[FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000]Here are two interesting essays on the Soviet T-34 tank (first one is mine) and its limitations:
[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
[URL="http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.gr/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html"][FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][COLOR=#0000ff]http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.gr/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/URL]
[URL="http://operationbarbarossa.net/Myth-Busters/MythBusters2.html"][FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][COLOR=#0000ff]http://operationbarbarossa.net/Myth-Busters/MythBusters2.html[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/URL]
[FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000]If all you know about the T-34 was that it was cheap, reliable, superbly armed and armored etc then you might change your mind.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
12-19-2012
thounaojamtom
whatever one say it is the tank that make the Soviet win the war.
12-19-2012
Einhander
I always called them not myths but overhyped misinterpretations. This "OMG_SLOPED_ARMOR!11" thing was in service way before WWII and Soviets; and "superb reliabilty" was actually "superb repairability". The only exceptional thing with T-34 was in its numbers produced.
12-19-2012
Shilo
One can yap about it all day, but no weapon is perfect. The T-34 was indeed a winning tool in its own way. It didn't need to have a 10:1 kill ratio to be one. All it needed to do was aid the Soviets in clenching victory from the hands of the Nazis. That it did.
12-19-2012
JCR
Its kind of ok as the Panther and Tiger tanks were not unreliable and immobile and actually a lot more mobile than most tanks :D
12-19-2012
Connaught Ranger
And like many weapons systems its days and usability were numbered as time went by.
12-19-2012
Raden5
Very silly article. Not taken into account well-known facts "why was it so, and not otherwise."
12-19-2012
CaffeineJunkie
[QUOTE=Shilo;6497138]One can yap about it all day, but no weapon is perfect. The T-34 was indeed a winning tool in its own way. It didn't need to have a 10:1 kill ratio to be one. All it needed to do was aid the Soviets in clenching victory from the hands of the Nazis. That it did.[/QUOTE]
Absolutely. It helped tire the German military industry by absorbing at least 44900 shells p-)
12-19-2012
Rubick
A yes, that one. Judging what the TankNet guys have to say. That article isn't all that accurate.[URL="http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php?showtopic=36603"]
[QUOTE=JCR;6497142]Its kind of ok as the Panther and Tiger tanks were not unreliable and immobile and actually a lot more mobile than most tanks :D[/QUOTE]
Wasn't it the Panther that was suffering of severe initial problems due to too short test phase?
While the T-34 might have been not the best of the tanks around at that time, he certainly was one of the more successful ones due to being there in necessary numbers at the right time.
12-19-2012
Meatwad
The T-34 wasn't the best in many areas but it was the combination of good ideas that made it one of if not the best medium tank of the war.
It was easy to build, had the best track width which is probably the most overlooked aspect, better power to weight ratio, speed on road and on terrain range compared to the PzIV or Sherman it also had the smallest profile(which is very important too) and required 1 less crew. However it was probably the least comfortable for the crew, and provided the least vision. It also had better armor all round (frontally until the PzIVG but still on a much greater angle thant the PzIVG). M-4 had superior frontal protection to both. While the germans were reaching weight limits on the Pz IVG to add protection to the front glacius they had to remove armor elsewhere. The gun was more than capable in dealing with the Pz III H and Pz IV F. Really it was a great feat of engineering considering it combined all those things.
The fact the T-34 also ran on diesel gave it more fuel economy(soviets had special additives and lubricants for winter). Obviously the manufacturing quality of the engine and suspension and tracks and sometimes the hulls themselves were not the best but the Soviets did not have a choice, they had to rush production. So they broke down more than they should have however and it took time for the crews and builders to make these deficiencies more workable, one luxery they had obviously was that there was so many it did not matter in the grand scheme of things.
The saving grace of the pzIV F/G/H was the gun and the superior optics which allowed penetration at greater ranges, the design of the tank body itself was obsolete by 41 but they made ways to keep it relevant until the introduction of the T-34-85 and IS-2s came and come they did in numbers it was hopeless.
The T-34 and the T-34-85 along and the PzIV its many variants all served throughout the war gracefully but I still give the T-34 the edge all round.
12-19-2012
paspartoo
[QUOTE=Rubick;6497180]A yes, that one. Judging what the TankNet guys have to say. That article isn't all that accurate.[URL="http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php?showtopic=36603"]
According to tanknet discussion correct figure for 5th TGA T-34 lost to mechanical problems was 31.5% and not 15% as i wrote but since i don' t have a specific source i left it at that. Also the Aberdeen T-34 engine died after 72 hours. Reliability to the max! I'll add these statements if i find the original source.
12-19-2012
JCR
This is a bit academic anyway as the soviets had no alternative.
The T-34 was the best design ready for production and the best they could produce with their industry.
What were the alternatives?
More KV-1s? The KV was a automotive nightmare, and had all those flat surfaces.
The T-50? In contrary to WoT, this tank didn't really shine in real combat :D
They could have produced the T-43 later but didn't for the same reason the US stuck to the Sherman. It was a established design.
12-19-2012
paspartoo
[QUOTE=JCR;6497200]They could have produced the T-43 later but didn't for the same reason the US stuck to the Sherman. It was a established design.[/QUOTE]
In 1941 the goal was to end production of the T-34 and move to the T-34M (torsion bar suspension plus other changes making basically a different tank). The war intervened and as you said the cost of building a new tank would be decreased production (initially). Obviously the SU leadership thought this was not acceptable during the war.
12-19-2012
Rubick
[QUOTE=paspartoo;6497197]:) Alejandro is that you? Anyway...
