Jump to content


Mythbusting tanks - T-34


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
80 replies to this topic

taakho #41 Posted 14 November 2013 - 09:53 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 24597 battles
  • 13
  • [ASEET] ASEET
  • Member since:
    01-14-2012
Great post OP! Please do similar article with Stug III (or should I say Sturmi? :) )

View PostTigger3, on 13 November 2013 - 07:49 PM, said:

The Tiger II was never built nor intended to be the main tank of the German forces, it was a heavy support tank - no way it can even be considered as a Main Battle Tank.

Little bit OT here, but I agree. If some german WWII tank can be called "first MBT in the world" that would be Panther.

Finsken #42 Posted 17 November 2013 - 04:23 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 8028 battles
  • 76
  • [-VAL-] -VAL-
  • Member since:
    02-16-2011
Friend sent me this, think it fits here pretty well:)

Posted Image

cracke #43 Posted 17 November 2013 - 10:38 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 5138 battles
  • 39
  • Member since:
    04-25-2012

View PostFinsken, on 17 November 2013 - 04:23 PM, said:

Friend sent me this, think it fits here pretty well:)

Posted Image
LOL, nice one!

Gardar7 #44 Posted 18 November 2013 - 09:30 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 24205 battles
  • 2,133
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011
:veryhappy: +1

Molnja98 #45 Posted 18 November 2013 - 11:10 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 26 battles
  • 1
  • Member since:
    11-15-2013
[edited]

Edited by Ender__wiggins, 18 November 2013 - 12:37 PM.
This post has been edited by a member of the Moderation Team, due to inappropriate content. ~ Ender__wiggins


Horacy_Harkness #46 Posted 19 November 2013 - 02:01 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 41605 battles
  • 19
  • [PLG] PLG
  • Member since:
    04-27-2012
Nice try with this, that T 34-85 is probably post-war production series or late war series. Comparing to war production (1940-1944) models, it's like Jaguar or Porshe in T-34 world. In July 1941 most of the T-34 were broken not destroyed!

War series T-34 was mass produced in 1941-1943, with no radio in 90% tanks, bad observation and aiming optics, poor equipped in "details" like seats for crew or fire extinguishers! Armour plate quality was bad, gearbox and engine was still crappy - all straight facts. Because mass production in USSR (in whole Lenin and Stalin rule period) was neglectful. When in 1943 production standards were better, then T-34/76 was equal to M4A1 or Pz IV G or Pz IV H.
If Sherman were worse tanks, then why elite Guard Tank Corps in Red Army used M4, not the "super" T 34. If you comapare some tanks, compare a similar models, from the same time period. T-34/76 models from 1942-1943 and T-34-/85 are two different tanks.

T-34 was the most unreliable tank in comparison to M4 Sherman and Pz IV, even if production of T-34 was harder then M4 or Pz IV. It was the only thing that USSR produced in medium tank category – it wasn’t great, but it was all they had.
Ps. IN 1940 Soviets compared early T-34 with Pz III E on heavy trials and the conclusion was shocking! Pz III was faster, easier to fabricate and more dependable. Crew had better working conditions in Pz and every single Pz III had radio! Not like T-34. Only cannon and armour plate was better in T-34. Read about T-34M model (it was plan for a big T-34/76 modification). In fact, it was almost a new tank! It's all in Red Army reports from this tests. Please don't repeat USSR war propaganda, use facts ant true stats.

Horacy_Harkness #47 Posted 19 November 2013 - 02:10 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 41605 battles
  • 19
  • [PLG] PLG
  • Member since:
    04-27-2012
Upss, little mistake, it was Pz III G, not Pz III E.

Finlander #48 Posted 19 November 2013 - 06:57 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 31373 battles
  • 530
  • Member since:
    04-11-2011

View PostHoracy_Harkness, on 19 November 2013 - 02:01 AM, said:

Nice try with this, that T 34-85 is probably post-war production series or late war series. Comparing to war production (1940-1944) models, it's like Jaguar or Porshe in T-34 world. In July 1941 most of the T-34 were broken not destroyed!

War series T-34 was mass produced in 1941-1943, with no radio in 90% tanks, bad observation and aiming optics, poor equipped in "details" like seats for crew or fire extinguishers! Armour plate quality was bad, gearbox and engine was still crappy - all straight facts. Because mass production in USSR (in whole Lenin and Stalin rule period) was neglectful. When in 1943 production standards were better, then T-34/76 was equal to M4A1 or Pz IV G or Pz IV H.
If Sherman were worse tanks, then why elite Guard Tank Corps in Red Army used M4, not the "super" T 34. If you comapare some tanks, compare a similar models, from the same time period. T-34/76 models from 1942-1943 and T-34-/85 are two different tanks.

