Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: K West on January 16, 2002, 08:19:57 PM
-
Incredible. Read the review by the US Aberdeen engineers on an evalutaion T34 the Soviets gave the ?US in 1942. :
http://history.vif2.ru/library/archives/stat/stat7.html
-
Yup.
-
Originally posted by K West
Incredible. Read the review by the US Aberdeen engineers on an evalutaion T34 the Soviets gave the ?US in 1942. :
http://history.vif2.ru/library/archives/stat/stat7.html
Nice article Westy. Classic "NBH". Not built here. Too bad they couldn't see a diamond in the rough, if we had licensed them instead of building Shermans alot of Allies would have lived.
-
Exactly Otter.
They dismissed most everything about the tank that kocked the sh&t out of the Axis armour much better than anything the US had could have.
When I read about the T34, the fiasco with the P-38 (blockage of Merlin engine fitting and hinderance of fixes earlier to it), the P 39 (super or turbo-charge removal that neutered it) and the late notice by the USAAF of the P-51 (thank God for the Brits!) as well as many other case of political/corporate bullsh&t at play it amazes me that we were able to help the Allies win the war as we did.
Westy
-
Nice article Westy. Classic "NBH". Not built here. Too bad they couldn't see a diamond in the rough, if we had licensed them instead of building Shermans alot of Allies would have lived.
Problem with production quality plagued not only Soviet tanks - you should read about planes as well. One has to remember that by 1942 most of what used to be the industrial heartland of Russia was occupied and those T34s were manufactured on barely adapted production plants in the East of the country. Many experienced workers and specialists alike (="men of combatant age") were drafted to fight the war...
If the US had licenced T34 possibly implementing those mods they were talking about and using advanced (and undamaged) manufacturing facilities in the States to build them... And started shipping them back to Russia/Europe instead of the crap that was coming over... Oh well... Never happened...
On the other hand all AH hardware has no reliability problems - lets have T34s!:D
-
Interesting and disturbing report given what we know about the T-34's effect on the war.
I have a friend who was in the Army in the mdi-late 80s as an officer in tanks. His interest in military history of WWII is from the tanker's perspective and he feels that our handling of tank production in WWII bordered on criminal. In his opinion we should have done our best to license the T-34 and built it instead of the Sherman.
In his opinion the T-34 was the best all round Allied tank of the war, bar none. The Panther V G was the best all round tank in his opinion.
-
>>>>it amazes me that we were able to help the Allies win the war as we did. <<<<
We did basically because we had more...of everything. The warring nations had just about bled themselves white by the time the war ended. Even the US had begun to feel the effects of casualties near the end. Good thing our generals learned how to fight as the war progressed, at the beginning we lost men in huge amounts because of the ineptitude of our military leadership.
I read somewhere about the Sherman tank that it was a question of practicalities, the Sherman was easily produced, readily available, cheap, and we had enough manpower to run em. The bean counters prevailed; we send 1k tanks and can replace our losses with more tanks and more cannon fodder to run em.
Russians did amazing things to defend themselves when they faced the Nazi onslaught alone. Their factories were dismantled and moved hundereds of miles and put together in mere days in many cases. In Leningrad, factories continued to produce weapons (including tanks) even while they were starving and under seige for 300 days.
Brits got smart, they accepted the Sherman but replaced the ineffective 75 with their own high velocity version of the 76mm.
Sherman was still thin skinned but it had more punch and easily produced, it was also a good machine if they only had made adjustments to it (eg. increase armor plating) based upon experience in the field. I am amazed every time I read about the sinful waste that occured during both WW1 and WW2. And I cannot rule out a certain amount of Hubris on the part of American industrialists and military men. Cynically, what was at stake was the leadership of the world after the war was over.
-
You gentlemen need to take a second look at that article. It was not writen by the American engineers at Aberdeen, but by the Soviets, based on the testing the Americans did. It does not critique the two tanks' effectiveness in combat, but simply details the manufacturing processes and defects found in the tanks. This is the reason the Soviets gave the tanks to the Americans. I found it to be a balanced appraisal of the weaknesses in Soviet manufacturing during this time. You'll notice that the Soviet general officer who submitted the report did not take exception to most of the what the Americans found. Indeed, the last section are HIS suggestions, based on the testing, of what his country should do to improve the designs.
