The T-34 Myth

[Jippo]

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:

Attachment 192470

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.

[paspartoo]

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!

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.

[BitnikGr]

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.
Это просто записи разговоров американских
специалистов, сделанные советскими представителями
во время проведения испытаний танков в Абердине
еще до их окончания.

"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.
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."

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.

[paspartoo]

Many quotes lack of logic. The chapter on the T-34 says the Aberdeen facility received the T-34 in late 1942 and ran tests for a year. Final report was hundreds of pages long.

'Our common opinion is that this is the best sights in the World. Incomparably better than any existing or under development in the USA'

Yes so good they had bubbles in the glass and quality was fixed only in late 1943. Who says that you say? why its Kavalerchik whose chapter you read. What did you say comrade you didn't read it ? just skimmed it looking for parts to poost online ? well...

'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.)"

Yes mate i havent said anything about that part since its obviously wrong. Kavalerchik points out that the numbers are impossible.

I don't understand the rest of your argument. Read the whole chapter. Especially the part about the V-2 engine. What did you say comrade? 30-35km before failure? Can't hear well , did you say Fedorenko, tank directorate, T-34 only lasts 200km? My hearing is quite bad...
Anyway we'll continue this tomorrow. Read the whole chapter and don't be afraid to tell the whole truth (and nothing but!)

[my name again]

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!

You do know that tanks in WWII were not able to fight from the move. Every tank had to stop to use its gun accuratly , so the stability over rough terrain is not that relevant. Also cudos to the Panther beeing the best on a specially designed track. I bet thats what won the german the numerous battles after 1943. Whooops...

[Jippo]

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!

Only thing this stability matters is shooting on the move (which these tanks didn't do) and the bowing motion the tank does when stopping to shoot (which is more a matter of a driver skill). Most important numbers in tank mobility are ground pressure and power to weight ratio. These things decide the agility and and mobility of a tracked vehicle along with other qualities of the vehicle. Your chart looks nice but is utterly unimportant when considering these two things. You sticking to the paper only shows your lack of knowledge on the matter.

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.

Your point with this rant is?

[Redox]

Also cudos to the Panther beeing the best on a specially designed track. I bet thats what won the german the numerous battles after 1943. Whooops...

Yeah lets evaluate single pieces of equipment by who won the war. Best argument yet.

[my name again]

Yeah lets evaluate single pieces of equipment by who won the war. Best argument yet.

This will only improve this discussion

[Redox]

This will only improve this discussion

I dont think the discussion is bad at all. Its actually very interesting.

[BitnikGr]

paspartoo,
"Yes so good they had bubbles in the glass and quality was fixed only in late 1943."
- Exactly. But American experts said what they said. The correct expression would be "these sights are the best from what WE have seen." When they did get German tanks for evaluation they of course changed their minds.

This only shows that "data from the Russian book" you present is not official Aberdeen report.

"why its Kavalerchik whose chapter you read."
- Hhm... It was you who advised us to read "the Aberdeen report" from page 365.

"I don't understand the rest of your argument. Read the whole chapter. Especially the part about the V-2 engine. What did you say comrade? 30-35km before failure? Can't hear well , did you say Fedorenko, tank directorate, T-34 only lasts 200km? My hearing is quite bad...
Anyway we'll continue this tomorrow. Read the whole chapter and don't be afraid to tell the whole truth (and nothing but!)"
- I've read the entire book probably before you even knew about its existence.

Page 372: Some tanks were passing 30-35km till overhaul. Some = several = few = minority. It isn't even the Mean Average. If MA was 200km then some other tanks were passing 370km. Don't you think that if I will use those "some" tanks with 370km prior overhaul I will be same cherry picking with you?

The T-34 warranty was 1000km. In realities of 1942 mean average was about 200km. So, now, you answer the question what changed since 1940 till 1942. Why Koshkin's tanks were able to run Kharkov-Moscow-Kharkov, but tanks of 1942 couldn't? The reasons are well known and they are described in page 371. Would you expect something different to happen after evacuation of production lines and 14yo starving teenagers as qualified personnel for assembly?
Btw when Panthers were going for fire trials for the first time, they couldn't pass 5 miles without breakdowns. Engineers of entire World still say jokes about Tigers' checker-like suspension. These are examples of technological overcomplexity and unreliability. 5(!) freaking miles. No way, Tiger, Panther of King Tiger were more mechanically reliable than Pz-IV, Sherman or T-34.

Again, page 372: "Average mileage of the tank before it was going off duty for combat reasons was only about 67km in 1942, ie 1-3 assaults." So, as you see, even those miserable 200km in average were covering 3 times the life expectancy in battle.
Now let's see German heavy tanks at Kursk. Half of them didn't participate in the battle, because they broke while driving to the battlefield.