T-34 was the most unreliable tank in comparison to M4 Sherman and Pz IV, even if production of T-34 was harder then M4 or Pz IV. It was the only thing that USSR produced in medium tank category – it wasn’t great, but it was all they had.
Ps. IN 1940 Soviets compared early T-34 with Pz III E on heavy trials and the conclusion was shocking! Pz III was faster, easier to fabricate and more dependable. Crew had better working conditions in Pz and every single Pz III had radio! Not like T-34. Only cannon and armour plate was better in T-34. Read about T-34M model (it was plan for a big T-34/76 modification). In fact, it was almost a new tank! It's all in Red Army reports from this tests. Please don't repeat USSR war propaganda, use facts ant true stats.

View PostHoracy_Harkness, on 19 November 2013 - 02:01 AM, said:

Nice try with this, that T 34-85 is probably post-war production series or late war series. Comparing to war production (1940-1944) models, it's like Jaguar or Porshe in T-34 world. In July 1941 most of the T-34 were broken not destroyed!

War series T-34 was mass produced in 1941-1943, with no radio in 90% tanks, bad observation and aiming optics, poor equipped in "details" like seats for crew or fire extinguishers! Armour plate quality was bad, gearbox and engine was still crappy - all straight facts. Because mass production in USSR (in whole Lenin and Stalin rule period) was neglectful. When in 1943 production standards were better, then T-34/76 was equal to M4A1 or Pz IV G or Pz IV H.
If Sherman were worse tanks, then why elite Guard Tank Corps in Red Army used M4, not the "super" T 34. If you comapare some tanks, compare a similar models, from the same time period. T-34/76 models from 1942-1943 and T-34-/85 are two different tanks.

T-34 was the most unreliable tank in comparison to M4 Sherman and Pz IV, even if production of T-34 was harder then M4 or Pz IV. It was the only thing that USSR produced in medium tank category – it wasn’t great, but it was all they had.
Ps. IN 1940 Soviets compared early T-34 with Pz III E on heavy trials and the conclusion was shocking! Pz III was faster, easier to fabricate and more dependable. Crew had better working conditions in Pz and every single Pz III had radio! Not like T-34. Only cannon and armour plate was better in T-34. Read about T-34M model (it was plan for a big T-34/76 modification). In fact, it was almost a new tank! It's all in Red Army reports from this tests. Please don't repeat USSR war propaganda, use facts ant true stats.

Some might consider Armour and gun quite important for tank's combat effectiveness.
In war such things as leather seats and if a nut is easier to release in one tank compared to another are a minor consideration when the fighting starts.

It is almost comical someone to write almost 70 years later saying Russians were chocked to realise the enemy had nicer seats.

You say panzer 3G model was faster than early model t34 ? where is your source material?

Factual or fictional .. t34 was faster than any panzer 3 model in road speeds let alone cross country.
But maybe they compared a German donkey model... i hope that's not your next line.

Finlander

Mantelman #49 Posted 19 November 2013 - 10:43 AM

    Brigadier

  • Beta Tester
  • 9422 battles
  • 4,395
  • Member since:
    10-28-2010

View PostFinlander, on 19 November 2013 - 06:57 AM, said:

You say panzer 3G model was faster than early model t34 ? where is your source material?


Some sources would be realy nice!
Horacys´s post smells like german post war relativisation .

TotoTron #50 Posted 19 November 2013 - 12:01 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 18578 battles
  • 135
  • Member since:
    04-28-2011
Found a nice panorama view from inside the T34-85. Only problem is that it probably shows the inside as too spacy because of the wide angle view lens.

http://www.virtualfi...-34-85-sisalta/

Another video of inside action of T-34 driving and firing blanks. Notice that the video contains old school verbal communication without ear protection. I once had a chance to talk (or shout) with a STUG III veteran that had a quite bad hearing problem, even with hearing aids.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=gQh9KfUUpUE

Horacy_Harkness #51 Posted 19 November 2013 - 12:26 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 41605 battles
  • 19
  • [PLG] PLG
  • Member since:
    04-27-2012
Then read this Finlander. It's a scrap of bigger report wrote by Yakov Fiedorenko for Kliment Voroshilov after this test:

