"Was the Russian T-34 tank a war-winner? (Despite it's flaws)" Topic

The T-34 was produced in huge numbers. It had great mobility, a nice big gun, and sloped thick armor. It also generally lacked a radio, and improved gun sights, as well as many other standard WWII tank refinements. What is your opinion?

I have had this saved for a few years and I always like to pull it out for questions like this. Robert

"Evaluation of tanks T-34 and KV by workers of the Aberdeen testing grounds of the U.S."
(from the Tanker's forum, posted by Misha Veksler)

(Footnote 1 -- reads, "The full name of the document is, "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." The tanks were given to the U.S. by the Soviets at the end of 1942 for familiarization.")
The condition of the tanks

The medium tank T-34, after driving 343 km, became disabled and could not be fixed. The reason: owing to the extremely poor air cleaner on the diesel, a large quantity of dirt got into the engine and a breakdown occurred, as a result of which the pistons and cylinders were damaged to such a degree that they were impossible to fix. The tank was withdrawn from tests and was to be shelled by the KV and its "Z/ 3" (?) -- by the cannon of the M-10 tank. After this it would be sent to Aberdeen, where it would be analyzed and kept as an exhibit.

The heavy tank KV is still functional. Tests are continuing, although it has many mechanical defects.
The silhouette/configuration of the tanks

Everyone, without exception, approves of the shape of the hull of our tanks. The T-34's is particularly good. All are of the opinion that the shape of the T-34's hull is better than that of any American tank. The KV's is worse than on any current American tank.
Armor

A chemical analysis of the armour showed that on both tanks the armour plating has a shallow surface tempering, whereas the main mass of the armoured plating is made of soft steel.

In this regard, the Americans consider that, by changing the technology used to temper the armoured plating, it would be possible to significantly reduce its thickness while preserving its protective capacities. As a result the weight of the tank could be decreased by 8-10%, with all the resulting benefits (an increase in speed, reduction in ground pressure, etc.)
Hull

The main deficiency is the permeability to water of the lower hull during water crossings, as well as the upper hull during rain. In heavy rain lots of water flows through chinks/ cracks, which leads to the disabling of the electrical equipment and even the ammunition.

The Americans liked how the ammunition is stowed.
Turret

Its main weakness is that it is very tight. The Americans could not understand how our tankers could fit inside during winter, when they wear sheepskin jackets. The electrical mechanism for turning the turret is very bad. The motor is weak, heavily overloaded and sparks horribly, as a result of which the device regulating the speed of the rotation burns out, and the teeth of the cogwheels break into pieces. They recommend redoing it as a hydraulic or simply manual system.

KV-1 heavy tank at Bovington Museum (England) (photo by […])
Armament

The gun of the T-34 is very good. It is simple, dependable and easy to service. Its weakness is that the initial speed of the shell is significantly less than that of the American "Z/ 3" (3200 feet versus 5700 feet per second).
Aiming/Back-sight

The general opinion: the best in the world. Incomparable with any existing (well-known here) tanks or any under development.
Track

The Americans very much like the idea of steel tracks. But they believe that until they receive the results of the comparative performance of steel vs. rubber tracks on American tanks in Tunis and other active fronts, there is no basis for changing from the American solution of rubber bushings and pads.

The deficiencies in our tracks from their viewpoint results from the lightness of their construction. They can easily be damaged by small calibre shells and mortar bombs. The pins are extremely poorly tempered and made of poor steel. As a result they quickly wear and the track often breaks. The idea of having loose track pins that are held in place by a cam welded to the side of the hull, at first was greatly liked by the Americans. But when in use under certain operating conditions, the pins would become bent which often resulted in the track rupturing. The Americans consider that if the armour is reduced in thickness the resultant weight saving can be used to make the tracks heavier and more reliable.
Suspension

On the T-34, it is poor. Suspension of the Christie type was tested long ago by the Americans, and unconditionally rejected. On our tanks, as a result of the poor steel on the springs, it very quickly (unclear word) and as a result clearance is noticeably reduced. On the KV the suspension is very good.
Motor

The diesel is good and light. The idea of using diesel engines on tanks is shared in full by American specialists and military personnel. Unfortunately, diesel engines produced in U.S. factories are used by the navy and therefore the army is deprived of the possibility of installing diesels in its tanks.