Ok. Quality and reliability of T-34 in 1942 was the worst in history of its production. German heavy tanks of 1943 suffered much worse troubles. If T-34 wasn't reliable tanks, but they were tanks, then Tigers and Panthers were more like immobile bunkers, than armored vehicles.


Obviously, production quality and resources of T-34 made a big ditch from 1940 to 1942. But why don't you refer to what happened in 1942-1945?

Mean Average of T-34 service before overhaul in entire duration of the war was 1500-2400km. (including the worst figures of 1942). That's 1.5-2.4 bigger practical life service, than the warranty.
And if you take 1945 alone, then you will see figures like 350-400 engine hours, i.e. 2100 - 3200km. In other words, contrary to 1942 where real mileage prior overhaul was just 1/5 of the warranty, in 1945 the real mileage was covering the warranty by 2.5 times. What other WW II tank had overhauls after 2000km?

And this was actually proved by counter-attack at Balaton Lake and the example of forced march from Berlin to Prague in May of 1945. Obviously tanks going for overhaul every 30, or even 200km, wouldn't ever reach Prague.


And now take a look at page 396. Timoshenko report to Voroshilov dated by November 6, 1940.
He mentioned 9 points of further improvement of the future version of T-34, planned for production in 1942... if war hadn't started. All those 9 points address to well known today illnesses of early T-34. Wider turret, better gun, better optics, Commander's vision block, new gear box, torsion bar suspension, improvements in communications. This is basically the same list with what experts of Aberdeen come out... but in 1940. So, when I said that you try to re-discover America, I meant it. All these were indeed in knowledge of Soviets and of course it is public knowledge for anyone who can read in Russian and is interested in history of Armored Warfare.

And finally... why don't you leave aside the translations with some errors and misunderstandings of non-official dialogues of American experts and post us exerts from a real and official reports on evaluation of T-34 by Americans and British? You can find them on pages 407 and 408 respectively.

Best regards.

[alejandro_]

Alejandro is that you? Anyway...

No, it's not him.

Page 372: Some tanks were passing 30-35km till overhaul. Some = several = few = minority. It isn't even the Mean Average. If MA was 200km then some other tanks were passing 370km. Don't you think that if I will use those "some" tanks with 370km prior overhaul I will be same cherry picking with you?

As a matter of fact, 343kms for a 1942 T-34 is really good. In general this figure was only achieved in late 1943. In any case it was not that critical as the tanks did not last that long anyway.

Now let's see German heavy tanks at Kursk. Half of them didn't participate in the battle, because they broke while driving to the battlefield.

Yes, some Panther caught fire from the train station to the front line.

And this was actually proved by counter-attack at Balaton Lake and the example of forced march from Berlin to Prague in May of 1945. Obviously tanks going for overhaul every 30, or even 200km, wouldn't ever reach Prague.

I mentioned this to him. You can find a few examples in Drabkim book about the T-34. In Prussia some crews did 500kms in 3 days. This is what he answered in this blog

"They drove to Mars and back before breaking down. Communist engineering FTW!"

Statements like this simply prove that the author's intention is not to make a serious analysis. The tank was communist and it was a piece of junk.

cough' this is what your hero had to say: first he said that i got the info from 'Mythical weapon' and that the book was biased. I told him that practically all the information is from Zaloga. His response: 'Yes, but he does not have access to ll Soviet documentation released after 1991.'

I have got quite a few of his books. He usually relies on US reports on Soviet tanks. This is not a problem, but I prefer to read Svirin because he has access to those but also many others Soviet documents. Not even to mention that his books are much more longer and cover the Soviet industry problems as well.

Quoting Tom Clancy as though it were some sort of gospel and arguing the Iraq experience as evidence of the Russian development route destroys much any credibility the author may otherwise claim even if there may some points in the T-34 arguement above

I guess I missed that one!

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!

No you did not. You are a strawman and you chose to pick the most convenient stuff. Why don't you mention that Von Kleist considered it to be the best tank in the world? the same goes with that Korean evaluation. It concludes that the T-34-85 is an excellent tank but you only mention the weaknesses.

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.

Exactly. After I made some comments on his blog about the article he recommended me to read the books and delete my blog from his links. I think he just came here expecting to be told that his article is great.

- Hhm... It was you who advised us to read "the Aberdeen report" from page 365.

At least now he knows that filters were modified. He did not know when I corrected him in his blog

[SiEMpre_Leal]

Off topic

I wish their was a "Like" button for every rebuttal/argument Jippo makes ....

[paspartoo]

I see the trolling has reached unimaginable heights, kind of like Soviet industry during WWII.