[....] летом 1940 года над Т-34 начали сгущаться тучи. Дело в том, что на полигон в Кубинку поступили два танка Pz-III Ausf.G, купленные в Германии после подписания пакта о ненападении. Результаты сравнительных испытаний немецкого танка и Т-34 оказались неутешительными для советской боевой машины.
Т-34 превосходил «тройку» по вооружению и броневой защите, уступая по ряду других показателей. Pz-III имел трехместную башню, в которой были достаточно комфортные условия для боевой работы членов экипажа. Командир имел удобную башенку, обеспечивавшую ему прекрасный обзор, у всех членов экипажа имелись собственные приборы внутренней связи. В башне же Т-34 с трудом размещались два танкиста, один из которых выполнял функции не только наводчика, но и командира танка, а в ряде случаев и командира подразделения. Внутренней связью обеспечивались только два члена экипажа из четырех — командир танка и механик-водитель.
Немецкая машина превзошла Т-34 и по плавности хода, она оказалась и менее шумной — при максимальной скорости движения Pz-III было слышно за 150 — 200 м, а Т-34 — за 450–500 м.
Полной неожиданностью для наших военных явилось и превосходство «немца» в скорости. На гравийном шоссе Кубинка-Репище Pz-III разогнался на мерном километре до скорости 69,7 км/ч, в то время как лучший показатель для Т-34 составил 48,2 км/ч. Выделенный же в качестве эталона БТ-7 на колесах развил только 68,1 км/ч.
В отчете об испытаниях отмечались и более удачная подвеска немецкого танка, высокое качество оптических приборов, удобное размещение боекомплекта и радиостанции, надежные двигатель и трансмиссия.

Also russian tank veterans wrote many times how "easy to use" and not leather seats, there were no seats!

Vlevs #52 Posted 19 November 2013 - 01:27 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 14088 battles
  • 628
  • Member since:
    02-05-2011

View PostHoracy_Harkness, on 19 November 2013 - 12:26 PM, said:

Then read this Finlander. It's a scrap of bigger report wrote by Yakov Fiedorenko for Kliment Voroshilov after this test:

Quote

[.... ] In the summer of 1940 over the T- 34 began to thicken the clouds. The fact that the landfill to Kubinka received two tank Pz-III Ausf.G, bought in Germany after the signing of non-aggression pact . The results of comparative tests of a German tank and T -34 have been disappointing for the Soviet military machine .
The T-34 was superior to the "troika" to arm and armor protection , yielding a number of other indicators. Pz-III had a triple tower , which was quite comfortable for the battle of the members of the crew. The commander 's cupola was comfortable , it provides an excellent overview , all the crew members had their own internal communication devices . The tower is the T -34 with difficulty placed two tanker , one of which served as not only a gunner , but the tank commander , and in some cases, the unit commander . Intercom provided with only two members of the crew of four - a tank commander and driver .
German car surpassed the T -34 and under ride , and it was less noisy - at the maximum speed of the Pz-III was heard in the 150 - 200 m, and the T- 34 - for 450-500 m
A complete surprise to our military superiority and was "German" in speed. On a gravel highway Kuban- Repishche Pz-III clocked at speeds up to dimensional kilometer 69.7 km / h , while the best result for the T -34 was 48.2 km / h Dedicated same as the standard BT-7 on wheels developed only 68.1 km / h
In the test report noted suspension and a more successful German tank , high quality optical instruments , comfortable accommodation ammunition and radio stations , reliable engine and transmission .

Google Translated for convenience (better than nothing).

I consider it somewhat doubtful how Panzer III would reach higher road speed than more powerful and lighter BT-7. Suspension doesn't explain everything, if BT's Christie suspension was good at anything it was speed. I've never seen that high speed (69,7 km/h) mentioned anywhere else.

Mantelman #53 Posted 19 November 2013 - 04:56 PM

    Brigadier

  • Beta Tester
  • 9422 battles
  • 4,395
  • Member since:
    10-28-2010
Even the text doesn´t say soemthing about "bad observation and aiming optics, poor equipped in "details" like seats for crew or fire extinguishers! Armour plate quality was bad, gearbox and engine was still crappy", it´s only says that the Pzkw. III has better ones.
And it spoke about the first series of T-34 in 1940 and compared it with a 4 years old tank which get a lot of tests and improvements.

Horacy_Harkness #54 Posted 19 November 2013 - 11:38 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 41605 battles
  • 19
  • [PLG] PLG
  • Member since:
    04-27-2012
This two articule about myth of T-34.
http://chris-intel-c...ank-of-war.html
http://operationbarb...thBusters2.html
And much more in press articules or books, not a propaganda.

Finlander #55 Posted 20 November 2013 - 12:43 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 31373 battles
  • 530
  • Member since:
    04-11-2011

View PostHoracy_Harkness, on 19 November 2013 - 11:38 PM, said:

This two articule about myth of T-34.
http://chris-intel-c...ank-of-war.html
http://operationbarb...thBusters2.html
And much more in press articules or books, not a propaganda.

No reputable tank warfare expert or historian would use the material you refer to.
Before this topic falls into flame war i would ask moderator to block further posting.

