Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 167

Thread: The T-34 Myth

  1. #76
    Senior Member Flamming_Python's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Spying on the Eurowoosies
    Posts
    12,426

    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
    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.

  2. #77
    Senior Member Flamming_Python's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Spying on the Eurowoosies
    Posts
    12,426

    Default

    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.

  3. #78
    L O L A JCR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    disinformation central
    Age
    34
    Posts
    14,380

    Default

    Sinsheim???

  4. #79

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flamming_Python View Post
    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....
    I guess that by mobility you mean powerful engine. Cross country performance was poor.

    By the way nice pics 'violet fashion'

  5. #80
    Senior Member Jippo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    6,011

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paspartoo View Post
    Cross country performance was poor.
    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.

  6. #81

    Default

    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.

  7. #82
    Senior Member BitnikGr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    XII Detached Signals Company, Artillery Platoon, 1999-2000
    Posts
    1,789

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paspartoo View Post
    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.
    Question is have YOU read it yourself?

  8. #83
    Senior Member BitnikGr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    XII Detached Signals Company, Artillery Platoon, 1999-2000
    Posts
    1,789

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paspartoo View Post
    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.
    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? The ingenuity of Soviet engineers is that they made that new 5-shifts gear box totally interchangeable with the old one. So, if repair crews on the field had a shortage of new gearboxes they could stick an old one in it, or vice-versa. It is written in same book... but you of course close your eyes on such things.
    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?

  9. #84
    Senior Member Hisroyalhighness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Finishing my time in Tartarus.
    Posts
    10,116

    Default

    "The T-34 was to the Russians what the Spitfire was to the British: An essential element in national survival."

  10. #85

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BitnikGr View Post
    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? The ingenuity of Soviet engineers is that they made that new 5-shifts gear box totally interchangeable with the old one. So, if repair crews on the field had a shortage of new gearboxes they could stick an old one in it, or vice-versa. It is written in same book... but you of course close your eyes on such things.
    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.
    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:



    Quote Originally Posted by BitnikGr View Post
    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?
    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!
    Attachments Pending Approval Attachments Pending Approval

  11. #86
    Senior Member Flamming_Python's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Spying on the Eurowoosies
    Posts
    12,426

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paspartoo View Post
    I guess that by mobility you mean powerful engine. Cross country performance was poor.

    By the way nice pics 'violet fashion'
    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

  12. #87
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Age
    33
    Posts
    3,897

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hisroyalhighness View Post
    "The T-34 was to the Russians what the Spitfire was to the British: An essential element in national survival."
    So, it was not important at all for the nations survival and is incredibly overhyped?

  13. #88
    Senior Member Jippo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    6,011

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paspartoo View Post
    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:

    Do you know what is a "Betonwellenbahn"? It is a test structure for suspension testing only. Result like this tells that one isn't able to drive on the Betonwellenbahn faster than that and has no real relevance on cross-country mobility of the tank at all! Mobility of tanks is determined by other things, mainly ground pressure and power to weight ratio. But all in in all it far more complex than that. Anyway, what you posted is totally irrelevant in regards of tank mobility.

    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!
    You wrote a blog text and posted it in here expecting us to go parading around you pumping your ego. We told you it is poorly written, shallow and incorrect & your ego couldn't take it. What you forgot when writing in here is the fact that there are many professionals here who do in fact know things like tanks inside and out. Your text comes across as a nerdy highschool project that is semi ambitious because you clearly dug up a old document. Too bad you do not understand it and draw wrong conclusions from it.

  14. #89

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jippo View Post
    Do you know what is a "Betonwellenbahn"? It is a test structure for suspension testing only. Result like this tells that one isn't able to drive on the Betonwellenbahn faster than that and has no real relevance on cross-country mobility of the tank at all! Mobility of tanks is determined by other things, mainly ground pressure and power to weight ratio. But all in in all it far more complex than that. Anyway, what you posted is totally irrelevant in regards of tank mobility.
    What you wrote is ridiculous. The test had the purpose to measure the stability of different tanks over rought terrain . T-34 came dead last, while the test confirmed the Panther's superior stability over rough terrain.
    Even the Sherman wiped the floor with the T-34 which i have to say i did not expect!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jippo View Post
    You wrote a blog text and posted it in here expecting us to go parading around you pumping your ego. We told you it is poorly written, shallow and incorrect & your ego couldn't take it. What you forgot when writing in here is the fact that there are many professionals here who do in fact know things like tanks inside and out. Your text comes across as a nerdy highschool project that is semi ambitious because you clearly dug up a old document. Too bad you do not understand it and draw wrong conclusions from it .
    You have been writing and yelling but you are unable to form an argument. Things don't happen to be true because you repeat them over and over. I've used the best sources available to show the pathetic performance of the T-34. Books from Zaloga, tests of T-34 by German and US forces, the T-34/85 captured in Korea and the Russian book using official Russian documents. All show the same things, all talk about the same constant problems.
    For example T-34 tested in 1942= crap engine filter, T-34/85 built postwar= crap engine filter

    I'm sorry but people have eyes and brains. Anyone here can check the sources.

