For those who are interested the information on the Aberdeen T-34 evaluation and more analysis on the poor reliability of the V-2 engine can be found in ‘Tankovy udar. Sovetskie tanki v boyakh. 1942-1943’ pages 365 onwards.
I heard of the same critisism against him in regards to his bias, but nontheless this video is quite spot-on about everything and so are many of his videos about non-US hardware both past and present. Check out his videos on the Arjun for example, very informative and sum up everything that was and is wrong about the vehicle.Originally Posted by LineDoggie
In regards to the T-34; in my somewhat uneducated opinion I'll say this:
It was an amazing tank in many ways, not because of the way it stood out in any one particular area - but because of the balance of various sorts of characteristics that it brought under one roof so to speak. It's the direct precursor of the world's first MBT. Very strong armour, powerful main gun, excellent mobility and cross-country capability, etc... in the early years of the war there was simply no equal German tank, and as mentioned by people here - with various modifications and upgrades it never really became obsolete - it stayed in service right to the end of the war and beyond; much like the Sherman - another very good tank. German general after German general expressed his respect and relayed the fears of his soldiers of this specific tank - that's got to say something.
BUT
It suffered from the fact that it was a tank that was suited for an experienced and well-trained crew. The fact is that as mentioned by Jippo and others; it had:
1. poor visibility
2. no radio-set for communication
3. extra strain on the tank commander
NOW, these 3 things would not be critical disadvantages for an experienced, well-trained crew - they could overcome all of these problems, they would already all have a good idea of the tactics they would employ together with the rest of their company when they come under fire, so lack of communication would not be such a problem, etc...
But those were not the sort of tank crews that were being pumped out by a desperate USSR in the early years of the war with barely any training, practice in co-ordination with other tanks in their company and so on; these disadvantages must of been fairly devastating in many circumstances for such ill-trained tank crews.
Sinsheim???
I guess that by mobility you mean powerful engine. Cross country performance was poor.
By the way nice pics 'violet fashion'
Yeah. Awesome museum.
Oh really? By what standards? And please do bring something concrete to the table instead of the test track results. Cross country rarely consists of premade concrete waves. That has no practical importance.
I'm tired of writing the same things over and over. The information available is enough for everyone to form their own opinion.
The T-34 had poor performance because of its christie suspension and according to the Russian book mainly due to the lack of shock absorbers.
According to the same source limit of cross country speed was 25km/h. The German test shows the T-34 being dangerous after 25 km/h and having the worst stability characteristics.
The T-34M and T-43 had torsion bar suspension.
Question is have YOU read it yourself?
You of course deliberately omit the fact that 25km/h was a limit on the 3rd gear.
You of course deliberately omit the fact that this was solved in T-34-85 with addition of new 5shift gear box. Hey, when you was talking about main differences of T-34-85 to early models, you even didn't mention the entire new gear box, which solved many problems for the driver and mechanics... or maybe you think that it was just so not important that it shouldn't been even mentioned?
You of course deliberately omit the fact that this was happening only on the flat surface. Cause on going up the hill on the 1st gear T-34 was outrunning Sherman (and of course heavy German tanks) just fine.
You omit the fact that heavy German tanks couldn't even dream of driving 25km/h off road.
What do you want to prove actually? That T-34 built in late-41, early-42 were the worst of T-34 FoV? Do you think you that discovered America?
"The T-34 was to the Russians what the Spitfire was to the British: An essential element in national survival."
Mate i wonder if i should respond to you but i guess i'm sucked into this debate and don't have anything better to do (for the next couple of hours). I mentioned the 25km/h figure because the German test showed it to be the vehicle's limit and so matched the Soviet data. To me this proves that there is no bias in the test:You of course deliberately omit the fact that 25km/h was a limit on the 3rd gear.
You of course deliberately omit the fact that this was solved in T-34-85 with addition of new 5shift gear box. Hey, when you was talking about main differences of T-34-85 to early models, you even didn't mention the entire new gear box, which solved many problems for the driver and mechanics... or maybe you think that it was just so not important that it shouldn't been even mentioned?
You of course deliberately omit the fact that this was happening only on the flat surface. Cause on going up the hill on the 1st gear T-34 was outrunning Sherman (and of course heavy German tanks) just fine.
You omit the fact that heavy German tanks couldn't even dream of driving 25km/h off road.
I'm tired of you guys. First the T-34 is 'best tank in universe'. When i bring information from German sources showing it to be **** you yell and insult... When i bring Russian sources and there are no excuses then it's 'public knowledge'. Give me a f*****g break!What do you want to prove actually? That T-34 built in late-41, early-42 were the worst of T-34 FoV? Do you think you that discovered America?
Poor? That thing was famed for its cross-country performance; in Finland it was far preferred to the KV-1 which offered little advantage to the T-34 but was liable to get stuck in places where the T-34 had no problem crossing
So, it was not important at all for the nations survival and is incredibly overhyped?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