Finlander

Horacy_Harkness #56 Posted 20 November 2013 - 02:37 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 41605 battles
  • 19
  • [PLG] PLG
  • Member since:
    04-27-2012
Look on bibliography on both articules. J. Zaloga isn't a tank warfare expert?
Did you read a "An Evaluation of the T-34 and KV tanks by workers of the Aberdeen Testing Grounds of the U.S., submitted by firms, officers and members of military commissions responsible for testing tanks." It's a very interesting study of 2 basic Soviet tanks.
First in line on my privat library T-34 Mythical Weapon by by Robert Michulec and Miroslaw Zientarzewski, did you read it? One of the best book about T-34, lots of reaserch and impressive bibliography.Next is J. Magnuski T-34 Medium tank.
Russian author like I. Zheltova Nieizwiestnyj T-34 or Baryatinsky Michail T-34 Tank. T-34 in Action or Soviet Tank Troops in World War II by Artiom Drabkin. Polish and Russian used that tank and they knew everything about it.
Also lot of articules from polish, english and american historian press. Do you need more? If you give me some time I will give lots of position from my privat collection.
And who is a reputable tank warfare expert or historian? Some guys who even didn't saw that tank? Like Discovery experts on Top 10 tanks of the world?

Finlander #57 Posted 20 November 2013 - 02:13 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 31373 battles
  • 530
  • Member since:
    04-11-2011

View PostHoracy_Harkness, on 19 November 2013 - 12:26 PM, said:

Then read this Finlander. It's a scrap of bigger report wrote by Yakov Fiedorenko for Kliment Voroshilov after this test:

[....] летом 1940 года над Т-34 начали сгущаться тучи. Дело в том, что на полигон в Кубинку поступили два танка Pz-III Ausf.G, купленные в Германии после подписания пакта о ненападении. Результаты сравнительных испытаний немецкого танка и Т-34 оказались неутешительными для советской боевой машины.
Т-34 превосходил «тройку» по вооружению и броневой защите, уступая по ряду других показателей. Pz-III имел трехместную башню, в которой были достаточно комфортные условия для боевой работы членов экипажа. Командир имел удобную башенку, обеспечивавшую ему прекрасный обзор, у всех членов экипажа имелись собственные приборы внутренней связи. В башне же Т-34 с трудом размещались два танкиста, один из которых выполнял функции не только наводчика, но и командира танка, а в ряде случаев и командира подразделения. Внутренней связью обеспечивались только два члена экипажа из четырех — командир танка и механик-водитель.
Немецкая машина превзошла Т-34 и по плавности хода, она оказалась и менее шумной — при максимальной скорости движения Pz-III было слышно за 150 — 200 м, а Т-34 — за 450–500 м.
Полной неожиданностью для наших военных явилось и превосходство «немца» в скорости. На гравийном шоссе Кубинка-Репище Pz-III разогнался на мерном километре до скорости 69,7 км/ч, в то время как лучший показатель для Т-34 составил 48,2 км/ч. Выделенный же в качестве эталона БТ-7 на колесах развил только 68,1 км/ч.
В отчете об испытаниях отмечались и более удачная подвеска немецкого танка, высокое качество оптических приборов, удобное размещение боекомплекта и радиостанции, надежные двигатель и трансмиссия.

Also russian tank veterans wrote many times how "easy to use" and not leather seats, there were no seats!

And how exactly you propose Panzer 3 would be able to go 69.7 kilo meters per hour ?

No model of panzer 3 exceeded speed of 45 kilo meters per hour
there was no gearbox used in any model that would allowed panzer 3 go even potentially over 50 kilo meters per hour in level ground.

Finlander

jaskap77 #58 Posted 20 November 2013 - 02:45 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 9990 battles
  • 244
  • [NORSU] NORSU
  • Member since:
    07-07-2011

View PostHoracy_Harkness, on 19 November 2013 - 11:38 PM, said:

This two articule about myth of T-34.
http://chris-intel-c...ank-of-war.html

I read this article, and it actually is quite true. However, I cannot take any stand on gun performance or differences to other vehicles BUT things the article says about T-34 is quite true.

Mantelman #59 Posted 20 November 2013 - 02:59 PM

    Brigadier

  • Beta Tester
  • 9422 battles
  • 4,395
  • Member since:
    10-28-2010

View Postjaskap77, on 20 November 2013 - 02:45 PM, said:

I read this article, and it actually is quite true. However, I cannot take any stand on gun performance or differences to other vehicles BUT things the article says about T-34 is quite true.

A lot of things in this article aren´t true and even it try to bust some "myths" and doesn´t descripe the T-34 itself.

Vlevs #60 Posted 20 November 2013 - 03:08 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 14088 battles
  • 628
  • Member since:
    02-05-2011

View PostMantelman, on 20 November 2013 - 02:59 PM, said:

A lot of things in this article aren´t true and even it try to bust some "myths" and doesn´t descripe the T-34 itself.

For the sake of less-informed poor souls like me, would you please elaborate?




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users