  15. #90
    Senior Member BitnikGr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    XII Detached Signals Company, Artillery Platoon, 1999-2000
    Posts
    1,789

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paspartoo View Post
    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:



    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!
    ))
    There is no bias in the test if the test was set in the way that heavy tanks will outrun medium ones ))

    Nice graph for report to higher commander proving Nazi superiority, however memoirs of veterans from all fronts speak that Sherman and T-34 could pass in places where heavy Tigers and Panthers couldn't... Shermans and T-34s were passing in terrains, which German officers were considering impassable for tanks. And top speed in such terrains is the last thing which counts. You don't see this in this graph, but you considered it non biased
    Aspect of mobility includes about 30 different parameters, but you insist on comparing only the top speed.

    Were Panthers running with 45km/h at Battle of Kursk? Really?

    And no... 25km/h is not matched with Soviet data. The book says that shifting from the 3rd to 4th gear was very difficult and that's why the crews were going in battle mostly on the 3rd gear. 25km/h is limitation of the 3rd gear. Driving in non-combat conditions and on "Bettonwellenband" drivers had all the luxury to shift to the 4th gear.



    Sorry, pal, but you didn't "bring Russian sources". In your previous comment you said one very correct thing:
    "The information available is enough for everyone to form their own opinion."

    The problem is that majority of Westerners don't speak Russian. So, they can't read that part of available information to which you refer to. So, by reading your essay, they will base their opinion on that you "have read it and presented available information"... but actually you didn't! Because in reality, anyone who can read that book, will not come up with such overstretched conclusions. The book is VERY objective. You aren't! Because you picked up only those parts, which suit your "Crusade" to "bust the myth" and make a sensation.

    Let's start with the eye-striking fact mentioned on the page 370.
    После окончания испытаний по обоим танкам
    были сделаны отчеты объемом свыше 600 страниц
    каждый. Копии отчетов получил и СССР. Англичане
    тоже прислал и копию своего отчета по испытаниям
    Т -34. Но, к сожалению, эти материалы до сих пор не
    опубликованы, об их содержании имеются только отрывочные
    сведения. Например, в журнале .ТанкоМаCTep~
    N!! 2 за 2002 год была помещена .Оценка танков
    Т -34 и КВ работниками Абердинского испытательного
    полигона США, представителями фирм, офицерами
    и членами военных комиссий, проводивших испытания
    танков. Из текста этого документа и должности
    подписавшего его человека (им был начальник 2-го
    управления Главразведуправления Красной Армии генерал-
    майор танковых войск Хлопов) ясно, что это не
    американский отчет и даже не выжимки из него, ведь в
    момент появления "
    Оценки ... " испытания еще не закончились.
    [*******#ff0000]Это просто записи разговоров американских
    специалистов, сделанные советскими представителями
    во время проведения испытаний танков в Абердине
    еще до их окончания.[/COLOR]
    "From the text of this document and the rank of the person who signed it (...) it is obvious that this is not an American report and these are not even exerts of it, because when this so called "evaluation..." appeared tests were still going on.
    [*******#ff0000]These are simply records of discussions of American technical specialists between them and they were done by Soviet representatives during Aberdeen trials prior their conclusion.[/COLOR]"


    But you presented it as an official report of Aberdeen Proving Ground on T-34, didn't you?

    Do I really have to explain that intermediate evaluations/opinions always entail danger of misinterpritations and that there is always danger of wrong translation?

    Let's have a good laugh..., shall we?
    Page 380:
    ПРИЦЕЛ:
    Общее мнеuие - лучший в мире. HecpaвHUJН ни с
    одним из существующих (известных здесь) или разрабатываемых
    в Америке.
    "The sights:
    Our common opinion is that this is the best sights in the World. Incomparably better than any existing or under development in the USA."
    Fail!

    Page 379:
    ВООРУЖЕНИЕ:
    Пушка ф-34 - очень хорошая. Проста, безотказно
    рабomаem и удобна в обслуживании. Недостаток
    - начальная скорость снаряда значительно
    ниже американской 3" (3200 футов против 5700
    футов в секунду).
    "ARMAMENT:
    F-34 gun - very good. Simple, trouble-proof, easy for maintenance. Its disadvantage lays in insufficient muzzle velocity, which is significantly below the American 3" gun. (3200 ft/s vs 5700(!) ft/s.)"

    Fail!


    Page 381.
    ГУСЕНИЦЫ:
    Идея стального трака очеuь нравится американцам.
    Но они считают, что пока не будут получены
    отзывы о сравнительных результатах npuмененuя
    стальных и резиновых гусениц на американских тан-
    ках в Тунисе и других активных фронтах, нет оснований
    отказываться от своей идеи - резиновых.
    "TRACKS:
    The Americans liked the idea of steel-made track a lot. But they think that there is no reason to reject their own know-how - the rubber tracks - until they will got results of comparative trials of steel and rubber tracks used in Tunis and other active Fronts."

    Obvious fail of translator, who was taking those notes while listening to American experts talking.

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
  •