The deficiency of our diesels is the criminally poor air cleaners on the T-34. The Americans consider that only a saboteur could have constructed such a device. They also don't understand why in our manuals it is called oil-bath. Their tests in a laboratory showed that:

– the air cleaner doesn't clean at all the air which is drawn into the motor;
– its capacity does not allow for the flow of the necessary quantity of air, even when the motor is idling. As a result, the motor does not achieve its full capacity. Dirt getting into the cylinders leads them to quickly wear out, compression drops, and the engine loses even more power. In addition, the filter was manufactured, from a mechanical point of view, extremely primitively: in places the spot-welding of the electric welding has burned through the metal, leading to leakage of oil etc. On the KV the filter is better manufactured, but it does not secure the flow in sufficient quantity of normal cleaned air. On both motors the starters are poor, being weak and of unreliable construction.
Transmission

Without doubt, poor. An interesting thing happened. Those working on the transmission of the KV were struck that it was very much like those transmissions on which they had worked 12-15 years ago. The firm was questioned. The firm sent the blueprints of their transmission type A-23. To everyone's surprise, the blueprints of our transmission turned out to be a copy of those sent (?). The Americans were surprised, not that we were copying their design, but that we were copying a design that they had rejected 15-20 years ago. The Americans consider that, from the point of view of the designer, installing such a transmission in the tank would create an inhuman harshness for the driver (hard to work). On the T-34 the transmission is also very poor. When it was being operated, the cogs completely fell to pieces (on all the cogwheels). A chemical analysis of the cogs on the cogwheels showed that their thermal treatment is very poor and does not in any way meet American standards for such mechanisms.
Rolling friction clutches

Without doubt, poor. In America, they rejected the installation of friction clutches, even on tractors (never mind tanks), several years ago. In addition to the fallaciousness of the very principle, our friction clutches are extremely carelessly machined from low-quality steel, which quickly causes wear and tear, accelerates the penetration of dirt into the drum and in no way ensures reliable functioning.
General comments

From the American point of view, our tanks are slow. Both our tanks can climb an incline better than any American tank. The welding of the armour plating is extremely crude and careless. The radio sets in laboratory tests turned out to be not bad. However, because of poor shielding and poor protection, after installation in the tanks the sets did not manage to establish normal communications at distances greater than 10 miles. The compactness of the radio sets and their intelligent placement in the tanks was pleasing. The machining of equipment components and parts was, with few exceptions, very poor. In particular the Americans were troubled by the disgraceful design and extremely poor work on the drive/ gear/ transmission links/ blocks (?) on the T-34. After much torment they made new ones and replaced ours. All the tanks' mechanisms demand very frequent adjustments/ fine-tuning.
Conclusions, suggestions

1. On both tanks, quickly replace the air cleaners with models with greater capacity capable of actually cleaning the air.

2. The technology for tempering the armour plating should be changed. This would increase the protectiveness of the armour, either by using an equivalent thickness or, by reducing the thickness, lowering the weight and, accordingly, the use of metal.

3. Make the tracks thicker.

4. Replace the existing transmission of outdated design with the American "Final Drive," which would significantly increase the tanks' manoeuvrability.

5. Abandon the use of friction clutches.

6. Simplify the construction of small components, increase their reliability and decrease to the maximum extent possible the need to constantly make adjustments.

7. Comparing American and Russian tanks, it is clear that driving Russian tanks is much harder. A virtuosity is demanded of Russian drivers in changing gear on the move, special experience in using friction clutches, great experience as a mechanic, and the ability to keep tanks in working condition (adjustments and repairs of components, which are constantly becoming disabled). This greatly complicates the training of tankers and drivers.

8. Judging by samples, Russians when producing tanks pay little attention to careful machining or the finishing and technology of small parts and components, which leads to the loss of the advantage what would otherwise accrue from what on the whole are well designed tanks.

9. Despite the advantages of the use of diesel, the good contours of the tanks, thick armour, good and reliable armaments, the successful design of the tracks etc., Russian tanks are significantly inferior to American tanks in their simplicity of driving, manoeuvrability, the strength of firing [reference to speed of shell], speed, the reliability of mechanical construction and the ease of keeping them running.

Signed -- The head of the 2nd Department of the Main Intelligence Department of the Red Army, General Major of Tank Armies, Khlopo… (end missing: Khlopov?)"

The webpage is currently available from the good ole WayBack Machine

link

All tanks have strengths, all tanks have weaknesses, if you can better match your strengths to your opponents weaknesses you win wars. The T-34 did, so it helped win the war.

