Page 1 of 12 12345678911 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 168

Thread: The T-34 Myth

  1. #1

    Default The T-34 Myth

    [FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][*******#000000]Here are two interesting essays on the Soviet T-34 tank (first one is mine) and its limitations:
    [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
    [FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][*******#0000ff]http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.gr/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
    [FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][*******#0000ff]http://operationbarbarossa.net/Myth-Busters/MythBusters2.html[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

    [FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][*******#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]

  2. #2
    Tom of Mumbai thounaojamtom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    somewhere stuck in traffic
    Age
    27
    Posts
    5,302

    Default

    whatever one say it is the tank that make the Soviet win the war.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Einhander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    SPb
    Age
    34
    Posts
    3,217

    Default

    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.

  4. #4

    Default

    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.

  5. #5
    L O L A JCR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    disinformation central
    Age
    34
    Posts
    14,025

    Default

    Its kind of ok as the Panther and Tiger tanks were not unreliable and immobile and actually a lot more mobile than most tanks

  6. #6
    Senior Member Connaught Ranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    The Garlic Fields of Transylvania, Romania.
    Age
    55
    Posts
    15,814

    Default

    And like many weapons systems its days and usability were numbered as time went by.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Raden5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Russian Federation
    Posts
    2,090

    Default

    Very silly article. Not taken into account well-known facts "why was it so, and not otherwise."

  8. #8
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shilo View Post
    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.
    Absolutely. It helped tire the German military industry by absorbing at least 44900 shells

  9. #9
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    620

    Default

    A yes, that one. Judging what the TankNet guys have to say. That article isn't all that accurate.

    http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php?showtopic=36603

  10. #10
    Senior Member Xaito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Age
    28
    Posts
    13,369

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JCR View Post
    Its kind of ok as the Panther and Tiger tanks were not unreliable and immobile and actually a lot more mobile than most tanks
    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.

  11. #11
    Senior Member Meatwad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Canada New Jersey
    Posts
    2,479

    Default

    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. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rubick View Post
    A yes, that one. Judging what the TankNet guys have to say. That article isn't all that accurate.

    http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php?showtopic=36603
    Alejandro is that you? Anyway...

    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.

  13. #13
    L O L A JCR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    disinformation central
    Age
    34
    Posts
    14,025

    Default

    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
    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.

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JCR View Post
    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.
    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.

  15. #15
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    620

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paspartoo View Post
    Alejandro is that you? Anyway...

    No.

    123456789

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •