Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 168

Thread: The T-34 Myth

  1. #61
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    486

    Default

    Some Russian tank crews actually prefered the M-4 Sherman over their own T-34. Dmitriy Loza sure liked the Sherman. German Panzer ace Otto Carius said the IS-2 was the tank he and his men most feared.

  2. #62
    Senior Member Meatwad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Canada New Jersey
    Posts
    2,447

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eagle9294 View Post
    Some Russian tank crews actually prefered the M-4 Sherman over their own T-34. Dmitriy Loza sure liked the Sherman. German Panzer ace Otto Carius said the IS-2 was the tank he and his men most feared.
    I'm sure some did, it was more comfortable and roomier and most if not all were shipped with radios. Of course the IS-2 was more feared, it was a heavy tank. I'm sure the Soviets found the Tiger more frightening than the Pz IV too, but these things have nothing to do with which tank had the most impact in the war.

    It also common to get attached to platforms which serve them faithfully which is understandable. There are many accounts of Soviet pilots preffering their I-16s, Hurricanes, P-40's Yak-1s over more modern and effective aircraft that they switched to later on in the war even if their older machines were obsolete, there is a romanticism to it.

  3. #63
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Slovenija
    Posts
    912

    Default

    After the WWII, Yugoslav army used both T-34/85 and M4A3. Sherman was considered more comfortable, easier to drive and faster on road, while T-34/85 had superior off road capabilities. In the words of one crew member, ''you could hear T-34 crew laughing at us as they were passing us uphill''.

  4. #64
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    486

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PsihoKeke View Post
    After the WWII, Yugoslav army used both T-34/85 and M4A3. Sherman was considered more comfortable, easier to drive and faster on road, while T-34/85 had superior off road capabilities. In the words of one crew member, ''you could hear T-34 crew laughing at us as they were passing us uphill''.
    Optics and communications are the most important attributes. The T-34 was lacking in those qualities. Interesting the Russians can not build the quality of tanks they could back then. Maybe I am not giving them enough credit. I know the versions Iraq had in the Gulf war were not their best quality, but I watched many of their tanks going up in flames. I still, 22 years later, clearly remember all that burning armor throughout that desert.

  5. #65
    Senior Member DasVivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Computer
    Posts
    1,973

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eagle9294 View Post
    Optics and communications are the most important attributes. The T-34 was lacking in those qualities. Interesting the Russians can not build the quality of tanks they could back then. Maybe I am not giving them enough credit. I know the versions Iraq had in the Gulf war were not their best quality, but I watched many of their tanks going up in flames. I still, 22 years later, clearly remember all that burning armor throughout that desert.
    Somehow I doubt your experience is exactly the most telling....

    You never saw T-72B etc, T-80 of any variants, T-90 of any variation and had complete air dominance against an Army that was both demoralized, poorly led, not proper utilizing of doctrine, and poorly equipped in regards to both truely modern armanents and indeed even.

    I am not trying to be belittling but Iraq and indeed sadly many of the client states of Soviet equipment tend often to be beaten before they go into battle, the result likely to be much the same even if their equipment rather more modern.

  6. #66
    Senior Member Flamming_Python's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Spying on the Eurowoosies
    Posts
    10,386

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eagle9294 View Post
    I know the versions Iraq had in the Gulf war were not their best quality
    You mate, need to educate yourself


  7. #67
    Senior Member BitnikGr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    XII Detached Signals Company, Artillery Platoon, 1999-2000
    Posts
    1,327

    Default

    Here are two interesting videos about Shermans and T-34 from Russian perspective.

    The first one has a title "Unknown Merits of Sherman tank" and it speaks about M4A2 diesel powered version delivered to Soviets by Lend-Lease.


    The second one contains a story of Alexander Orlov who had served both with T-34s and with Sherman.


    There is also another video fully dedicated to T-34, which describes pretty well why T-34-76 model 1942 was quite different to T-34-76 model 1941 and why T-34-85 was a totally different tank compared to the first two.
    That video was already embedded in this thread, so I'll repost only the link, without embedding it.
    youtube.com/watch?v=yaJ7QV3297E


    Keeping it short. Both essays of the first post are basically what Russians call "To pull an owl over the globe!"
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	RCZIv.jpg 
Views:	43 
Size:	21.3 KB 
ID:	192436

    This basically means a desperate attempt to turn things inside out and present white for black and vice-verse.

    The authors make gross mistakes in:
    1) Understanding of reasons of losses in Armored Warfare throughout 100 years of its history.
    2) Correct way of comparison of financial effectiveness.
    3) VERY limited knowledge of real T-34 production procedures and development. They think that building lots of tanks is something so easy like 2+2. Especially when they say that T-34-85 had this thing and that thing and that's about it... meanwhile engineers of UVZ introduced more than 2000 (two thousands) changes to the initial design in order to be able to pull out 1 tank per hour without loosing its combat effectiveness as a primary goal and they even managed to increase it.
    4) They don't realize the differences in quality of production within a Design Bureau and serial mass production armor plant. They don't realize the difference in quality of production on a new conveyor line built under open sky and the massive and ingenious work of engineers to solve all upcoming problems. For every cherry picking one misfortune example of low reliability or low quality of T-34 materials, there are dozens of stories of their extreme reliability. Starting from Kharkiv-Moscow-Kharkiv run of Koshkin's vehicles in 1940 and finishing with Berlin-Praque forced march of entire Regiment and engaging in battles in suburbs of Prague right from the march without any further delays, preparations, rest etc.
    5) They try to misguide the public opinion (cause of their own lack of knowledge or deliberately) trying to present the fame of T-34 as a result of Cold War era propaganda, meanwhile lots of German opinions (from privates to Field Marshals) praising T-34 date to 1941-1945 period and opinions of Soviet tankers comparing T-34 and Shermans also come from actual WW II veterans and not from post-war anti-western publications as it was presented here.
    Last edited by BitnikGr; 12-21-2012 at 07:12 AM.

  8. #68
    Senior Member Jippo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    5,292

    Default

    Excellent summary of the matter, BitnikGr.

  9. #69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BitnikGr View Post
    Here are two interesting videos about Shermans and T-34 from Russian perspective.

    The first one has a title "Unknown Merits of Sherman tank" and it speaks about M4A2 diesel powered version delivered to Soviets by Lend-Lease.


    The second one contains a story of Alexander Orlov who had served both with T-34s and with Sherman.


    There is also another video fully dedicated to T-34, which describes pretty well why T-34-76 model 1942 was quite different to T-34-76 model 1941 and why T-34-85 was a totally different tank compared to the first two.
    That video was already embedded in this thread, so I'll repost only the link, without embedding it.
    youtube.com/watch?v=yaJ7QV3297E


    Keeping it short. Both essays of the first post are basically what Russians call "To pull an owl over the globe!"
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	RCZIv.jpg 
Views:	43 
Size:	21.3 KB 
ID:	192436

    This basically means a desperate attempt to turn things inside out and present white for black and vice-verse.

    The authors make gross mistakes in:
    1) Understanding of reasons of losses in Armored Warfare throughout 100 years of its history.
    2) Correct way of comparison of financial effectiveness.
    3) VERY limited knowledge of real T-34 production procedures and development. They think that building lots of tanks is something so easy like 2+2. Especially when they say that T-34-85 had this thing and that thing and that's about it... meanwhile engineers of UVZ introduced more than 2000 (two thousands) changes to the initial design in order to be able to pull out 1 tank per hour without loosing its combat effectiveness as a primary goal and they even managed to increase it.
    4) They don't realize the differences in quality of production within a Design Bureau and serial mass production armor plant. They don't realize the difference in quality of production on a new conveyor line built under open sky and the massive and ingenious work of engineers to solve all upcoming problems. For every cherry picking one misfortune example of low reliability or low quality of T-34 materials, there are dozens of stories of their extreme reliability. Starting from Kharkiv-Moscow-Kharkiv run of Koshkin's vehicles in 1940 and finishing with Berlin-Praque forced march of entire Regiment and engaging in battles in suburbs of Prague right from the march without any further delays, preparations, rest etc.
    5) They try to misguide the public opinion (cause of their own lack of knowledge or deliberately) trying to present the fame of T-34 as a result of Cold War era propaganda, meanwhile lots of German opinions (from privates to Field Marshals) praising T-34 date to 1941-1945 period and opinions of Soviet tankers comparing T-34 and Shermans also come from actual WW II veterans and not from post-war anti-western publications as it was presented here.
    [FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][*******#000000] Wait, is this the part where I acknowledge my guilt and get sent off to Siberia? Please comrade judge show mercy. I was under the influence of the CIA, NSA , MOSSAD, FBI, DEA, etc…[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