Wow, Kaoschallenged! My mind is blown by that posting.

Qoute for a soviet factpory worker "as long as they keep pretending to pay us we will keep pretending to work"

Newer soviet gear has a huge amount of problems as well. I dont think they could spell quality control, much less use it.

But, so many of them where rushed right into combat that they got destroyed before many of thoe problems ever had a chance to happen. So it worked, good enough for them. It could have been a much better tank, but that would have required a fundimental change in how soviwt industry, and soviet society worked. And that was not going to happen. So they did it thier way, and in the end it was good enough.

owen

When Speer toured the Eastern Front he asked Guderian what sort of tank design was wanted. Guderian showed him a knocked out T-34 and said build us these.

Instead German industry produced small numbers of well engineered heavier tanks, which were swarmed by T-34s.

Good thing, too.

Stalin " How many T-34 does it take to kill a Tiger, Comrade?"
Minister of Production " Urrrrm well about 50 Comrade Stalin"
Stalin " How many Tiger tanks do the Germans have left?"
Chief of Staff " About 500"
Stalin " Good, I want you to make 25,000 T-34 this year Comrade Minister"

T.34's made it to Berlin. Tigers never got to Moscow

T34 – Warwinner
Not a luxury vehicle, not something you want to drive to prom, but a World War winning vehicle!

We should never forget that it was the Soviets who lead the world when it came to mechanising its forces and was experimenting with new tactics. The Germans eagerly learned and improved upon the Soviet ideas about mobile warfare, while Stalin made sure his high command was decimated and the Red Army was weakened when the Germans attacked in 1941.

T-34 is a triumph of cutting edge design applied to very basic technology.

It was a crude design by any standards, but incredibly clever. The shape and slope of the armour maximised protection for a lower weight. It was equipped with a powerful gun and there was room for an upgrade. It was mobile thanks to its low weight, big broad tracks and tough diesel engine.

It had serious drawbacks. The transmission was horrible, the finishing was crude and greatly increased crew fatigue. Most lacked radios and the tank commander had to double as gunner. German tanks were pound for pound a lot more efficient.

Attempts were made to upgrade the T-34 with better armour, improved suspension etc, but the Soviets realised that all T-34 needed was a better gun and switched to an 85mm gun.

The real victory was Soviet industry and planning. Unlike the nazis who were afraid of a stab in the back if they went on full war-industry footing and wasted resources producing a range of powerful and sophisticated tanks. Soviet factories churned out tanks, guns and aeroplanes in record numbers.

After Kursk, the German Panzer arm was essentially depleted. They were never able to resume major offensive operations again. Panzers were now used as a fire brigade, held in reserve and used to block enemy offensives, but by 1944, the Red Army was a formidable opponent.

Yes

what flaws?

The real war winners were the trucks the US sent to the USSR. We gave them so many, the Soviets stopped producing their own and switched their factories to building those hordes of T-34s. What would have been the result if the Soviet tank production was cut in half or more because they had to keep building trucks?

I remember a story (probably apocryphal) that, during the days of "friendly" German-Soviet relations, the Russian military was invited to view the latest German armored vehicles.

After the inspection the Russians were very upset. They thought the Germans were hiding their best tanks and just showing them the Mk IIIs and IVs.

The lend-lease trucks were very useful once the Red Army went on the offensive. The internal railroad system worked fine for moving troops near the front lines when still on the defensive.

Very interesting stuff in the evaluation Kaoshchallenged posted, which does knock a bit of a hole in the common conception that being simple and robust and durable were amongst the T-34's winning traits. As noted on another thread, the T-34 was a war winner primarily because there were somewhere north of 80,000 of them. Given those numbers, any reasonably capable design would have been a war winner.

Doug

Interesting that US tanks didn't have diesels due to a lack of production capacity.

Wasn't that our ONLY contribution to the war effort?

Quote for a soviet factpory worker "as long as they keep pretending to pay us we will keep pretending to work"
Newer soviet gear has a huge amount of problems as well. I dont think they could spell quality control, much less use it.
But, so many of them where rushed right into combat that they got destroyed before many of thoe problems ever had a chance to happen. So it worked, good enough for them. It could have been a much better tank, but that would have required a fundimental change in how soviwt industry, and soviet society worked. And that was not going to happen. So they did it thier way, and in the end it was good enough.,
.

