The T-34 Myth

[alejandro_]

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.

[paspartoo]

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!

[Sniffit]

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.

[my name again]

If you’re interested in the real performance of the T-34 enjoy!

I see , anecdotal storys are proof now. I should also write my thesis 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 a higher gear? Since the very first words admit that the person has no expierence whatsoever with the T-34.

[Einhander]

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

[paspartoo]

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.

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?

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

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...

[my name again]

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?

So what is it? Long hard road marches or offroad funtime?

[Einhander]

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...

It did, and showed that the tank was good enough to warrant its quantity numbers.

[BitnikGr]

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".

[Mordoror]

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

[Kaiser Prussotroll]

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.

[paspartoo]

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’

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’.

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?

[Kaiser Prussotroll]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[paspartoo]

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.

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.

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’.

[Kaiser Prussotroll]

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.