobenno generaly, vot i kidali soldat v tupyje attaki, chtoby nikomu ne nuzhnyje vysoty ili nas. punkty brat' "za 24 chasa".

Voobshem, tema eta dolgaja.

Fariz

Fariz · « **Reply #23 on:** January 27, 2002, 08:43:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pongo
If the T34 was so effective. And supperior. How did it take the Russians 4 years to force the under manned and poorly equiped Germans out of Russia?

You put much arguments based on false assumption, thus all you logical structure is wrong. I wrote above the reasons why so many t34s were lost during the first part of war. Will add here, that its like in AH, its not a plane, its a pilot. When in the end of war Germans send to front few days trained young solders, and Russians had mostly vets, Germans lost lot of their "supperior" panzers only due to the crew beeing undertrained and incompetend.

Also, shall remind you that Germans had in eastern at the summer/fall of 1941 same air supperiority, which western allies had in france at 1944. Tanks can't fight planes (well, in AH they can, but its a different story

).

Again, you shall not believe me, but simpy get Gotts and Guderian (sp?) memories and read them. If you do not have I can find and post here what they thought about t34.

Fariz

fdiron · « **Reply #24 on:** January 27, 2002, 10:24:16 PM »

I have read some reports about how Russian commanders used tanks in battle. It was absolutely criminal in how wasteful of human lives Russian commanders were. I think the philosophy at the time was "the only precious life is your own". I can think of 1 account off the top of my head where the Russians sent their own troops across a german minefield in order to de-mine (de-mine by letting their troops detonate the mines) the area so tanks could pass.

During the fighting for the suburbs of Berlin, the Russians were sending masses of T34s in frontal attacks on German anti-tank gun positions. I was reading the German account of the battle and one German trooper said that he counted 20 knocked out T-34s just infront of his anti-tank gun position.

It probably doesnt matter how well engineered the T34 was if it was used erroneously. I don't even think a Tiger II or M26 Pershing would be able to successfully assault AT guns at point blank range across an open field.

Pongo · « **Reply #25 on:** January 27, 2002, 11:54:50 PM »

Fariz
Sorry I missed your point.
The T34 was ineffective in 1941 largly because of its design deficiencys. A tank that is designed with a flawed war fighing plan in mind will likly be employed in a flawed way.....
Right?
The contemporary German tanks(1941) were under gunned. Under armoured and slower. But they were designed to fight effectivly..So they were naturaly inclined to be used effectivly. Just as they had against the supperior French tanks.

The T34 was not up really up armoured or sped up between 1941 and late 1943. It was not even really up gunned. But its war fighing potential was improved by adding better vision and gun handling etc. It was made more reliable. And in the 3 man turrented T34-85 it approached the tactical flexibility of the tanks that had invaded the soviet union THREE years before.. It took the soviets along time to learn.
But their is not magic to the Germans ability to hold back the rediculous hoards of T34s for so long. Despite its apperent suppriority on paper the T34 had design deficiancies that contributed greatly to its tacical mis employment. The Germans with thier more flexible vehicles took advantage of that. Just as the Isrealis would for the next 40 years.
So what logic flaw do I have?

Fariz · « **Reply #26 on:** January 28, 2002, 06:13:52 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pongo
Fariz
Sorry I missed your point.
The T34 was ineffective in 1941 largly because of its design deficiencys.
A tank that is designed with a flawed war fighing plan in mind will likly be employed in a flawed way.....
Right?

I am sorry you missed my point

I thought my English good enough to let you to understand it. My point is that t34 was the best all overal tank of 1941, and yet during most of 1942 at least. This is not only my point, but the point of panzer historians and German tanks Generals. It had design flaws, but they were not decisive. Decisive were war situation, solders training and most of all TACTICAL and STRATEGICAL concept of using tanks. Germans won the war against France and did in Russia in the early part of war due to the correct concept of USING tanks, not the tanks themselve, which were between horrable and average. Germans (thanks mostly to Guderian) developed concept of tank blitzcrieg, while in Frace and Russia tanks were mainly used as the tactical force of infantry support. Also the factors which I said about before, like air superiority, training etc.

Also, majority t34 lost in 1941 were not lost in the combats against other ground troops. There very destructed by retreating or surrounded troops. That is why while it were about 1000 t34 deployed in Soviet troops, mosty accounts shows that Germans met them any MASSIVLY in late fall, winter of 1941. t34 were new tank, in some regiments it were not even ammo for it, and tank can't fight without ammo.

Pongo, lack or radio and good optics and view do not compensate ability to kill enemy tanks at any distance and not to be killed by it from the closes distances. If you think opposite, put good radio and best optics to ferary, arm it with mg's, and send it against t80.

Quote

Originally posted by Pongo
The contemporary German tanks(1941) were under gunned. Under armoured and slower. But they were designed to fight effectivly..So they were naturaly inclined to be used effectivly. Just as they had against the supperior French tanks.
[/B]

Interesting, how the tank which under gunned, under armoured and slower is designed to be effective? May be better design it with good gun, good armor and faster (with wider tracks and better engine)? Considering all those Germans had (except engine).

Truth is that in the time between war it were hardly good understanding in any country what tanks should be and how they shall be used. When t1-t2-t3-t4 were designed the correct tactical and strategical concepts of their using were not even around.

