General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Rich46yo on September 05, 2016, 01:05:56 PM
Title: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: Rich46yo on September 05, 2016, 01:05:56 PM
Interesting article. Ive read bits and bites of it in other articles but never had a presentation so well organized. I dont buy into the theory the T-34 sucked but Im interested in some of the findings. We "Americans" found some similar issues with the tank as well. http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html (http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html)
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: icepac on September 05, 2016, 11:01:22 PM
There is a reference to porsche being given a T34 tank and the engineers saying that the engine was down on power and cheap soviet stuff....etc.
Ferry Porsche walked up, disconnected the governor, and the power shot up to levels that made the engineers embarrassed.
Some of the armor in many of the T34s was forged in a rolling mill making it stronger than either welded or cast armor.
Again, Dr. Porsche got to the bottom of it and found that germany had sold the most powerful "rolling mill" in the world to russia before the war.
You won't find many references to these two discoveries.
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: Chalenge on September 05, 2016, 11:53:30 PM
Actually, the cold-rolled welded turret was replaced with a cast turret on the majority of T-34/76 Tanks to speed production. They had also switched from the Christie approach to the suspension to a torsion bar method, which was far more efficient. By the time the T-34/85 arrived things were looking up for the design.
These problems all go away in AH though, because we don't have mechanical breakdowns.
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: nrshida on September 06, 2016, 05:09:13 AM
Actually, the cold-rolled welded turret was replaced with a cast turret on the majority of T-34/76 Tanks to speed production. They had also switched from the Christie approach to the suspension to a torsion bar method, which was far more efficient. By the time the T-34/85 arrived things were looking up for the design.
These problems all go away in AH though, because we don't have mechanical breakdowns.
T-34s got torsion bar suspension?
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: Vraciu on September 06, 2016, 01:49:25 PM
The T-34 was a great trainer.
Julie Clark does amazing stuff in it.
Oh wait...
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: Ack-Ack on September 06, 2016, 02:51:59 PM
I thought only the T-34M prototype had the torsion bar suspension?
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: DaveBB on September 06, 2016, 03:14:28 PM
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
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: Ack-Ack on September 06, 2016, 05:18:03 PM
Nicholas Moran, currently a Major in the U.S. Army Reserve, former M-1 TC in Iraq, and Bradley commander in Afghanistan....
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.
A good book on tank destroyers is "American Knights: The Untold Story of the Men of the Legendary 601st Tank Destroyer Battalion" by Victor Failmezger.
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: Chalenge on September 06, 2016, 05:43:53 PM
Well, it was as accurate a statement as what icepac went with. The point being that if you don't know the history of the tank an examination of one tank could easily lead you off mark.
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: Chris79 on September 06, 2016, 05:54:30 PM
If memory serves, the T34 was designed to be a simple, cheap, tough, and easy to operate vehicle with a 1 month operational life. As Lenin once said, "Quantity has a quality of its own". As for AH, modeling potentional defects would be counter productive.
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: Chalenge on September 06, 2016, 06:08:14 PM
Exactly.
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: DaveBB on September 06, 2016, 06:32:09 PM
If memory serves, the T34 was designed to be a simple, cheap, tough, and easy to operate vehicle with a 1 month operational life. As Lenin once said, "Quantity has a quality of its own". As for AH, modeling potentional defects would be counter productive.
The steering was very complicated to operate.
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: branch37 on September 06, 2016, 06:48:08 PM
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
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: icepac on September 11, 2016, 07:25:06 AM
Well, it was as accurate a statement as what icepac went with. The point being that if you don't know the history of the tank an examination of one tank could easily lead you off mark.
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.
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: nrshida on September 11, 2016, 08:09:26 AM
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).
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: icepac on September 11, 2016, 12:48:34 PM
You're too gullable bud. You believed a nonsense Porsche anecdote. Be more critical. :rofl
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?
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: nrshida on September 11, 2016, 12:58:53 PM
Not in the least bit interested in the T34. Doesn't impair my ability to spot stupid apparently :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: FBKampfer on September 11, 2016, 05:33:53 PM
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.
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: Chalenge on September 11, 2016, 06:40:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: Squire on September 12, 2016, 02:25:14 AM
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.
Quote
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.
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: Mister Fork on September 12, 2016, 02:07:39 PM
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 ...
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: Ack-Ack on September 12, 2016, 02:19:10 PM
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.
