Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 167

Thread: The T-34 Myth

  1. #121
    Senior Member Einhander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    SPb
    Age
    34
    Posts
    3,254

    Default

    If the tank was extremely bad then why Stalin spared constructors? He was such a triggerhappy guy.
    If the tank was extremely good then why there were T-44 prototypes before the war ended? USSR could curbstomp the world with wundertank anyway!
    /sarcasm

  2. #122

    Default

    [SIZE=3][*******#000000][FONT=Calibri]
    Quote Originally Posted by my nameagain View Post
    I see , anecdotal storys are proof now. I should also write mythesis like you do. Just add a bunch out of context storys and be done with it.A T-34 not going faster then 10-12 kmh. Maybe the germans forgott to shift to ahigher gear? Since the very first words admit that the person has no expierencewhatsoever with the T-34.
    [/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]

    [FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][*******#000000]When i get the book i’ll post the entire page. As for the statement it’s just what you would expect for a T34 that had the 4-speed gearbox. Yes with that equipment max speed on uneven terrain was ~15km. Why don’t you check the reason for building a 5-speed gearbox?
    [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
    [*******#222222][FONT=Tahoma][SIZE=3][FONT=Calibri]
    Quote Originally Posted by Einhander View Post
    If the tank was extremely badthen why Stalin spared constructors? He was such a triggerhappy guy.
    If the tank was extremely good then why there were T-44 prototypes before thewar ended? USSR could curbstomp the world with wundertank anyway!
    /sarcasm
    [/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]
    [SIZE=3][FONT=arial][*******#222222]The plan was to ditch the T-34 in second half 1941 and move to the T-34M with torsion bar suspension, 3-man turret and more armor (but with different confiduration so internal space would not be so limited). Guess what intervened...[/COLOR][/FONT]
    [/SIZE]

  3. #123
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    3,357

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paspartoo View Post

    [FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][*******#000000]When i get the book i’ll post the entire page. As for the statement it’s just what you would expect for a T34 that had the 4-speed gearbox. Yes with that equipment max speed on uneven terrain was ~15km. Why don’t you check the reason for building a 5-speed gearbox?[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][*******#222222][FONT=Tahoma][SIZE=3][FONT=Calibri][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][SIZE=3]
    [/SIZE]
    So what is it? Long hard road marches or offroad funtime?

  4. #124
    Senior Member Einhander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    SPb
    Age
    34
    Posts
    3,254

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paspartoo View Post
    [SIZE=3][FONT=arial][*******#222222]The plan was to ditch the T-34 in second half 1941 and move to the T-34M with torsion bar suspension, 3-man turret and more armor (but with different confiduration so internal space would not be so limited). Guess what intervened...[/COLOR][/FONT]
    [/SIZE]
    It did, and showed that the tank was good enough to warrant its quantity numbers.

  5. #125
    Senior Member BitnikGr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    XII Detached Signals Company, Artillery Platoon, 1999-2000
    Posts
    1,792

    Default

    Crimean Offensive.
    The breakthrough of defensive line was achieved on April 10th to the East of Sivash Lake.
    April 11th - April 15th - The 19th Armor Corps moved in three directions aiming at Evpatoria, Feodosia and Sevastopol covering 170km in each three directions of offensive in 4 days.

    Uman–Botosani Offensive
    2nd Guards Tank Army, 5th Guards Tank Army, 6th Tank Army.
    March 5th - 10th, Dneptropetrovsk-Uman - 400km
    March 10th - 17th, Uman - Mogilev-Podolskiy - 220km
    March 17th - 26th, Mogilev-Podolskiy - Ungheni - 180km

    Odessa Offensive
    March 25th - April 2nd, Prut - Odessa march - 520km

    -----
    Not bad for a tank that allegedly "can't drive faster than 12km/h and breaks down all the time".

  6. #126
    Senior Member Mordoror's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Backstabbing allies in a foxhole
    Age
    41
    Posts
    9,962

    Default

    Not bad for a tank that allegedly "can't drive faster than 12km/h and breaks down all the time".
    Tss don't writte sens in this thread, you'll trigger an aneurysm in somebody who seems to have a grudge against a certain tin can

  7. #127
    Senior Member Kaiser Prussotroll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Austria
    Posts
    1,923

    Default

    Just a couple of points in regards to the gun comparison.