The true genious of the T-34's design is that, despite such poor manufacturing techniques and quality control, it still dominated the Easter Front. Keep in mind that later German designs surpassed the T-34 in important ways, but by then the Soviets were out-producing Germany. Quality only goes so far in countering quantity, afterall.
I do agree with the assessment made above that the US could have done worse than to build the design under license. However, there would still have been the problems of getting priority over the US Navy for the diesel engines to put in them. In the area of combat aircraft design, the US profited from perfect timing of their weapon's development cycle. The Army was not so fortunate, resulting in a design that was a generation behind what the enemy was fielding.
-
I was reading between the lines, particularly in regards to the remarks attributed to the American designers re: the Christie suspension being somehow inadequate, when in fact it was an integral part of the success of the T-34.
Co-ordination of the American manufacturing effort during the war was an enormous proposition and not to be dismissed lightly, but it appears from this report the Soviets improved what they could enough to make the tank effective.
It's also probable that the evaluation model wasn't altogether kosher given the Soviets well known paranoia.
-
Sabre: I did not miss the obvious in that article. I based my comments on the american criticisms of the tank's construction etc. The mere fact that the Russians were able to produce even poorly manufactured tanks that could kick the better quality tanks of the Nazis, was an amazing feat. That the Americans did not produce a better model of tank to protect its soldiers and, which could fight Nazi tanks toe to toe is, IMO a crime. Practicalities be damned. We could have done it, if the Russians could, we could have, and done it better. America had more than enough resources at its disposal to have overcome the monopoly of the Navy on diesel production or, even kept the gas engine design.
The Sherman was a ronson burner, and tankers life expectancy in them was even less than the B17 crews over germany before they had long range escorts.
-
Anyone that would trade an M4 for a T34 doesnt know what they are talking about.
The T34 was revolutionary. Not a world beater.
The M4 was a far more usefull tank. The M4a3 is at least equal in protection and speed. Supperior in armement. The russians loved the shermans they recieved Lend lease.
M4s biggest weakness vs its contemporarys was its tendacy to catch fire easy. The T34 has exactly the same problem and many more.
Read that assessment. It is by a russian for russians..The Germans aggreed 100% with that assessment.
That is why AH needs a T34/85. The 76mm ones are no match for a panzer IV or an M4a3-75.
-
You gentlemen need to take a second look at that article. It was not writen by the American engineers at Aberdeen, but by the Soviets, based on the testing the Americans did.
Sorry to barge in - it's more "complicated" than that. It looks like an adaptation of a translation of American engineers' report into Russian for Soviet Army use later translated back into English to be included in a website for all to see. I don't think the website author had access to the original - he'd have posted it.
The T34 was revolutionary. Not a world beater.
I have to disagree here - in 1941 there was nothing coming even close. Panther was designed to beat it and hull design etc was carefully studied and copied by German engineers.
Diesel engine in a tank makes sense (although filters weren't adequate blah-blah-blah) - it's not as prone to fires as petrol engine and is much simpller and more reliable (scratch complete electrical ignition system). Low profile sloping hull on a tank makes sense. Welded not rivetted hull/turret makes sense. Wide tracks make sense etc.
Manufacturing quality was leaving alot to be desired for and materials used weren't up to scratch but having in mind Soviet military doctrine of late 30s and what it came to replace - T28/35 slow many turreted poorly armed infantry support vehicles someone named "tanks" in error - it's a miracle it came to be.
T34-85 was what it should have been from the start but in 1940-41 there was no need for heavier main gun in a tank as most of opposition was sporting 37-57mm guns. And by 1943 there was no time/facilities to design/test things properly...
-
The main drawback of T-34-76 was it's 2 man turret and very poor sighting devices (not meaning gun sight). That meant the tank had virtually no leader as he was gunner or loader at the same time.
Also, as far as I know only leader tanks had radios.
With much faster reaction times and tactics/communication they were very often no match to German tankers.
Actually Russian tank doctrine guided not to engage German tanks.
With T-34-85 many sighting/leader problems were corrected but still not to German level.
-
I was referring to pre-war Soviet military doctrine which did not include tank/tank divisions as an independent weapon but as supporting infantry things. T34 was not an infantry support tank. Which was, in itself, a novelty.