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: save on September 12, 2016, 02:25:31 PM
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
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: shift8 on September 29, 2016, 05:12:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: save on September 30, 2016, 04:38:17 AM
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)
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: SmokinLoon on October 01, 2016, 08:45:32 PM
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.
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: Zimme83 on October 02, 2016, 12:52:01 AM
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.
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: Squire on October 02, 2016, 03:59:15 PM
Quote
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.
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: save on October 02, 2016, 04:59:55 PM
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.
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.
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: Zimme83 on October 02, 2016, 08:10:07 PM
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...
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: shift8 on October 02, 2016, 10:39:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: Zimme83 on October 02, 2016, 11:30:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: save on October 03, 2016, 06:50:08 AM
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.
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: shift8 on October 03, 2016, 12:20:34 PM
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.
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: GScholz on October 03, 2016, 01:02:28 PM
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...
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: GScholz on October 03, 2016, 01:10:03 PM
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.
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: Zimme83 on October 03, 2016, 04:48:19 PM
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.
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: GScholz on October 03, 2016, 05:36:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: Oldman731 on October 03, 2016, 09:31:09 PM
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
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: GScholz on October 04, 2016, 07:00:51 AM
I believe this has been posted here before, but for those who missed it:
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: Zimme83 on October 04, 2016, 10:19:34 AM
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...
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: GScholz on October 04, 2016, 11:45:05 AM
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...
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: Mister Fork on October 04, 2016, 01:45:17 PM
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...
The fact that Germany was run by a Nazi government meant that it's ability to think strategically and rationally was impaired, right from the start. Luck had little to do with it - you can only drive a bulldozer over countries so far before you just run out of ground or gas. They made mistakes with incarceration and genocide of the Jewish communities and minorities. They made mistakes with military strategy with the Battle of Britain. They made mistakes invading the Soviet Union by not equipping their soldiers for an all-climate war. They made mistakes by not ensuring they had sufficient resources and support for their African forces.
And the largest one - Germany AND Japan made the biggest mistake of waking the sleeping giant.
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: nrshida on October 04, 2016, 01:48:00 PM
the only reason that Hitler got as far as he did was all the mistakes made by his opponents.
What an utter load of condescending, revisionist claptrap. You know some of you young fellas ought to unimplant your noses from your beloved military text books, stop playing Top Trumps with which tank had the bigger engine, better armour and more destructive gun and look to the broader context in which your favourite hobby is firmly nested from time to time.
The narzies enjoyed an effective 20 years advancement in armament technology and tactics by indirect virtue of the Treaty of Versailles and Hitler structuring his military from the platform of a dictatorship. Just look at the antiquated cack and pre-historic tactical thinking the rest of Europe was fielding at the outbreak of The Big Show (a gap swiftly closed and surpassed I might add). Perhaps dedicating equal research to the reasons for that might prevent these odious and fully erroneous notions cropping up on this forum every three months.
What an utter load of condescending, revisionist claptrap. You know some of you young fellas ought to unimplant your noses from your beloved military text books, stop playing Top Trumps with which tank had the bigger engine, better armour and more destructive gun and look to the broader context in which your favourite hobby is firmly nested from time to time.
The narzies enjoyed an effective 20 years advancement in armament technology and tactics by indirect virtue of the Treaty of Versailles and Hitler structuring his military from the platform of a dictatorship. Just look at the antiquated cack and pre-historic tactical thinking the rest of Europe was fielding at the outbreak of The Big Show (a gap swiftly closed and surpassed I might add). Perhaps dedicating equal research to the reasons for that might prevent these odious and fully erroneous notions cropping up on this forum every three months.
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: Beamont on October 04, 2016, 02:38:33 PM
To address your points about the winning and losing of the war, the greatest man of the period knew it was about economics and manpower.
"saturated and satiated with emotion and sensation, I went to bed and slept the sleep of the saved and thankful."
Winston Churchill, December 7, 1941
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: Chris79 on October 04, 2016, 06:31:06 PM
It was doctrine that led to the success of the Heer not superior AFVs during the early war. During the invasion of France the British and French had more and depending who's POV better tanks. The Germans organized their AFVs into divisions supported by motorized infantry where as the Allies distributed their armor at the battalion level amongst their infantry divisions. The Matilda tank was damn near impervious to contemporary German tanks of the time, that is where the 88mm was converted into a anti-tank gun. The same is true for the OstFront, although the T34 came as a shock to the Heer they were able to improvise at first. It was not until the Soviets figured out amassing large number of tanks, "Tank Armies", and use those units in conjunction with mobile deep operation tactics did they become successful. Even then, the soviets experienced some serious teething issues until mid 1943. It also ought to be noted that victory in the east was all but impossible, had Hitler not issued some of his ludicrous orders it was well within reason up to onset of operation Bagration for Germany to reach a brokered peace with the Soviets.