    First of all, it's somewhat dubious that the Kwk.40 L43 or L48 can penetrate the glacis of the T-34 at 1000m, assuming not entirely bogus armour quality. The only place known to me where the T-34 (M-40 to M43) could be penetrated at that range would be a shot to the front turret or a lucky hit to the driver's hatch.

    Second, in regards to the "special ammunition" for the Kwk 39 L60 that guy referred to, German APCR ammunition was performing notoriously badly against highly sloped surfaces, with the PzGr.39 outperforming the PzGr.40 at slopes above 50° or so. This is well documented with German ammunition testing, for both the Kwk 39 and Kwk 40. In addition, German APCR ammnunition was extremely scarce and basically almost stopped being available by late 1943.

    In regards to the author's comments about the "sloped part in the middle of the hull" on the Pz III and IV, while true, the armour in that part was so thin (20mm) it would be overmatched by practically any larger round. In addition, hatches were located there, which are obvious weak points.

  8. #128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaiser Prussotroll View Post
    Just a couple of points in regards to the gun comparison.

    First of all, it's somewhat dubious that the Kwk.40 L43 or L48 can penetrate the glacis of the T-34 at 1000m, assuming not entirely bogus armour quality. The only place known to me where the T-34 (M-40 to M43) could be penetrated at that range would be a shot to the front turret or a lucky hit to the driver's hatch.
    You’re quite the expert aren’t you? I think you mixed up the 50mm gun with the KwK 40. Performance for the latter was for L43- L/48: 78-84 mm armor at 30 degrees from vertical at 1.000 meters.

    sources are ‘Panzertruppen’ and ‘Kursk 1943: A statistical analysis’.

    Here is a German report from Panzertruppen:
    Penetration ability of the long 75mm gun KWK 40 /L43 panzergranate 39 against the T-34: The T-34 is cleanly penetrated at ranges up to 1.200 meters.’
    ........................................
    T34: The T34 that was far superior to the German Panzers up to the beginning of the Spring of 1942 is now inferior to the German long 5 cm Kw.K. L/60 and 7.5 cm Kw.K.40 L/43 tank guns. After the Russians attacked the German Panzer forces in several battles with the T34 and received heavy losses, they didn't send the T34 tank against the German Panzers so long as they had a chance to with-draw’

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaiser Prussotroll View Post
    Second, in regards to the "special ammunition" for the Kwk 39 L60 that guy referred to, German APCR ammunition was performing notoriously badly against highly sloped surfaces, with the PzGr.39 outperforming the PzGr.40 at slopes above 50° or so. This is well documented with German ammunition testing, for both the Kwk 39 and Kwk 40. In addition, German APCR ammnunition was extremely scarce and basically almost stopped being available by late 1943.


    APCR wasn’t needed by vehicles equipped with the KwK 40 or of course the Panthers and Tigers. As for the PzIII with the L/60 gun even with the standard ammo it was good enough. One report printed in ‘Panzertruppen’ says: ‘Pzgr: Up to 400m at the hull and turret side. At 300m from front at the driver’s hatch after several hits’.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaiser Prussotroll View Post
    In regards to the author's comments about the "sloped part in the middle of the hull" on the Pz III and IV, while true, the armour in that part was so thin (20mm) it would be overmatched by practically any larger round. In addition, hatches were located there, which are obvious weak points.
    Hmm so the T-34’s 45mm armor was not similarly overmatched by oh let’s say the 75mm rounds? Different physics for different tanks?

  9. #129
    Senior Member Kaiser Prussotroll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Austria
    Posts
    1,923

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paspartoo View Post
    You’re quite the expert aren’t you? I think you mixed up the 50mm gun with the KwK 40. Performance for the latter was for L43- L/48: 78-84 mm armor at 30 degrees from vertical at 1.000 meters.
    Thanks for the ad-hominem, I'll pay you back by pointing out your inability to read.

    I didn't mix up the guns. First of all, the 7,5cm PzGr.39 figures you quote are against 30° from vertical, not 60° which is *gasp* different (I hope you're not confusing vertical and horizontal). The nose shape of the 39's penetrator was quite "sharp" which resulted in the 39 usually penetrating base first (or anything apart from nose first) with highly sloped surfaces. The cap does help to some extent but it still doesn't normalise the round enough in order to overcome the nose shape. In regards to the penetration data, the Germans didn't even do tests with 60° plates and instead interpolated from their tests at 30°. Just as a side-note, the German interpolation disagrees with, for instance, the US interpolations on slope effects.