It certainly had design imperfections, and yes, there were not enough radios to go around etc but surely one need to realise that this was a 1940 design? And when facing it's main competitors of the time (T-II and T-III) it was wastly superior fighting machine. It was on par with T-IV - weaker gun/optics, better armour/manouverability/hull design/engine. And that's T34-76... I'm not sure how american engineers managed to get 26kph max speed out of it - I've seen plenty documentary footage with T34s moving much faster than 15mph - cross country, snow, mud. Properly trained tank crews and better coms would allow it to fare much better than it actually did but hey - it's history now.
It seems that years of stereptyping are still preventing people from giving what is due - Ki84 was a flying bag of technical problems - we marvel at what it could have been, not a single King Tiger from their first batallion made it to the front line at Kursk - all broke down on the way! - we sigh admiringly "what a tank!". T34... Err... Not all machines had radios installed... Umm... And the turret was kinda small for 2 crew... Oh please...
-
not a single King Tiger from their first batallion made it to the front line at Kursk - all broke down on the way!
I believe you are thinking of the early Pzkfw VDs (Panthers) variants which were issued to the 51st and 52rd Panzerabteilung in May 1943. The King Tigers did not enter production until 1944.
It is true though, that many of the Panthers en route to their starting positions for the Kursk counter offensive broke down due to bad cooling systems and caught on fire. The peevish display that the Panthers put on in turn had a detrimental effect on moral.
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
For Lynx - it's a very funny article in Russian. (http://forum.wbfree.net/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000850)
Shermans were considered "very good tanks. For peacetime service" in USSR....
-
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...
-
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"?
-
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)
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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 :D
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 :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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
-
did you see a ;)
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...:rolleyes:
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.
-
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!"
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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
-
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.
:)
-
The Sherman has a much worse profile, shilouette and ground pressure than T34. Dont mention HVSS sherman they only really became abvailable in any numbers from early 1945. T34 had a 76mm 3 man turret by 1943. And the 85mm by late 1943.
I dont know where Pongo gets the idea that Shermans were better when it came to fuel fires... Its a given that diesel engines are much better in this regard to gasoline. Everyone knew and agreed on this fact in WW2. Why do you think you know better?
I dont know why Pongo thinks the Shermans were more resistant to ammo fires than T34. In fact it was very easy to set Sherman ammo on fire. Thats why so many Shermans had the three plates on the hull hides, do you think its a coincidence they were placed right over the ammo store locations. Late model shermans got water jackets over the ammo instead of extra armor. If the ammo gets hit it will blow up, its that simple....
The Sherman gun stabilization proved useless in real life use-though it reportedly performed nicely in optimal condition testing. All WW2 tanks had to stop to fire accurately.
The VVSS was awful. Again dont even bring up HVSS shermans or you will have to bring in T44....
Again the Sherman is much taller, has vertical sides, its much more upright, has a taller hull and glacis, less armor slope.
T34/85 suffered from poor optics, unreliable ammo, and poorly trained crews.
-
I dont know where GH gets the idea I think the Sherman was better for fuel fires then the the T34. I never said that.
I have agreed that gas is worse but that is a feature most other tanks in ww2 shared.
The ammo storage was rectified with wet storage as you point out. The T34 has exaclty the same issue. Not rectified. Many people here had the misconception that the Sherman was prone to fires because it was gas. Well its adverseries that the allied tankers were comparing against were gas. The issue was ammo storage.
The stabilization does not help you fire on the move. It helps you fire quickly after a stop. It never proved ineffective in the field. Just anoying cause it makes the gun bounce up and down in the turrent. So it was sometimes disconected.
How much taller is the Sherman? The early 76mm T34s definalty had a supperior profile to any sherman. The T34-85...I dont know Its pretty close.
No 76mm T34 had a 3 man turrent. The last version had an improved hatch but the commander was still the gunner.
I dont know where you dug up the T44 from. The HVSS suspension served on WW2 shermans. Even the earlier suspension was superior to the suspension on the T34.
Yes the ballistic shape of the hull is superior from all angles. And the protection of the vehicle benifits greatly from that. The internal layout does not. And the protection except from the sides is not superior to the Sherman.