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: Oldman731 on October 04, 2016, 10:01:19 PM
It also ought to be noted that victory in the east was all but impossible
There was a professor in the Penn State system who pointed to the map. If you look at it, greater Russia is a funnel pointed toward Europe. Invasions from west to east necessarily spread out into the funnel, and always failed. Invasions from east to west necessarily concentrated, and tended to succeed. I thought it was an interesting point.
- oldman
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: GScholz on October 04, 2016, 10:40:13 PM
The Battle of Moscow from October 1941 to January 1942 more or less decided the outcome of the war on the Russian front, and Europe for that matter. Germany lost that battle because they were ill equipped and ill prepared to fight a winter war in Russia, due primarily to the racist ideology and overconfidence of the Nazi leadership. Had Moscow fallen Stalin and the hard-line Soviet leadership, who had opted to stay in the beleaguered capital, would have collapsed, and it was the only thing keeping the organized resistance going at that point. Germany could have essentially won the war in Europe in 1941, before Pearl Harbor.
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: nrshida on October 04, 2016, 10:51:18 PM
It was doctrine that led to the success of the Heer not superior AFVs during the early war.
It was a combination.
So talking details: Only 16 Matilda IIs were available by the Battle of Arras on 21 May 1940. And the following day 2 were still serviceable. The armour came at a price. About 15 m.p.h. on tarmac and something like 6 off road. One of the luxuries of a clean sheet of paper is you can design your equipment in accordance with your new tactics. The 'Lord' already had his gear and moves well sorted in the Spanish Civil war. The Matilda was slow and 27 feet long because the noobs still thought they would be breaching trenches when they designed it.
Now talking generally: Look to the Dutch, Belgian & Polish armies for more common examples. They were still largely reliant on horses. France's military also relatively tiny and ill-equipped compared to the Great War. There were numerous towns and villages not even existant anymore.
For the why's you have to look beyond the military equipment and not with modern eyes.
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: nrshida on October 04, 2016, 11:05:18 PM
The Battle of Moscow from October 1941 to January 1942 more or less decided the outcome of the war on the Russian front, and Europe for that matter. Germany lost that battle because they were ill equipped and ill prepared to fight a winter war in Russia, due primarily to the racist ideology and overconfidence of the Nazi leadership. Had Moscow fallen Stalin and the hard-line Soviet leadership, who had opted to stay in the beleaguered capital, would have collapsed, and it was the only thing keeping the organized resistance going at that point. Germany could have essentially won the war in Europe in 1941, before Pearl Harbor.
I agree they could have perhaps reformed the Eastern European map at least for quite a long time, up to the Volga (all they really wanted I think), had they been quicker. Stalin threw the one thing he had in abundance into the machine. People. Western Europe would have never been allowed to be kept. North Africa debatable. The Nazi expansion depended on the resources of other countries to be sustained. Britain did not (and likely would not) fall and would never have tolerated Nazi occupation of its former allies. Perhaps WWII would have ended in 41 but a WWIII would inevitably have begun, perhaps late 40s, early 50s at the latest. Probably an altogether more bloody and savage war than both the WWI and WWII we know.
Any superiority of the German war machine was transient and the early success dependent on many factors.
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: GScholz on October 04, 2016, 11:29:39 PM
What would have happened is anyone's guess. With the resources of continental Europe and Russia under its command, a Eurasia-spanning Third Reich would be very difficult to defeat. That's the difficult part about changing history. Have you read the novel Fatherland or watched the HBO TV-movie?
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: nrshida on October 04, 2016, 11:58:26 PM
Have you read the novel Fatherland or watched the HBO TV-movie?
A long time ago I think. There were a lot of interesting sci-fi stories based around these sort of premises. There was a good 70s film I'm wracking my brains to think of wherein WWII didn't happen. It depicted a more socially advanced and yet technologically retarded world by our standards.
Hard to say which path was better for the long-run. Technical advances probably lead to advancement in some areas at the expense of others and vice-versa.