.

There is a much more detailed report done in England at Chertsy. This report (correctly) notes the different 'way of doing things' in the USSR compared to the west. The Chertsy report notes the optical equipment is made in a way which would be thought 'poor' in the west but-----------it worked! They also commented on the huge number of quality stamps on the parts so there was a robust system of Quality Control in place. If time and conditions meant these could have been relaxed in extereme circumstances then so what?
You read a lot on the internet about poor Soviet this and rubbish Soviet that and could be forgiven for believing they only ever made junk. Take the optics. It is a given that Soviet sights were absolute rubbish but most of their stuff was being made (pre-war) in Zeiss licensed factories. They also had a highly developed sniper scopes of there own that owed nothing to Germany. These simple robust and adequate scopes were every bit as good as the most over-refined German scopes you could find for normal battlefield ranges. However because they lacked the German bells and whistles that prevented you getting a clear image of a target 5 miles away (and therefore not a realisric shot) they are derided by the WPE brigade.
Locomotives are another area where the the big German examples are lauded as 3 times as efficent as the Soviet locos-the problem was when the snow came the German engines froze up and the 'crappy' Soviet ones kept rolling.
It is a mindset thing. The Soviets believed you should be able to fix things at night in a snowstorm with a mash hammer and a piece of string. Not only did they believe it they made it a reality.

"…only a saboteur could have constructed such a device". love it.

The T34 amazed the Germans when they first came across it because it was hard to kill, could trundle across snow and mud where a German tank would have been bogged.

THEY WANTED THEM too. They asked their designers for one. They got the Panther and the Tiger II. Both technically superior in many ways, and inferior in others. But very expensive to build and maintain.

If the Russians had a dozen knocked out and a dozen broke down on the way to the battle, they could send up four dozen to replace them.

If a half dozen Panthers were lost, regardless of the cause it was a disaster and almost impossible to replace them quickly. If a single Tiger II broke down..(as it frequently did)….it was a serious loss it was even harder to replace.

Yep. The of course T34 was a war winner.

The same really applies to the Sherman when compared to German tanks.

"Wasn't that our ONLY contribution to the war effort?"

Since I am going to presume you are being sarcastic, I won't get into drteails on how wrong that question is.
And if you are not being sarcastic/ironic, then I will just say, "Not by a long shot."

I read an analysis of African Armies in the 1990s. It said that they all had modern tanks like T55s and T62s, but they never left the capitals. When actual combat was to be performed, they sent out the T-34s because they were both cheaper (if lost) and more mechanically reliable. I assume these T34s were post-war production, when the Soviets had time to work out the mechanical kinks so the could send their allies a cheap, reliable vehicle.

Of course, it actually says more about the T55 andf T62 than about the T34, but still.

Yes.

It is a mindset thing. The Soviets believed you should be able to fix things at night in a snowstorm with a mash hammer and a piece of string. Not only did they believe it they made it a reality.

This is precisely the view that the info KaosChallenged posted refutes, to some degree. You're not fixing crunchy cogs from your transmission that way. Nor can you restore compression on cylinders eaten up with dirt your air filters didn't catch. Or replacing crappy welds. If you look at an AK, then at an M-16, then the mindset you mention is evident. It would seem that it is not as much in evidence with regard to the T-34, which came as a surprise to me.

Doug

One thing to keep in mind, those tanks being tested were given to the US by the Soviets – I would NEVER assume that the Soviets gave us anything but half done jobs to look at… Bad Filter – it was not the standard one put on T34s in the field, bad grade armor – this T34 was a botched batch of armor, etc.

Interesting that US tanks didn't have diesels due to a lack of production capacity.

IIRC, the U.S. decided not to use diesel engines in its tanks because it did not want to have to have two separate fuel-supply lines: 1 diesel for tanks and 1 gasoline for trucks, jeeps, etc.

I want say a couple of things.
@mkenny I don't know if we saw and used the same sights, but the soviet optics I handled and used (original ww2 issue) were abysmal. Non existent eye relief, no tracking whatsover. (Did hold a zero ok though, that is a big plus. German's optics had some clunky mounting but were better off than the soviet counterparts.

T-34 and KV sent to Aberdeen in 1942.