So you agree then GH that the T34-85 is greatly supperior to the ultimate war time Sherman? I will admit if you discount the fire control improvements completly then its at best a dead heet. But I dont. I think they are near equal in raw numbers. And the fire control advances and supperior penetration of the Sherman give it the edge. Its more likly to see first shoot first and hit first. I will take those advantages. And its those features that this whole discussion concerns.
Thats why I think that the T34-85 should be our non perk soviet tiank and the M4a3(75) should be our non perk US tank. Both are about equivilent in usefullness to a Panzer IV H
-
T34/85 not greatly superior to lets say an HVSS 76mm 1945 Sherman, but a much more dangerous and vastly superior to any 75mm Sherman and a much better tank than any VVSS 76mm Sherman. Mobility in bad terrain of VVSS was very poor. All T34 have greatly superior shilioutte and outline to any Sherman. Even a Kingtiger has a better Shiloutte than Sherman- belive it or not, just look at them side by side. Sherman is incredibly upright.
My argument with you is that you overrate the Sherman and underrate the T34. You and widewing are about the most fanatic Sherman lovers I have ever seen. It wasnt that great you know- by 1944 it was a deathtrap i Europe and an embarassment to the US military, very vulnerable tank.
Panther is vastly superior to both though. :)
-
Just to put more.. err... gas on fire:
I dont know where GH gets the idea I think the Sherman was better for fuel fires then the the T34. I never said that.
vs. "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.
vs. The Sherman was no more likely to burn then the T34. US tankers are just more likey to complain about it.
You do seem to have a funny way with words;).
Sherman needs to be modelled first in any case as it served on more fronts and far more useful for scenarious. T34-85 as the next (after Sherman) tank would complete the list of unperked tanks representing all sides.
-
This is all getting very comical.
People start out the thread with absolulte statments of the supperiority of the T34 over the Sherman. Even having just read a soviet indictment of the weaknesses of the T34.
It reads like they are comparing a Panther and a Sherman..
I had to point out that that is just silly. These two tanks are very simular in fundimentals. The ways they differ are very interesting to consider. As are the reasons why such an obviosly supperior tank didnt whipe out the Germans in 41.
People rail on about how the things I mention dont matter. Yet they were all adapted eventually in the T34 or later tanks. So we try to focus on the capablilitys of the tanks in their fully developed war time forms. And we still have two tanks that are very simular in fundimentals. And we still have to pick hairs to discuss which is better. (well some of you think its obvios.)
The reasons I would take the Sherman if I had the choice to go to war with I think I have backed up. One vs the other. The sherman is more likely to get off the first shot and hit with it. They are that close, it comes down to that.
GH can take the T34 if he thinks its profile advantage would increase the chance of a miss from the sherman.....
I bet different.
As to the fire issue. The T34 is not a very survivable tank. IE its after penetration survival is poor. It has this in common with the Sherman. Both these tanks suffered heavily vs the germans. But we hear alot more about the weaknesses of one because it was used in the west.
-
"The sherman is more likely to get off the first shot and hit with it."
That doesnt help much when it can't penetrate the T-34 armor.
Daff
-
Originally posted by 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...
I am Boroda, not "borodo" or "bordoa". BorodA, stress on the last "A". Means "beard" in Russian. ;)
Pongo, do you know the first rule of the Israeli army? "Never answer the question with another question" ;)
Pongo, armour penetration means that particles of armour go off the internal surface, leaving a plate-shaped hole. This particles are the main destructive factor. They can literaly shred the internals of the tank. Such thing can happen even if the penetration didn't occur. Another thing is excessive pressure (wrong word probably, in Russian it's "izbytochnoe davlenie"). Only 2.5kg/cm^2 can reliably "disable enemy personell" (shit, i always hated this kind of language!). You need much more "e. p." to damage ammo or any mechanisms. If ammo blows up - it means that the crew is already dead.
As for tight compatrment (internal layout) - it's again all about coffee machines and stereos. Tanks are built for combat.