  10. #70
    Senior Member BitnikGr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    XII Detached Signals Company, Artillery Platoon, 1999-2000
    Posts
    1,327

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paspartoo View Post
    [FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][*******#000000] Wait, is this the part where I acknowledge my guilt and get sent off to Siberia? Please comrade judge show mercy. I was under the influence of the CIA, NSA , MOSSAD, FBI, DEA, etc…[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
    Reality is such that what you personally acknowledge or not is quite irrelevant. Level of expertise is not judged by its own author, but by consumers aka readers.

    "Grownups respond with grownup's arguments".
    (c)
    If you want to look even more funny, beyond the shallow level of that essay, it's your choice.

    Calling me a "comrade", suggesting that I am a communist/socialist/leftist of any kind, just because it happens that I know Russian as one of foreign languages is baseless.

  11. #71
    Senior Member LineDoggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    38S MB 3661/8351
    Posts
    31,144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flamming_Python View Post
    You mate, need to educate yourself

    Blacktail Defence video? that aint education bro. The guy who makes thse is a Joke never served a day. He has a Vid on the Bradley that says it never was used in Lebanon in 1983. Well no **** the Lebanon Mission was a USMC mission and the Brad isnt a Piece of USMC equipment. You'd think an expert would know that since even a Private in the Military does

  12. #72
    Senior Member BitnikGr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    XII Detached Signals Company, Artillery Platoon, 1999-2000
    Posts
    1,327

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LineDoggie View Post
    Blacktail Defence video? that aint education bro. The guy who makes thse is a Joke never served a day. He has a Vid on the Bradley that says it never was used in Lebanon in 1983. Well no **** the Lebanon Mission was a USMC mission and the Brad isnt a Piece of USMC equipment. You'd think an expert would know that since even a Private in the Military does
    His obsession to bash every modern US made armored vehicle except of M113 Gavin sure became legendary. He overstretched the subject of how bad Abrams, Bradley and Stryker are to the level that it isn't even funny any more.
    However, this particular video is quite correct. Assad Babil was a downgrade of a downgrade.

    Putting aside who made it, and concentrating on what is said makes this presentation quite worthy for people totally unfamiliar with the subject aka people who think that they can judge the technological level of Soviet/Russian armored vehicles of late-80s by performance of this kind of knockoffs from 70s serving in Iraq.

  13. #73
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    620

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BitnikGr View Post
    His obsession to bash every modern US made armored vehicle except of M113 Gavin sure became legendary. He overstretched the subject of how bad Abrams, Bradley and Stryker are to the level that it isn't even funny any more.
    However, this particular video is quite correct. Assad Babil was a downgrade of a downgrade.
    Not just American, West and Eastern european. Generaly he doesn't know what he's talking about and the man is a frankly and clearly a goddamn loon! Either that or the biggest troll out there.


    Edit


    Welcome, you're a fine addition to this place.
    Last edited by Rubick; 12-21-2012 at 12:06 PM.

  14. #74
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    486

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DasVivo View Post
    Somehow I doubt your experience is exactly the most telling....

    You never saw T-72B etc, T-80 of any variants, T-90 of any variation and had complete air dominance against an Army that was both demoralized, poorly led, not proper utilizing of doctrine, and poorly equipped in regards to both truely modern armanents and indeed even.

    I am not trying to be belittling but Iraq and indeed sadly many of the client states of Soviet equipment tend often to be beaten before they go into battle, the result likely to be much the same even if their equipment rather more modern.

    I think the T-80U and the T-90 are good tanks.

  15. #75
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    620

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eagle9294 View Post
    I think the T-80U and the T-90 are good tanks.

    The T-80U was still a damn fine tank at that time even though the west caught up. But the T-90 is meh. Especially to what should have been follow up to the T-72 ...the Object 187.

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
  •