US evaluation of T34-76 in 1942

[Pongo]

Fariz.
Part of why the T34 was fought poorly was because it was designed poorly.It was designed to be fought that way.
Sorry if you can not see that. It is fast yet has no turrent basket. and its suspension is very bouncy. Both attribute to poor fire after movement. Combine that with horrible crew visiblility and you have a vehicle that is very susepteble to being out manuvered on the battle field and not getting the first effective shot in vs other tanks. Also very hard to see infantly moving arround it.
You keep touting the armour and gun and speed of the T34. I acknoledge the great combination of those factors that the T34 possessed esp for 1941. But the other things are weaknesses too. And in the early war they were more importent then its strengths. So the Germans were able to get the better of the T34 and continued to do so for the entire war.
If 50 years later soviets cannot see the weakness of the T34 I guess it is explained why they continue to perpetuate them in later designs.

[Fariz]

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

...

Kstati, kak tebe moya ssylochka?

O tom, chto takoe zagrjad otrjady ya vpervyje uslyshal ot svoego deda, frontovika, godu v 1977-79. Ne dumaju, chto on imel otnoshenije k gebelevskoj propogande

Ssylochka obaldennaja, dolgo smejalsja. Razoslal druzjam

Fariz

[Otter]

Originally posted by mrsid2

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

Hmmmm when did this discussion turn to the Aleutian campaign?

[Oldman731]

Originally posted by Pongo
Part of why the T34 was fought poorly was because it was designed poorly.It was designed to be fought that way.
Sorry if you can not see that. It is fast yet has no turrent basket. and its suspension is very bouncy. Both attribute to poor fire after movement. Combine that with horrible crew visiblility and you have a vehicle that is very susepteble to being out manuvered on the battle field and not getting the first effective shot in vs other tanks. Also very hard to see infantly moving arround it.
You keep touting the armour and gun and speed of the T34. I acknoledge the great combination of those factors that the T34 possessed esp for 1941. But the other things are weaknesses too. And in the early war they were more importent then its strengths. So the Germans were able to get the better of the T34 and continued to do so for the entire war.

How did I miss this thread for so long?

Pongo, you ARE just teasing here, right?  

- oldman

[Pongo]

did you see a  

[Oldman731]

Originally posted by Pongo
did you see a  

Ah.  Well, now that you mention it, no, I did not see a smiley face.  So you really are serious here, I guess?

So far as I know, you are absolutely ALONE in saying that the T34/76 was “designed poorly.”  The bolsheviks thought it was just fine.  The Nazis uniformly held it to be the best tank of the time (1941-42).  Every commentator and historian whose works I’ve ever read agrees - with them, not with you!  Unless I’ve missed something?  Do you have German sources from the time that say “Boy, we’re glad we have our Mark IIIs.  We sure wouldn’t want to have those T-34s!  Why, they’re cramped inside!  And bouncy?  Did I ever tell you how bouncy they are?  Why, after you’ve rolled over a 37 mm AT gun, you’d think that you were driving Cheech and Chong’s ghetto cruiser, they’re so bouncy!  And you can hardly see out of them, because they have all this armor and stuff.  They don’t have nice side doors on their turrets and hulls like we do, to let in a cool breeze and the occasional solid shot.  And those wide treads they have are so UGLY!  They make me think of Uncle Otto’s tractor, they’re so ugly!  And they’re always muddy, too, because Ivan doesn’t know how positively boorish it is to drive off the roads and into those stinky swamps.  No class, let me tell you.  I don’t think those Russians will ever really BELONG, if you know what I mean.  And their faces are all puffy, too, because they aren’t allowed to stop at the bathrooms like we do when we have to get gas every 80 miles.  No, their officers make them drive on and on and on until the gas runs out, and that takes FOREVER, and it makes them all constipated and gives them puffy complexions.  And their backs go bad, too, from lifting those heavy 76 mm shells.  You would have thought that they would have copied our nice slim 50 mm guns, I mean, they’ve KNOWN about them all this time, haven’t they?  Honestly, I suppose you can’t expect to take a pig farmer away from his farm and turn him into an elite panzer trooper.  The value system is just all WRONG, if you know what I mean.”

Well, or even any sources LIKE that?

- Oldman

[Pongo]

Fariz

"So - what we see is a superiority of T-34 over Sherman. "
Actually the Sherman has established a supperiortiy over the T34 in many engagments since the war.

