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!)
Your point with this rant is?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.
"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.
Last edited by BitnikGr; 12-22-2012 at 08:06 PM.
No, it's not him.Alejandro is that you? Anyway...
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.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?
Yes, some Panther caught fire from the train station to the front line.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.
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 blogAnd 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.
"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.
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.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 guess I missed that one!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
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.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!
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.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.
At least now he knows that filters were modified. He did not know when I corrected him in his blog- Hhm... It was you who advised us to read "the Aberdeen report" from page 365.
Last edited by alejandro_; 12-22-2012 at 07:57 PM.
I wish their was a "Like" button for every rebuttal/argument Jippo makes ....
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.’
‘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’
‘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.’
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!
Do you have more serious sources then only one book?
[FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][*******#000000]About more sources, in my essay I wrote:
[*******#000000][SIZE=3][FONT=Calibri]Sources: ‘[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][*******#0000ff]T-34:Mythical Weapon[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][*******#000000][SIZE=3][FONT=Calibri]’ 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, [/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][*******#0000ff]Panther & Its Variants[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][*******#000000] by Spielberger, [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][*******#0000ff]Evaluation of tanks T-34 and KV by workers of the Aberdeentesting grounds of the [/COLOR][*******#0000ff]U.S[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][*******#000000] , [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][*******#0000ff]operationbarbarossa.net[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][*******#000000] ,‘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’
[FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][*******#000000]Must be hard to see, huh?[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
That's one of the review "Biased, but outstanding in-depth research into the T-34"
paspartoo did you are tank commander? No? So put your knowledge about Russian tanks just in your **** .
Last edited by Arbody; 12-23-2012 at 10:57 AM.
"[*******#333333][FONT=Arial] German blitzkrieg was momentarily stopped, a success attributed by Guderian to T-34 tanks, but which Michulec states was really due to the German panzers outrunning their supplies, as the Germans had little trouble dispatching the T-34s in the battle. Michulec also shows how the Germans confused the more heavily armored KV-1 tank (which they did have trouble knocking out) with the more lightly armored T-34, thus conflating the two tanks together into a super tank that had greater capabilities than was possible in a single tank (a tank with the heavy armor of the KV-1 and the speed and mobility of the T-34 did not exist in 1941"
[/FONT][/COLOR][*******#333333][FONT=Arial]Really such book as a source? With out any proof? [/FONT][/COLOR]