[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][*******#000000][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
"[*******#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]
[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][*******#000000][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
? That's from other review.
This thread is heading into Gavin land as fast as a T-34 on 5th gear.
No, because you cannot read and it's not 5.700m/sec but ft/sec. Regarding the first point about optics, its far more complex and depended on the time period. I am not going to bother explaining it to you because you are a strawman. The article is a piece of garbage and you should go somewhere else if you want to pump your ego.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?
I could believe that the German advance was checked by their own supply lines/breakdowns/etc... but just what could the Germans use to dispatch the T-34s with little trouble in the early stages of the war? Their Panzer IIs and Panzer IIIs were completely outmatched. Even their short-barreled Panzer IV and StuG-III vehicles weren't able to propel their rounds at a fast enough velocity to penetrate T-34 armour at a distance anywhere near that from which the T-34s long-barreled 76mm cannon could penetrate theirs. Were the T-34s optics more accurate (i.e. not inferior to German) and visibility better - the German tanks would have been completely roasted in any engagement on open-terrain every time.
Only starting from the middle of 1942 did the Germans start introducing Panzer IV Gs which were actually a match for the T-34/76s; but even then only in small amounts initially.
BTW although the KV-1s armour was superior, AFAIK the difference wasn't all that great between it and the T-34.
Last edited by Flamming_Python; 12-23-2012 at 08:42 AM.
Operation Ur****. Operation Bagration. Exit to shores of Baltic Sea. Offensive on Pleesti. Forced march from Pleesti to Hungari. Counter-attack at Balaton. Prague Offensive... These and series of other operations in late-44 and 1945 simply would be impossible with tanks going for overhaul every 30, 35, 70 or even 200km. In 1945 the Red Army was covering distances with pace pretty similar to German blietzkrieg in 1939-1942 - up to 80km per day. Common sense is that even without any combat and resistance from enemy's side, if tanks were going to be replaced every 200km, such operations would be impossible.
And this phrase "Only real socialist men can drive the T-34!" is a definition of trolling. Correct sentence is that only drivers trained by factory and DB engineers, who follow the instructions and manuals can drive properly the tanks of every specific manufacturer. And this is absolutely logical, while origins, nationality and political beliefs of those people involved are irrelevant.
No. You need to stop lying. The particular chapter speaks solely about T-34-76 produced in 1942. T-34-85 is a totally different tank. It's like trying to say that M1A2 SEP is the same tank with the original M1 and trying to bash it for all faults the first variants had.
Overall, the indisputable fact is that quantity over quality was a winning recipe in WW II. Thus the obvious thing is that medium tanks > heavy tanks (for that period of course). So, I personally believe that Pz-IV was the best German tank of that war. Because it featured high reliability, high mobility, high production rate with well balanced armor and fire power. So, imho, the best tanks of WW II in alphabetical order are Pz-IV, Sherman and T-34. From this point and further, trying to place any of this tank as number one is quite childish and amateur. Success or failure of tanks in battles were never determined by their technical properties, but by combined tactics used and crew training. We can notice how Soviets were loosing the war in 1941-1942 despite their T-34 was obviously better than German Pz-II/III. And then the supposedly "better" heavy Tigers and Panthers were loosing to "inferior" T-34s in 1944-1945. The side with inferior tanks was winning...
Personally, I believe that if it wasn't Hitler's megalomania, German industry could stick with Pz-IV producing dozens of thousands of them, instead of diverting expensive materials, engineers and manpower for creation of few thousands of overcomplex and unreliable heavy tanks. I wouldn't say that they would win a war this way, but sure they would deal better against Allies on both fronts by having 2x medium tanks than heavy ones. They sure wouldn't need to stop Ardenne offensive in order to throw the 6th Army to Hungary for example.
In conclusion, I would add that any particular AFV design is considered successful or not if it can be adopted to realities of modern battlefield with some changes and upgrades, without a need for creation of new vehicle. T-34 was such a design. Sherman can also be named as such. Pz-IV, on the other hand, wasn't. The latest of its version exhausted all of its potentials for any further modernization.
The V-2 engines started its life as a non-tank-intended engine. But through evolution it lives even today, 65 years later, in T-72/90 family of tanks. And that means that it is a successful design. That means that it still didn't came to a point to become obsolete to a degree, than any further improvements can't make it comply with current demands. And that's a definition of successful design.
Last edited by BitnikGr; 12-24-2012 at 10:13 AM.
Veterans also state the same thing:Common sense is that even without any combat and resistance from enemy's side, if tanks were going to be replaced every 200km, such operations would be impossible.
"when we moved from Elgava accross Eastern Prussia we covered more than 500kms in three days. The T-34 sustained marches like this pretty well".
Page 43. T-34 in Action, by Artem Dravkin and Oleg Sherem, Stackpole Military History (2008).
So far only Drabkin. I have translated using google some other books by Svirin and Isaev.Are books of Drabkin and/or Isaev being published in English?
Apart from adding the new information in my original piece I’ve written down some interesting statements on the T-34 from various sources:
For example the T-34’s reliability in early 1944:
‘We did not have many tanks left, and even those that remained had already used up their engine lifetime and were constantly breaking down. The tank that I was on with my soldiers also broke down. After a day-long stop in a village (we were already in the Western Ukraine), our tank stopped and would not move on. The battalion commander ordered us to stay with the tank and wait for it to be repaired. A day passed by and in the morning the tank crew told us that the breakdown was serious and we were stuck for a long time. I decided not to wait for the completion of the repairs, but to catch up with the battalion on foot.’
I’m also waiting for ‘Panzer Tracts, # 19-2 - Beute-Panzerkampfwagen’ as apparently it has reports of German use of captured T-34’s and some of the statements include:
‘Regardless of our limited experience. it can be stated that the Russian tanks are not suitable for long road marches and high speeds. It has turned out that the highest speed that can he achieved is 10 to 12 km/h: It is also necessary on marches to halt every half-hour for at least 15 to 20 minutes to let the machine cool down’
If you’re interested in the real performance of the T-34 enjoy!
Paspartoo I don't know what background you have but reading your essay and the arguments/counter arguments that you post here it's like reading something by someone that has read alot of material, but lack the experience/knowlege to put it into context. Jippo tried to point it out to you, but somehow you just brushed it off.
What you have to reaslise it doesn't matter if the tank is crap and brake down all the time or can't shoot straight even if god almighty was the gunner if the operational frame which the tank is placed in is dealt to handle it. It is a system of many components and just because one piece is lacking doesn't mean that the concept is crap.