    Generally, the KwK could reliably penetrate the T-34's glacis at 600-800m, anything above that was only possible with "lucky" hits on a weak point or hits against the turret front. A lot of this, of course, depends on the T-34's armour quality. Get an epic poor quality 440+ BHN plate and the ranges will increase, with recorded instances of 1200m+ (although the spot the round hit is unknown), however, given somewhat "normal" armour quality, the T-34's glacis was perfectly able to withstand the KwK 40 at long ranges.

    Quote Originally Posted by paspartoo View Post
    sources are ‘Panzertruppen’ and ‘Kursk 1943: A statistical analysis’.

    Here is a German report from Panzertruppen:
    Penetration ability of the long 75mm gun KWK 40 /L43 panzergranate 39 against the T-34: The T-34 is cleanly penetrated at ranges up to 1.200 meters.’
    ........................................
    T34: The T34 that was far superior to the German Panzers up to the beginning of the Spring of 1942 is now inferior to the German long 5 cm Kw.K. L/60 and 7.5 cm Kw.K.40 L/43 tank guns. After the Russians attacked the German Panzer forces in several battles with the T34 and received heavy losses, they didn't send the T34 tank against the German Panzers so long as they had a chance to with-draw’
    Anecdotal evidence is entirely useless, as it doesn't tell us where, and at what ranges, which rounds hit.




    Quote Originally Posted by paspartoo View Post
    APCR wasn’t needed by vehicles equipped with the KwK 40 or of course the Panthers and Tigers. As for the PzIII with the L/60 gun even with the standard ammo it was good enough. One report printed in ‘Panzertruppen’ says: ‘Pzgr: Up to 400m at the hull and turret side. At 300m from front at the driver’s hatch after several hits’.
    Once again, anecdotal evidence, however this one is a bit more specific. The KwK 39 was unable to penetrate the glacis of the T-34 at pretty much any range. You claim that the KwK 39's PzGr 40 was able to take on the T-34's glacis at up to 500m. The fact that German APCR ammunition was notoriously bad when going up against highly sloped surfaces and was out-penetrated by the '39 doesn't help your statement.


    Quote Originally Posted by paspartoo View Post
    Hmm so the T-34’s 45mm armor was not similarly overmatched by oh let’s say the 75mm rounds? Different physics for different tanks?
    20mm =/= 45mm. This thickness doesn't deflect rounds that would be big enough to penetrate the 50mm turret front or 50-80mm glacis plate of the Pz IV. So it IS a weak spot, contrary to what you seem to imply in your article. And no, the 45mm warmour was not over-matched by the KwK 40. It was, however, overmatched by the KwK 36's 88mm round.

    Look, I'm not saying that the T-34 was some kind of über-tank, all I'm saying is that the claim that the KwK 40 could penetrate the T-34's 45mm@60° glacis at 1000m is bogus, same with the claim that the KwK 39 was somehow able to penetrate the T-34's glacis at 500m with "special" ammunition. I'm well aware of the shortcomings of the T-34.

  10. #130

    Default

    I see from your post that you live up to your nickname. I'll be brief since i won't waste any more time on your ramblings.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaiser Prussotroll View Post
    Thanks for the ad-hominem, I'll pay you back by pointing out your inability to read.

    I didn't mix up the guns. First of all, the 7,5cm PzGr.39 figures you quote are against 30° from vertical, not 60° which is *gasp* different (I hope you're not confusing vertical and horizontal).
    German tests where based on plates 30 degrees from vertical which is the same as 60 degrees from horizontal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaiser Prussotroll View Post
    Generally, the KwK could reliably penetrate the T-34's glacis at 600-800m, anything above that was only possible with "lucky" hits on a weak point or hits against the turret front.
    KwK 40 could kill the T-34 from over 1 kilometer with ease. This is not only based on the paper value of the gun but also mentioned in German reports. Note that the report i mentioned was for the weaker version L43.

    My advice is to read some actual books so you can become a true expert and not just in your head. When/if you actually read something try to write the important parts down (maybe in an excel file) so you don’t continue to believe that the T-34 armor was safe at ‘600-800m, anything above that was only possible with "lucky" hits’.

  11. #131
    Senior Member Kaiser Prussotroll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Austria
    Posts
    1,923

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paspartoo View Post
    German tests where based on plates 30 degrees from vertical which is the same as 60 degrees from horizontal.
    Indeed, and the T-34's glacis is 60° from vertical.

    You're thoroughly unqualified to write about this topic if you don't even comprehend this basic fact. But then again, how could I expect you to comprehend this if you didn't even comprehend what I wrote in my previous post.