"What was he price, sorry, I didn't understand? Again: how many American tankers burned in their Shermans?  "
About 20 000 fewer then soviets who burnt in thier T34s.
The Sherman was no more likely to burn then the T34. US tankers are just more likey to complain about it.

"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."
Huraaa.
Had they had a better tank the price might have been much less. Had it been designed to be used flexibly and effectivly the invasion might have failed.  

Sorry you have based your national pride on thinking the T34 was all tanks to all people. It was not. It was a revolutionary ballance of Speed Armour and Fire power.  But it had big weaknesses that dont show up in typical WW2 tank buff books.
Those weaknesess contributed to  not  stoping the Germans with anything short of massive numerical supperiority.

The crew layouts and ammo handling and turrent baskets and vision blocks etc that most every tank since the Panzer III have used are not there for making toast. They greatly contribute to the effectiveness of the vehicle.  The absence of many such refinements on any version of the T34-76 were major force divisors on the Soviet tank forces. The abscence of radios was another huge one. So we put our boys in tanks that have absolutly horrible visiblity, make it so that the commander is the only one who can fire the gun, so He has to be buttoned up to use the main armement! then we dont give him a radio so that he can at least be warned about that  Panzer III slipping arround behind.

You seem too quick to fault the troops that manned the T34. Strange that you are more worried for its reputation then theirs.

[Pongo]

Oldman. Did you read the report that started this thread.  
They see some things wrong with the T34...
I have said so many times in this thread that the T34 has excellent qualities. And a revolutionary emphasis on Speed armour and gun power. But are you saying it was perfect?
Do you want me to type in dozens of accounts of T34s being destroyed in droves because they never new  the germans were behind them.  
The bounce caused by the excessive travel of the suspension is one of the major problems with a christie type suspension. You apperently think it is funny. Take my word for it. When you cant shoot after stopping for 8 seconds because your high speed tank is bouncing back and forth while a Panzer IV has stoped and put 2 rounds into you allready it is not funny.

I guess it is convientent to think that the Soviet tankers where all boobs and the Panzer truppen where all super men.  But the limitations of the T34 design were well known by 1942 and contributed greatly to the outcome of the battles in 41 42.
How could they do anything but?

Sorry if you guys all thought this was the perfect tank. It wasnt. It was a clever ballence of features and limitations that seemed to make sense to the designers and developers at the time.  It is very famous because of what a supprise it was and it changed some of the fundimental concepts of tank design.
Most all the things I have mentioned were added to the design as it developed. (why would they do that Oldman?)The suspension had to be replaced because of the weight limitations of the christy suspension and the need for more armour.

We dont have to dig up comical accounts of bouncing T34s to know I am correct..we just have to look at the direction tank development went after the early T34s. It did that for a reason. To over come some real short commings in the early T34 design.

But I will admit. The qualitys that the T34 did posses were instermental in slowing the Germans enought that the war was not lost in 1941. Which is a pretty good foot note for the design.

[-lynx-]

The Sherman was no more likely to burn then the T34. US tankers are just more likey to complain about it.

 This is BS Pongo - if you can't see that then you're talking out of your arse I'm afraid.

Try this simple test somewhere far away from any building: 2 buckets, one with diesel and another with petrol (or gas as you call it), lite a match and try to set fire to diesel. When you get tired, or get your fingers burnt by countless matches you had to use with no result on diesel - try the other bucket. When you out of burns unit - report back here with your observations.

Lots of your other points can be disproved just as easily but hey - since you don't seem to be accepting any arguments and even claiming Sherman's superiority over T34 - we can all but try...

After all what did Guderian know that Pongo doesn't? He was just a lowly tanker guy after all, a German to boot. What do Germans know about tanks? Nothin' surely.

[Sabre]

Just to turn the discussion back along more civil (and less nationalistic) lines, here's a good article about a restoration project on a Finnish T34/85.  I do have to say, that interior looks mighty cramped; however, it's still a beautiful beast in its own way.

http://www.guns.connect.fi/gow/T34tank1.html

At the risk of being labled over nationalistic myself, if I had to choose one and only one tank to model next for AH, I'd still vote for a late model Sherman (or perhaps the British adaptation, with the 76mm gun).  Mainly because I believe it saw use in virtually every theater, including the Eastern front.  The T34 would certainly be next on my list.  However, to be fair, I'd suggest making it a feature to have the radio bar and RW/AH-Voice be disabled while driving it .  Can you imagine the threads the T-34 would generate? "The Christey Suspension doesn't bounce enough when coming to a sudden stop.  It's horked!"