BTW, try to find a copy of a Soviet movie "Na voyne kak na voyne" ("A la guerre com a la guerre"). It has an exellent picture of tank combat. They could fit a camera into a SU-100 crew compartment! IIRC - there are also some footage inside a T-34-85. And it's simply a beautiful movie, with young Oleg Borisov, Michail Kononov and Viktor Pavlov...
http://www.ozon.ru/detail.cfm/ent=7&ptn=3&id=9236
-
At http://history.vif2.ru/ there is an account where a T34 was hit by a Tiger tank. A few crew members were killed but the driver was still able to drive the T34 back to base.
-
The Americans COULD have designed a better tank and did, near the end of the war which included all of the battlefield tested improvements that should have been implemented earlier on in the war. The Sherman was produced in fantastic numbers so the allies went with them.
The Brits used Shermans but made their improvements once they received them by up gunning them and adding a bit more plate armor. Russians liked Shermans true, but they realized their T34 was better in many respects. Before the end of the war they put newer tanks in the field which included many of the design concepts that were in Nazi tanks and in the Sherman.
I have read that WW2 in particular was, in many respects, an exercise in competiton amongts the warring factor's scientists and engineers as much as it was a competition on the battlefield.
Brits loved American Sherman in Afrika campaign, at least until the advent of the Panther and Tiger; which brought out the serious flaw in the design (eg. poor armor design and weak main gun). The Russian T-34 was the only tank among all of the combatants which consistently competed well against Nazi armor. It had weaknesses, and would light up if hit in the right spot, but it was a better tank in the terrain it fought on and its sloped armor set the bar for modern armor design in tanks (which was not lost on Nazi design engineers btw). No higher compliment can be paid to ones nme than imitation.
Russia was under attack throughout most of the war. As a consequence they had to move their major industries and, often had to get those industries back online within days under wretched conditions. They did not enjoy a concentration of manufacturing assets, nor were their workers as well trained as other combatants. Yet they were successful enough in their main tank design to have had a major impact on the war, even with their backs against the wall for much of the early years.
In view of the above, by comparison the US Sherman should have been better and less of a hazard for our troops than it was. My objection is to the decision to concede to "practicalities", and leave the Sherman the way it was. IMO the losses in men could have been avoided.
-
Here was a fun old thread, looks like my temperament hasn't changed much.
Now we sit here, 8 years later, how did it turn out?
-
Now we sit here, 8 years later, how did it turn out?
With a locked thread.
-
I think more of the problems with the T34 had to do with Stalin getting rid of his commanders than the tank.
The German Panther was a better tank but the t34 won by attrition. The soviets had one other advantage over the Germans which was great quantities of mud. The heavy tanks of the Germans would bog down in it and the t34 would truck right along.
The t34 had a good balance of firepower, armored protection, and mobility. Probably why it served in armies for 50 years
-
T3476 is VASTLY supperior to its 75mm Sherman counterpart... I hear guys saying that they are similar, and that there is little diffrence bettween them :headscratch: ,umm boys, thats understating things a bit.
First off (and the biggest diffrence that strikes me) the Sherman is slab sided, where as the T34's armor is sloped around the entire vehicle...
There is the mention of which one has the lower silhouette, and its the T34 again. How about mobility? well the T34's tracks are wider, (not to mention the Christy suspension is also supperior to the Sherman arangment.) though the American tank had a better track in that it was studded with rubber, and probably gave better service than the T34's all metal tread.
I forget who it was that said the T-34 wasnt a world beat'r,.... well it doesnt matter, because its a damn close as you can come in 1942 to that very thing...
In fact the only equality I see bettween them is in the gun they where first armed with being nearly the same as far as I can tell.
Yes the Sherman has better optics, but optics arent worth a damn if your knocked out and burning on the side of the road in Holland... :aok
-
he he.
not going to start it all again, but everyone agreed with you but me.
-
he he.
not going to start it all again, but everyone agreed with you but me.
I wasn't around then, but I've been saying roughly the same thing for a while now. The T-34 and Sherman were very comparable tanks, but have two vastly different "reputations." The T-34 acquired a good one because in '41 it was up against German tanks with 37mm door knockers. The Sherman acquired a poor one because it went up against a German army that already upgraded due to the T-34s.
I "love" how people say the Sherman was a deathtrap without any regard for the fact that by that point in the war, the T-34s were deathtraps of the same magnitude against the German heavies.