    PS: I love how you call yourself a "true" expert.

  12. #132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaiser Prussotroll View Post
    Indeed, and the T-34's glacis is 60° from vertical.

    You're thoroughly unqualified to write about this topic if you don't even comprehend this basic fact. But then again, how could I expect you to comprehend this if you didn't even comprehend what I wrote in my previous post.
    Always fun talking on a forum. Learn so much new stuff...

    Let’s start again mate. The T-34 had 45mm armor at 60 degrees as you said.

    That’s 45mm, fourty-five, FOUR–FIVE. Get it? Now the Germans test shows that the KwK 40 L/43 can penetrate at 1km 78mm at 30 degrees and the L/48 84. Mind you those are German plates.

    A 45mm armor can’t be made invulnerable because you like slope. As you mentioned earlier slope helps UP TO A POINT. Why would the KwK gun have a problem with 45mm armor at 60 degrees when it could penetrate 78-84 at 30? 45mm was too LOW against the 75mm gun.
    Am i getting through to you? Ask your friends what type of WWII armor would be better? 45mm at 60deg or 84 at 30. From what i understand it’s the latter because slope can only take you so far!

    Also check the Allied equivalents of the KwK 40, the US 76mm tankgun and the T-34/85's 85mm.

  13. #133
    Senior Member Kaiser Prussotroll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Austria
    Posts
    1,923

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paspartoo View Post
    Always fun talking on a forum. Learn so much new stuff...

    Let’s start again mate. The T-34 had 45mm armor at 60 degrees as you said.

    That’s 45mm, fourty-five, FOUR–FIVE. Get it? Now the Germans test shows that the KwK 40 L/43 can penetrate at 1km 78mm at 30 degrees and the L/48 84. Mind you those are German plates.

    A 45mm armor can’t be made invulnerable because you like slope. As you mentioned earlier slope helps UP TO A POINT. Why would the KwK gun have a problem with 45mm armor at 60 degrees when it could penetrate 78-84 at 30? 45mm was too LOW against the 75mm gun.
    Am i getting through to you? Ask your friends what type of WWII armor would be better? 45mm at 60deg or 84 at 30. From what i understand it’s the latter because slope can only take you so far!

    Also check the Allied equivalents of the KwK 40, the US 76mm tankgun and the T-34/85's 85mm.
    As you obviously lack the basic understanding for my arguments (things like hardness, nose shape, etc) to penetrate your mind (pun intended), I'll post an idiot proof graph.

    Attachments Pending Approval Attachments Pending Approval

  14. #134
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    The capital of Scandinavia
    Posts
    4,075

    Default

    A question:
    I'm no math wiz (which soon will become apperant) but wouldn't 45mm at 60 deg be about 90 mm when hit straight on and 84 mm @ 30 deg be equal to about 95-96mm. So the difference would be pretty small, specially when concidering the increased risk of a glancing hit?

  15. #135
    Senior Member Kaiser Prussotroll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Austria
    Posts
    1,923

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sniffit View Post
    A question:
    I'm no math wiz (which soon will become apperant) but wouldn't 45mm at 60 deg be about 90 mm when hit straight on and 84 mm @ 30 deg be equal to about 95-96mm. So the difference would be pretty small, specially when concidering the increased risk of a glancing hit?
    You're wasting your breath with that guy.

    He's gone.

    EDIT: However, for you, I'll elaborate a bit.

    You're quite right, although a few more factors come into the equasion. First of all, a highly angled surface, as you correctly noted, increases the chance of glancing hits. However, that's now all. Depending on the nose-shape of the projectile, it can (and will) result in some designs tending to deflect away to some extent and penetrate sideways or even base first. This results in decreased penetration capabilities and may lead to deflections or failures to penetrate even if the round would mathematically be able to penetrate the armour's "normalised" 0° thickness. This is why sloped armour calculations are not only done with a straight mathematical conversion but also involve many other factors that increase the effectiveness of the armour.

    However, the effects of sloped armour can also be reduced by nose and penetration cap design, in turn reducing the effectiveness against "straight on" hits. This is, for instance, the case with the F-34's BR-354 rounds, which are quite rounded and of a more effective design when going up against sloped armour, compared to the KwK 40's PzGr 39 design. It's generally a case of each country developing rounds against their own armour.
    Last edited by Kaiser Prussotroll; 01-22-2013 at 10:15 AM.

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
  •