‘There is no bias in the test if the test was set in the way that heavy tanks will outrun medium ones’
Well the Sherman leaves the T-34 eating its dust. Is it a German-American propaganda collaboration vs glorious Soviet T-34? I don’t think so, the table isn’t actually used in the book to attack the T-34 only to show that the Panther was built to have exceptional stability during cross country dash.

‘Nice graph for report to higher commander proving Nazi superiority’
Yep the report was a Nazi, used Nazi science and then gave the salute!

‘Exactly. But American experts said what they said’
But you know it wasn’t true because Russian sources admit optics were crap... Did you see me use the 5.700m/sec gun statistic?

‘The T-34 warranty was 1000km. In realities of 1942 mean average was about 200km.’
Let’s see if google translate isn’t lying: ‘According to Statistics delivered on by the head
of Armored Directorate of the Red Army N.Fedorenko, the average mileage T -34 to overhaul
during the war, did not exceed 200 kilometers’

I don’t see a specific reference to 1942. Check next reference.

‘Mean Average of T-34 service before overhaul in entire duration of the war was 1500-2400km’

‘Troll hard’ the next Hollywood blockbuster coming to a theatre near you! Now in 3-D!
This is what the book says: ‘Do not forget that the requirements for quality, reliability, and durability of tanks in peacetime and in the war is different. If in peacetime tanks should be designed for continuous operation, the in time of war, they are expendable. The level of quality can be reduced to a minimum, provide an acceptable resource within their expected life cycle, but by gaining savings in labor and scarce materials it is possible to increase the production of tanks. But after the war, such tanks must be modernized, to bring the reliability and durability to a level high enough to use in peacetime. In the USSR, this program postwar modernization called UKN - elimination of design flaws. Through in 1945-1968 it's been thousands of tanks and self-propelled guns Release of the war years, including the T -34. As a result, UKN mileage warranty reached 2,000 kilometers.’
It’s a rough translation from google.

Now some more information. From page 423 onwards of the same book there is a discussion of Tank industry officials headed by Lt. Gen. Tank Troops Vershinin. Why are they discussing? Well it seems the Aberdeen evaluation. What do they say? It’s all American propaganda and T-34 is best tank in universe? Well let’s see:

‘Failure of T -34 through 343 km should be attributed by improper use of its American
professionals and possible oversight on their side.’

But according to Kavalerchik this was not correct as there was a Soviet engineer to ensure the t-34 run well…

‘Indication of a lack of initial rate gun to be right’

This doesn’t make a lot of sense though.

‘Suspension T-34 compared to the torsion bar suspension HF - much worse. Note considered correct.’
Common sense

‘The negative assessment of the air cleaner is correct’
Common sense. This was fixed in later Soviet tanks so much that the T-34/85 tested by the Americans (1945 production so no excuses about wartime shortages) had horrible air filter.

‘Evaluation of our transmissions correct. Lag in this area the most striking’
no comment

‘An indication of the difficulty of steering - correctly.’
Only real socialist men can drive the T-34!

‘Indication of poor quality welding, probably is purely aesthetic’
Same problem noted by Brits and American T-34/85 evaluation. Poor construction…

‘Visibility of the tank. In this respect, even our enemies say that our tanks are blind. It was not
news before the war. Only a 3-year war began to put the commander's cupola, and then we go
hesitantly in this.’
No comment…

There is also a reference to the T-III /Pz III being more maneuverable but google can’t translate well so I won’t add it.

Overall I’m very pleased that I was able to find this book. I wish I could read Russian so I could check more of these books. I’ll add the information on V-2/T-34 reliability in my piece.
For anyone still keeping track of this ‘discussion’, I have to say that the argument made in the book is that reliability of the T-34 was very low during the war but that didn’t matter because they were quickly destroyed by the Germans.

That’s not a very reasonable argument since its like saying it doesn’t matter that I have terminal cancer and will die in a month because I live in an area full of crime and someone will shoot me this week!

[my name again]

Do you have more serious sources then only one book?

[paspartoo]

Do you have more serious sources then only one book?

You don’t like the Russian book? I found it fascinating.
About more sources, in my essay I wrote:

Sources: ‘T-34:Mythical Weapon’ byMichulec andZientarzewski, ‘T-34/76 Medium Tank1941-45’ , ‘T-34/85 Medium Tank 1944-45’ and ‘T-34-85 vs M26 Pershing’bySteven J. Zaloga, Panzertruppen vol1 and vol2 by Jentz, Panther & Its Variants by Spielberger, Evaluation of tanks T-34 and KV by workers of the Aberdeentesting grounds of the U.S , operationbarbarossa.net ,‘Accounting for War: Soviet Production, Employment, and the Defense Burden,1940-1945’, ‘Kursk 1943: A Statistical Analysis’, Axis History Forum,Wikipedia, ‘Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century’

Must be hard to see, huh?