Here is a link to a good read from a Soviet tanker's point of view. His opinion of the "Emcha" seems quite contrary to the reputation -- which brings to mind your comment from years ago about US armor not being any more prone to burn, just that US tankers are more prone to complain about it.
http://www.iremember.ru/content/view/85/19/lang,en/
-
Well, its just you and I then, and that guy who commanded one for the Russians.
-
"And the 85mm by late 1943."
First use of the T-34/85 in combat was the Spring of 1944. The T-34/76 was still 90 percent of the USSR tank force at the time. The T-34/76 was used untill wars end.
There is really no big qualatative difference of the T-34 and M4 series. They both have their plusses an minuses, which I wont add too since they have been debated to death here and everywhere else.
Oh and Boroda, the USSR used (I know the Soviets liked to ignore or forgot western Lend-Lease, basically ALL of it), the Sherman was used by them in large #s in combat.
Where was I? Right. The M4 Sherman series with a 75mm gun; gun, armor, speeds, reliability, ect, no great difference between it and the T-34/76. The M4 Sherman 76mm series, very close to the T-34/85. Quibble all you want about a few pnds of ground pressure, or mm of armor, or whatever...the fact remains as fighting AFVs in the feild, there was not much to choose between the two.
You can now argue endlessly about which one had a better paint job, or radio antenna, or had the better commanders hatch. ;)
-
You seem to be disregarding the fact that the Germans where using 50mm, and 75mm short barrel door knockers in Africa, and where blowing the hell out of Grants and Shermans then, though the real point seems to be lost on alot of you.
Anti-tank guns where used to great affect to disable, and set fire to Shermans when they where initialy introduced, and the Sherman retaind its reputation throughout the entire war for being soft on the sides.
Anyway, the 37mm weapons that you wrongly attribute to German GV's, where of-course ineffective against the Sherman..., HOWEVER the 50mm early war german gun on the the MK3's and especialy the 75mm long barrel on the MK4 panzers passed through the shermans frontal armor like a sive under 1500 yds.
This isnt a guess, but a FACT mentiond by an ordinance officer with first hand experience on the battle field.
Your argument is meaningless here, because the in-game sherman isnt facing a MK3, or AYTHING besides an m8 equipt with a 37mm...
Spin the facts all you wish..., but we stuck our servicemen in an inferrioir tank, when our allies had come up with a better solution in the T34.
Even with the short barrel I would take the T34 out in real life over the Sherman ANY day. It is undeniably a better tank, and a major factor in the defeat of the Nazi's.
(I have to make a correction where the 50mm panzer mk3 German gun is concerned, the frontal armor on a Sherman was good enough to defeat that round at 1500 yds, though it would DEFFINATLY puncture the Shermans flank, even in 1944)
I hate it, but its true... the M-26 however........... :aok
-
NO DIFFRENCE!!?? ARE YOU GUYS FOR REAL????
You do realise that the suspension and sloped armor on the T-34 is still used TO THIS DAY, because a better solution hasnt been found?
I love America, but the T-34 is so supperior to what we came up with at the time that I am personaly ASHAMED that we sent our men out to die in an inferior tank.
READ UP ON HISTORY GUYS... :aok
-
"NO DIFFRENCE!!?? ARE YOU GUYS FOR REAL????"
Afraid I am. Please post the BIG differences for me, since your so convinced there is one. Armor protection (all sides, turret and hull), gun, equipment, engine, speed, weights, ect.
M4A3 75mm vs the T-34/76, both from 1942
M4A3(76) vs the T-34/85 both from 1944
Go ahead. Either or both.
-
You seem to be disregarding the fact that the Germans where using 50mm, and 75mm short barrel door knockers in Africa, and where blowing the hell out of Grants and Shermans then, though the real point seems to be lost on alot of you.