Had Hitler topped himself in the late 1920s in an attic studio as a failed artist instead of whimpering in his bunker, mumbling about how the German race had failed him around the muzzle of a PPK then perhaps the world would be a safer more advanced place today. Perhaps all that horror and ill-feeling had to get worked out somehow. Is still being worked out.
I don't think nature really cares about us any more than uninteresting components in a process.
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: Mister Fork on October 05, 2016, 02:31:32 PM
What would have happened is anyone's guess. With the resources of continental Europe and Russia under its command, a Eurasia-spanning Third Reich would be very difficult to defeat. That's the difficult part about changing history. Have you read the novel Fatherland or watched the HBO TV-movie?
There is no guess... the moment the Nazi party got elected, Germany entered a downfall. Prior, German innovation was astounding in industry and military capacities. The brain-drain that resulted from the Nazi government that came to power greatly diminished it's ability to innovate - they had built up a great deal of technology innovation prior, but beyond 1939 tech left them hobbled even before they rolled into Poland. Airplanes like the 262, Fw-190, jet engines, tanks, u-Boats, the mighty Bismark, and even the V-1 rockets - they were ALL on someones drawing board prior to WWII starting. The pace the German Wehrmach and Luftwaffe advanced their designs, weapons, and technology was at a snails pace compared to American, Canadian, and British designers.
Don't get me wrong and say that Germany didn't advance their own tech, but the pace that the Allied forces were able to innovate their technology was hobbled by idealism, misguided direction from leadership, and their inability to accept that the Americans would ever enter the war.
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: GScholz on October 05, 2016, 02:42:50 PM
That's demonstrably incorrect. The Nazi party came to power in 1933. All the main aircraft, vehicles and weapons used by the Germans in WWII with the exception of the Mauser K98 rifle and Luger P-08 pistol was designed and produced after the Nazis came to power.
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: Oldman731 on October 05, 2016, 08:28:43 PM
Had Moscow fallen Stalin and the hard-line Soviet leadership, who had opted to stay in the beleaguered capital, would have collapsed, and it was the only thing keeping the organized resistance going at that point.
Sez who? I have never understood the assumption that the fall of Moscow - even if it had included the death or capture of Comrade Stalin - would somehow have ended the war in the east.
- oldman
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: GScholz on October 05, 2016, 09:51:07 PM
It wouldn't have ended it, but it would have destroyed the Soviet centralized command of its forces. The rest of the country might have fought on, or not, but resistance would have been compartmentalized in local areas rather than a united effort. That's the big danger of having a completely centralized command structure like the Soviets did. Germany would have won, but it would have taken them months or years to finish the job.
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: GScholz on October 05, 2016, 11:16:30 PM
Another opportunity that was squandered because of the Nazi ideology is that many of the Soviet republics might have joined the Reich willingly if not for the brutal treatment the Nazis inflicted upon them. The Ukrainians in particular initially welcomed the Germans as liberators. The same with the Balkan states. Had the Germans been governed by a rational leadership without the racist need to ethically cleanse Eastern Europe, many of the occupied territories would have become important sources of manpower and raw materials. Instead they became a quagmire of wasted resources and partisan activity.
Another opportunity that was squandered because of the Nazi ideology is that many of the Soviet republics might have joined the Reich willingly if not for the brutal treatment the Nazis inflicted upon them. The Ukrainians in particular initially welcomed the Germans as liberators. The same with the Balkan states. Had the Germans been governed by a rational leadership without the racist need to ethically cleanse Eastern Europe, many of the occupied territories would have become important sources of manpower and raw materials. Instead they became a quagmire of wasted resources and partisan activity.
This is true. I actually did a research project in college on this exact topic. Part of the issue was the lack of planning, the Germans didn't even think about their reception in Ukraine or the Balkans, they were looking too far ahead (capture of Moscow and oil fields, etc). If they had tapped in to the anti-Soviet positions of either, the Germans may have had better luck on the Ost Front.
Title: Re: How good was the T-34? Really?
Post by: DaveBB on October 07, 2016, 05:16:39 PM
This is true. I actually did a research project in college on this exact topic. Part of the issue was the lack of planning, the Germans didn't even think about their reception in Ukraine or the Balkans, they were looking too far ahead (capture of Moscow and oil fields, etc). If they had tapped in to the anti-Soviet positions of either, the Germans may have had better luck on the Ost Front.
The German High Command had planned the entire time to exterminate the population of the captured lands in order to create "living space" for German settlers, and to create new colonies. They even calculated how many people they needed to exterminate in this Lebensraum: At least 30 million.