Quote

Originally posted by Pongo
But their is not magic to the Germans ability to hold back the rediculous hoards of T34s for so long. Despite its apperent suppriority on paper the T34 had design deficiancies that contributed greatly to its tacical mis employment. The Germans with thier more flexible vehicles took advantage of that. Just as the Isrealis would for the next 40 years.
So what logic flaw do I have?

Grrrrrr. And what was flexible in them? Narrow tracks? Thick armor? Bad gun? Less range? Each of this DECREASE the flexibility of tank, not increase it. Guns optics is important, but it worth little when the shell you send accuratly by it can't kill the target.

Well, your flaw is to assume that better tank shall win. Its not true. Right concept of using them, quality of troops, their moral, and their technical qualities -- combination of this 4 that is what win. If instead of firering with your gun you will start throwing it into enemy -- it will not kill him. I can give you zillion examples from the history when best armed and bigger armies lost to smaller and worst armed ones, but with higher training, moral, or under a better General.

Fariz.

mrsid2 · « **Reply #27 on:** January 28, 2002, 07:10:15 AM »

Umm are you talking about the same replacement generals whose predecessors stalin got executed?

Same ones that ordered troops to a mass suicide running in straight lines towards machine gun installations?

Same ones that sent troops to fight a winter war at -40C in summer clothing?

Stalin had probably the biggest kill count of the whole two wars with 6 million russians executed. I'd say lol but that's hardly appropriate in this situation.

I'm convinced that if Soviet Union wouldn't have totally inadequate leadership they'd have a few million more soldiers alive today. Not only soldiers but normal family members that got executed in the several dictators paranoia.

straffo · « **Reply #28 on:** January 28, 2002, 07:38:08 AM »

I support what Fariz said the victory comes from a correct usage of the tank by the German ... not of the intrinsic quality of their hardware (eespecially at the start of the war)

Now if you compare tank point by point ...

No German tank was able to destroy a B1Bis in 1939/40 !
they can disable it but no more ...
Go in the WWIIol forum and search about the B1Bis ...

I won't speak of the S35 it's too uber

I've read an account of a german tentative to cross a bridge garded by 3 B1Bis ... it failed and the german lost 10 kubelwagen ,10 motorbike more than 10 P(38)t ,12 PzIII ... and somehing like 100 men !
The french were forced to draw back because of the lack of ammo

Boroda · « **Reply #29 on:** January 28, 2002, 09:05:06 AM »

Fariz, "shtykovaya na pulemet" - eto, tak skazat' "figura rechi". Hotya Budenniy odin iz pyati (!!!) Georgiev EMNIP poluchil za ataku na pulemety v konnom stroyu - za to chto ne poteryal ni odnogo boytsa.

Pro zagradotryady - ne smotri "Vrag u vorot". 90% togo chem nam poloskayut mozgi v poslednie 15 let - naglaya gebbel'sovskaya lozh'.

Chitay vif2 i fido7.ru.military...

Kstati, kak tebe moya ssylochka?

Åñëè ìîæåøü ÷èòàòü êèðèëëèöó - ýòî ôîðóì ðóññêîãî ñåðâåðà Âàðá¸ðäñ. Çàõîäè, â ñëåäóþùì àïäåéòå ó íàñ áóäóò ×àéêà, ÷åòûðåñòà äåñÿòûé ìåññåð, ÄÁ-3Ô è åùå êîå-÷òî

Âñåãî óæå áîëüøå 80 ëåòàáåëüíûõ ìàøèí.

(íàäåþñü - Õàéòå÷ ìåíÿ çà ïîäîáíóþ àãèòàöèþ â êèðèëëèöå íå íàêàæåò)

To Fdiron: frontal tank attack is a valid tactics. That guys didn't have nerves. Frontal tank attack is a severe psychological pressure. Very few people will remain sane and calm enough to fight facing a wave of steel monsters...

Sorry, I don't have production numbers for Soviet and German tanks at my hand. Something tells me that the situation here is the same as with Soviet/German combat losses: Soviet losses ARE bigger then German, but they are reasonable. Nothing like 10:1 German favour.

All this talking about "stupid Russians", evil Stalin etc. directly turns the discussion into propaganda direction. If you can talk Western propaganda - then don't be surprised if I'll start talking Soviet

The fact is that Russian tanks finished war in Berlin. That's it. Superior tactics and late-war equipment didn't help nazis.

Pongo wrote: The write up that started this thread tells why. Its not about coffee machines. Its about gun laying and fire control and reliablility of the engine and comunications and ergonomics and armour hardness etc etc etc.

So - what we see is a superiority of T-34 over Sherman.

A high price was paid for the ballance of small size, heavy armour and 76mm gun in the T34. Other counties were never willing to pay that price in the effectivness of the tank.

What was he price, sorry, I didn't understand? Again: how many American tankers burned in their Shermans?

The soviets were. And they could make enough of them to win anyway. But at a cost that no other county(and not them again by the way) could ever consider success.

Our cause was just. The enemy was defeated. The Vicory is ours. Any more questions? USSR have won the war where the price of failure was total elimination of Eastern Slavs and other nations. We survived.