http://socyberty.com/military/m4-sherman-firepower/
About a quarter of the way down the page, the author quotes the Rommel Papers:
“Up to May of 1942 our tanks had in general been superior in quality to the corresponding British types. This was now no longer true, at least not to the same extent. The American-built Grant tank, which appeared for the first time in the summer battles, undoubtedly had a match in our long-barreled Panzer IV, but only four of these latter were on African soil during our offensive. There was, in any case, no ammunition available for them, so that they were in fact unable to take any part. Our short-barreled Panzer IV was also clearly superior to the Grant in speed and maneuverability. Nevertheless, the Grant had the advantage as it could shoot up the short-barreled Panzer IV at a range where the latter’s shell was unable to penetrate the heavy armour of the American tank. We had forty short-barreled Panzer IVs against 160 British Grants.” - Page 196-197
“The main armament of our Panzer formations was the Panzer III, which, with its 50-mm. gun – of which by far the majority were short barreled – was even less of a match for the Grant. Those British tanks which were still armed with a 40-mm. gun – a large portion of the older British types had meanwhile been supplied with a 75-mm. – were inferior to the Panzer III. The 240 Italian tanks were no sort of match for the British and the troops had long talked of them as “self-propelled coffins.”" - Page 197
“Their new tank, the General Sherman, which came into action for the first time during this battle, showed itself to be far superior to any of ours.” - Page 309
“In contact engagements the heavily gunned British tanks approached to a range of between 2,000 and 2,700 yards and then opened concentrated fire on our anti-tank and anti-aircraft guns and tanks, which were unable to penetrate the British armour at that range.” - Page 309
So I guess the opposition disagrees with your assessment.
-
Im sorry, I dont undertstand how you'r paragraph conflicts with anything I said, in fact the statement was made that more than a few British tanks where inferior to the MK3 (with the 50mm gun)
"I" stated that the 50mm was only effective on the flanks..., Though it seem's to be wrong on my part..., because then you go on to support my assesment that at 1500 yards the THEN weeker German guns where STILL doing damage to British tanks... THANK YOU. :rofl
Funny, I only see what fits your argument posted...ummm, werent there short 75mm MK4's in Africa?, how did thier armor fair against the Shermans?
I seem to recall that a couple Tigers got into the war in Africa, and that 88mm anti aircraft guns where used against tanks as well....hmmm, perhaps they where bouncing off Sherman faceplates at 2000yds?
ANYWAY the point isnt if the Sherman was better than German tanks at its inception, but IF THE T34 WAS SUPPERIOR TO THE SHERMAN OR NOT.
I sincerly am-not impressd with your ability to stay on-topic thus far..., perhaps a remedial reading class is in order?
Ill be here all week folks...GOODNIGHT!
-
Im sorry, I dont undertstand how you'r paragraph conflicts with anything I said, in fact the statement was made that more than a few British tanks where inferior to the MK3 (with the 50mm gun)
"I" stated that the 50mm was only effective on the flanks..., Though it seem's to be wrong on my part..., because then you go on to support my assesment that at 1500 yards the THEN weeker German guns where STILL doing damage to British tanks... THANK YOU. :rofl
Funny, I only see what fits your argument posted...ummm, werent there short 75mm MK4's in Africa?, how did thier armor fair against the Shermans?
I seem to recall that a couple Tigers got into the war in Africa, and that 88mm anti aircraft guns where used against tanks as well....hmmm, perhaps they where bouncing off Sherman faceplates at 2000yds?
ANYWAY the point isnt if the Sherman was better than German tanks at its inception, but IF THE T34 WAS SUPPERIOR TO THE SHERMAN OR NOT.
I sincerly am-not impressd with your ability to stay on-topic thus far..., perhaps a remedial reading class is in order?
Ill be here all week folks...GOODNIGHT!
You seem to have a reading comprehension problem yourself. You stated the 50mm IIIs and short 75 IVs were "blowing the hell out of the Grants and Shermans in North Africa." I just provided a quote from Rommel that says his opinion was the short 50s and short 75mm guns were no match for the British Grants. And that the Shermans were far superior to any of our [tanks].
I am equally unimpressed with your ability to stay on topic. If we are comparing the Sherman to the T-34, why do you bring up the Tiger? Sure, the Sherman fared poorly against it. How do you supposed the T-34/76 fared? The answer is, equally poorly.
Why don't you do yourself a favor and look up some hard data as Squire suggested you do rather than blindly clinging to myths and reputations.
-
you succeded in answering NONE of my questions, so why should I offer you any answers?
You seriously insinuate that the M4's, and Grants where better than the German tanks in Africa?
You DO know that Rommel was outnumberd 3 to 1 by the end of that campaign... right?