[Pongo]

I am sorry you dont like to discuss these things linx. I know you are very partial to all issues soviet..
I guess I should have said blow up. Cause that is what a penetrated T34 was prone to do. Very poor ammo storage.

Do you know how many ww2 tanks used Gas? How many of them had the reputation to burn..The tanks that the US tankers were contrasting their ronsons with where infact GAS fueled.. ..Do you think the issue might be a bit more complex then just a contrast of the flash point of Gas and Diesel?

The feature that they T34 and Sherman in thier early versions shared was poor ammo storage. Contrast the reputations of the KV1 and the T34. Diesel engines. One has poor ammo storage and is prone to blow. The other does not and is almost legendarly in its ability to be repeatedly holed.

I guess it is easier to not wonder why such an apperenlty wonderful vehicle as the T34 was not more successful as its stats would indicate, you are not inclined that way..fine.

But I reiterate. Anyone that would choose to go to war in any T34 ever made over an M4A3E8(76) really does not know what they are talking about. But you think what you will.

[Boroda]

Question to Pongo:

Please describe how do you understand damage factors in case of armour penetration. What do you think happens inside the tank hull.

Looks like we should invite Miko2d into this thread, he was a T-72 commander and knows some issues from practical side.

[Pongo]

Quesion to borodo
please to explain why it bothers you so much to discussing why a tank that was definalty not perfect..might not be,
Maybe Miko can help. The T34 has the same issues as the T34.
As to me I was a TOW missle gunner and vehicle commander. We got to discuss the weaknesses of Soviet armour. And I made the study of the history of it an interest of mine...

[Oldman731]

Originally posted by Pongo
But I reiterate. Anyone that would choose to go to war in any T34 ever made over an M4A3E8(76) really does not know what they are talking about. But you think what you will.

Now you see, Pongo, this is just the sort of thing that gets people all riled up.  First, they get mad because you’re calling them stupid.  Next, they think that YOU’RE the one who’s being silly, because your statement is so out in left field (a late-model T-34/85 over an Easy 8 Sherman?) (Are you kidding?) (Ah, nope, no smiley face, not kidding.)

We all agree that the T-34 had its bad features.  Certainly this is true of any tank, or plane, or person, for that matter, and no one here ever claimed otherwise.  The question is whether the T-34 had more bad features than good features, and how its balance of good and bad compared to other tanks’ - such as, for example, the venerable Sherman.  Reasonable minds may differ on this.  The only people who actually had the opportunity to make the choice were the bolsheviks, and they chose to use the Shermans as infantry support vehicles, not as the principal tank in their armored formations.  Now....maybe they really did not know what they were talking about, but my best guess is that they did.

- oldman

[Pongo]

Sorry oldman.
Amazing how wound up people can get about discussing vehicles in the aircraft and vehicles section.
The soviets equiped entire corps with M4s. Including Guards corps(the 1st at least) so your snipe about infantry support tanks was...misinformed?Was the first guards tanks corps relegated to infantry support?

You seem to think that the T34-85 was vastly superior to the M4. The only measure that it is clearly superior in is range....(100s of KM)
Less anti armour capability(the US 76 penetrates quite a bit more then the soviet 85mm), bit better armour unless you read about the quality of the steel used in the article above.  Bit faster in absolute road speed. Far superior suspension on the Sherman. Better ground clearance, Similar profile, T34 traverses faster but has worse fine control so it brings the gun to bare less quickly. The Sherman is stablized vertically and the T34 has lower ground preasure(both low though) Optics are better on the Sherman.
Sherman weighs a bit more but simular in that area. Engine smoke way worse for T34..
T34 costs less(the crews dont care about this one).

Both tanks have easy penetrations of the other in normal engagement ranges. So it will likely come down to first hit wins. I am betting the Sherman will hit first.It is a major factor in its design. It has better fire control and optics  and a more tame suspension.
You are apparenlty betting the other way. But your not backing it up with any real info . my favorite types to bet against.

But the interesting thing other then you making up nonsense about how the soviets used the M4 in service is that you think the two vehicles are miles appart in capablity. Even a cursory glance at armour and armement and speed data about them shows they are similar in capablility.

Your not doing a very good job of backing up the people that know nothing about the topic.