Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 168

Thread: The T-34 Myth

  1. #106
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Warsaw/Irkutsk
    Posts
    4,866

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paspartoo View Post
    'Tankovy udar. Sovetskie tanki v boyakh. 1942-1943' is Polish? ehm are you sure about that? looks Russian to me.

    As i said before the information i used mainly came from the ZALOGA books not 'Mythical Weapon'.
    You are just quoting the source that fit's to your view.
    "[*******#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]

  2. #107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbody View Post
    You are just quoting the source that fit's to your view.
    "[*******#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]
    I wish i could understand what you are trying to say. The book covers the myth that was built for the t-34 by Soviet authorities and German generals. Excellent book but as the reviewer said should not be the only source.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbody View Post
    paspartoo did you are tank commander? No? So put your knowledge abiut Russian tanks just in your **** .
    [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][*******#000000][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][*******#000000]Well I ‘rode’ your mother and she’s built like a tank so…YES[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
    [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][*******#000000][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

  3. #108
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Warsaw/Irkutsk
    Posts
    4,866

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paspartoo View Post
    I wish i could understand what you are trying to say. The book covers the myth that was built for the t-34 by Soviet authorities and German generals. Excellent book but as the reviewer said should not be the only source.


    [FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][*******#000000]Well I ‘rode’ your mother and she’s built like a tank so…YES[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
    "[*******#333333][FONT=Arial]This thick book (well over 500 pages) offers both great amount of good information but also reveals very biased view of the author." What you are expecting from a modern Polish book about Russian armor
    ? That's from other review.
    [/FONT][/COLOR]
    Quote Originally Posted by paspartoo View Post
    [FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][*******#000000]Well I ‘rode’ your mother and she’s built like a tank so…YES[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
    That's rude .

  4. #109
    L O L A JCR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    disinformation central
    Age
    34
    Posts
    13,496

    Default

    This thread is heading into Gavin land as fast as a T-34 on 5th gear.

  5. #110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbody View Post
    "[*******#333333][FONT=Arial]This thick book (well over 500 pages) offers both great amount of good information but also reveals very biased view of the author." What you are expecting from a modern Polish book about Russian armor
    ? That's from other review.
    [/FONT][/COLOR]
    That's rude .
    Really? and 'paspartoo did you are tank commander? No? So put your knowledge abiut Russian tanks just in your ****' is not?
    I'm sorry but you opened yourself to a great counterattack!
    I'll stop here before we all get banned...

  6. #111

    Default

    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?
    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.

  7. #112
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Warsaw/Irkutsk
    Posts
    4,866

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paspartoo View Post
    Really? and 'paspartoo did you are tank commander? No? So put your knowledge abiut Russian tanks just in your ****' is not?
    I'm sorry but you opened yourself to a great counterattack!
    I'll stop here before we all get banned...
    of course not, did I said something about your mother? And dude, your arguments are just from the ****. Based on very biased sources

  8. #113
    Senior Member Flamming_Python's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Spying on the Eurowoosies
    Posts
    10,331

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbody View Post
    You are just quoting the source that fit's to your view.
    "[*******#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]
    That's simply a laughable claim; what is the author smoking?
    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 07:42 AM.

  9. #114
    Senior Member BitnikGr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    XII Detached Signals Company, Artillery Platoon, 1999-2000
    Posts
    1,304

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paspartoo View Post
    ‘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.
    No, it does not.


    Quote Originally Posted by paspartoo View Post
    ‘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.
    No wonder. You see only what you want to see.


    Quote Originally Posted by paspartoo View Post
    ‘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!
    Isaev. Berlin '45. Page 104.

    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by paspartoo View Post
    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 wa
    r. Only a 3-year war began to put the commander's cupola, and then we go
    hesitantly in this.’
    No comment…
    Again and for the zillionth time... The book itself is VERY objective. The author of that particular chapter operates like a referee and he notices pretty clearly misunderstandings of Americans at Aberdeen, mistakes of translator and even arrogance stance of some Soviet high-ranked officers. But all these are just few exceptions to a generally very well balanced work of both sides. Soviets admitted majority of American claims and suggestions... but they were not new for them. The problem with your attitude is that you base your point solely on the most negative parts, including even those, which were judged as mistake even by the author of the source you was reading, but you decided to omit his objections.

    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by paspartoo View Post
    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.
    I wouldn't be surprised.

    Quote Originally Posted by paspartoo View Post
    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!
    So, you don't know Russian... but how do you use it then? Is there English translation of the entire book?

    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 09:13 AM.

  10. #115

    Default

    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.
    Veterans also state the same thing:

    "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).

  11. #116
    Senior Member T-5 Killer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM
    Age
    33
    Posts
    5,781

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JCR View Post
    This thread is heading into Gavin land as fast as a T-34 on 5th gear.
    LOL You leave the holy Gavin out of this

  12. #117
    Senior Member BitnikGr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    XII Detached Signals Company, Artillery Platoon, 1999-2000
    Posts
    1,304

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alejandro_ View Post
    Veterans also state the same thing:

    "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).
    alejandro_,
    Are books of Drabkin and/or Isaev being published in English?

  13. #118

    Default

    Are books of Drabkin and/or Isaev being published in English?
    So far only Drabkin. I have translated using google some other books by Svirin and Isaev.

  14. #119

    Default

    Apart from adding the new information in my original piece I’ve written down some interesting statements on the T-34 from various sources:

    http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.g...e-on-t-34.html

    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!

  15. #120
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    The capital of Scandinavia
    Posts
    3,483

    Default

    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.

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
  •