Egsactly what point are you making?, that 3 m4'S ARE BETTER THAN 1 MK3?..., you've got me..., I agree. :x
I bring up Tigers because THEY WHERE IN THE CAMPAIGN..., and obviously your quotes dont mention them.
I can shuffle through wikipedia and find BS that supports my argument, but I really dont care that much..., and I personaly think that anyone whom honestly believes that the M4 Sherman was compeditive throughout ww2 is a friggin moron.
WOW, its almost as if I dont care WHAT you think..., I know id pick a MK3 over a Grant any day of the week..., how about you?
-
You seriously insinuate that the M4's, and Grants where better than the German tanks in Africa?
****
I know id pick a MK3 over a Grant any day of the week..., how about you?
....um....I think I'd pick the Grant....
While I'm one of those who believes that the T-34 series was superior to the Sherman series, I don't think there's much question that the Grant's long-range 75 gave the British a huge advantage over the German tanks of the time, and that the Sherman itself was at least equal, and probably superior to the later Mark IV with the long 75.
Very few tanks in the war could compare to the Tiger I.
- oldman
-
lol
Wish the link was still there, in the first post, it was good reading and I cant find the original on the web anymore, just the russian notes, that support it.
-
you succeded in answering NONE of my questions, so why should I offer you any answers?
All I am doing is correcting your drivel, which you continue to refuse to support with any evidence.
Oh, wait, I guess this is your evidence.
I personaly think that anyone whom honestly believes that the M4 Sherman was compeditive throughout ww2 is a friggin moron.
Yes, you are showing quite a bit of knowledge. Why should anyone doubt you. :rolleyes:
You seriously insinuate that the M4's, and Grants where better than the German tanks in Africa?
I didn't insinuate anything. I quoted Rommel.
I bring up Tigers because THEY WHERE IN THE CAMPAIGN..., and obviously your quotes dont mention them.
I don't mention them because they were not part of the original topic. Let us review. You said: "You seem to be disregarding the fact that the Germans where using 50mm, and 75mm short barrel door knockers in Africa, and where blowing the hell out of Grants and Shermans then, though the real point seems to be lost on alot of you." And I responded by showing your statement was not the view of the German Commander. Let's try to stay on topic, shall we?
I can shuffle through wikipedia and find BS that supports my argument, but I really dont care that much.
If you are content to wallow in ignorance instead of actually researching, I can't help you.
-
lol
Wish the link was still there, in the first post, it was good reading and I cant find the original on the web anymore, just the russian notes, that support it.
Is this it? (http://www.battlefield.ru/en/documents/80-armor-and-equipment/300-t34-kv1-aberdeen-evaluation.html)
-
That is the russian summary of it, The full doc used to be available, pictures and all.
-
NO DIFFRENCE!!?? ARE YOU GUYS FOR REAL????
You do realise that the suspension and sloped armor on the T-34 is still used TO THIS DAY, because a better solution hasnt been found?
I love America, but the T-34 is so supperior to what we came up with at the time that I am personaly ASHAMED that we sent our men out to die in an inferior tank.
READ UP ON HISTORY GUYS... :aok
Nice slab sides on the M1 Abrams and Leopard 2.
No modern tank that I know of uses coil springs in its suspension.
-
Nice slab sides on the M1 Abrams and Leopard 2.
No modern tank that I know of uses coil springs in its suspension.
Side skirt armore is not slab sides. Abrams and Leopard II have a very low profile and sloped composite armor.
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Abrams_Pics/M1A1-Abrams-USMC-01.jpg (http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Abrams_Pics/M1A1-Abrams-USMC-01.jpg)
http://homepage.eircom.net/~steven/images/leopard2tank-14.jpg (http://homepage.eircom.net/~steven/images/leopard2tank-14.jpg)
If you're talking about the christie suspension system it's a little more complex than "springs" but you are right, modern tanks don't use it...because the christie suspension is too fragile for a 45ton to 67ton tank that can travel ~40mph off road.
Nice try though.
-
Where is the sloped side armour?
-
Where is the sloped side armour?
Low profile hull, large turret...guess where the sloped side armor is. High tech composite armor is also used, all over the tank. Weakest spot is on top of the turret.