Well that was 1942.
Here make me the most advanced war machine yet to be designed.
Oh there is a problem. Most of your competent workers have been drafted, you cant keep regular employees because they keep getting drafted.
You now have a brand new work force of women and children.
Oh sorry we are moving the whole factory!
Now you are working out in the open while we build you a shed.
Sorry we going to take what little skilled workers you have, we opening another factory too.
So you have starving women and children barley standing on their feet due to hunger working 12+ hour workdays.

Yeah Id say there might be quality/production problems.

By 1944 things were stabilized and the production/quality situation was much better. Transmissions still sucked though.

I find it interesting that everyone is assuming that the Aberdeen report is completely accurate, and also completely untainted by politics. The opinions of the Russia's opponents carry the most weight with me. If a front line tanker wants what his enemy has….

I find it interesting that everyone is assuming that the Aberdeen report is completely accurate, and also completely untainted by politics.

Everything is tainted by politics to some degree, but I got the impression that the report was written by a Russian about the American evaluation of their own tanks. Unless the Russian writer had a reason to run down his own country's armament industry, it's kind of hard to find much of a slant there.

If a front line tanker wants what his enemy has…

The front line tanker very rarely has to deal with the maintenance issues on an enemy tank. I'm sure that there were tankers in Shermans who would have loved to have Jagdtigers, even though they were basically crap.

Doug

T.34's made it to Berlin. Tigers never got to Moscow

By that rational a Panzer II is better than a Char B. Panzer II's made it to Paris, but no Char B's to Berlin!

The opinions of the Russia's opponents carry the most weight with me. If a front line tanker wants what his enemy has….

Front line troops always want what the enemy has. The allied tankers wanted Panthers and Tigers, The Germans wanted T-34's and Shermans, the Japs and Italians probably wanted any of the other nations tanks!

Yes

"Everything is tainted by politics to some degree, but I got the impression that the report was written by a Russian about the American evaluation of their own tanks. Unless the Russian writer had a reason to run down his own country's armament industry, it's kind of hard to find much of a slant there."

And that is my understanding of it too Doug. Robert

The T34 was an adequate medium tank which soldiered on through the entire war and beyond. It was good enough.

However, as per the Sherman thread, no single piece of equipment (barring unopposed nuclear weapons) were 'war winners'. 1940s wars between mass conscript armies were won by massive attrition, so what mattered was output, population and logistics, and to a much lesser degree, force employment. Individual bits of kit were largely irrelevant, barring vast technological disparities.

If any one bit of kit 'won ww2' it was the Liberty Ship.

I stand corrected. It appears that the Russian poster to "Tanker's forum" was discussing the T-34 using the Aberdeen report as hissupporting research. Of course, if his argument was based soley on the Abeerdeen report, he may have been relying on its accuracy too. and i assume the poster is a modern, post-Soviet fellow who may simply be a hobbyist like the rest of us.
My thoughts about how US army folks felt about the Soviets (even when we were allies) likely color how I view the report.
Which means I'm guilty of "political" influence myself!

The medium tank T-34, after driving 343 km, became disabled and could not be fixed.

The average T-34 in WWII probably didn't drive 343 km before being destroyed……..

Found this about the Aberdeen tanks,

"Most people who read this forum are probably familiar with the assessment which the Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland did on a T-34 and a KV-1 in 1942. A recent article by Boris Kavalerchik about the assessment appeared in the Russian-language magazine Voenno-Istoricheskiy Arkhiv, issue No. 1, 2006. I found a couple of things striking. First of all, and this is not the striking part, Kavalerchik says that contrary to popular opinion in Russia which holds that the T-34s which were sent to the US and England were intentionally not of the highest quality, in the spring of 1942 five T-34s were specially prepared using the highest quality parts at the Ural Tank Factory (UTZ), which at that time produced the best T-34s in Russia. These five tanks were better than regular T-34s. One was sent to the U.S., one to England, two to the front, and one to the Peoples Commissariat for Tank Production and can now be found mounted on a pedestal in the yard of the Central Museum of the Armed Forces in Moscow.

The striking part of the article, to me at least, is this part, which comments on Aberdeen's finding that the T-34 broke down beyond repair after 343 kilometers due to dirt getting into the engine's cylinders. Apparently this was very good!

"There was nothing unusual about a tank breaking down after such a short period. At that time T-34 tanks were guaranteed not to break down for 1,000 kilometers, but in practice this number was unattainable. According to a report by the Scientific Institute for Armored Equipment (NIBT) to Ya. N. Fedorenko, the chief of the Red Army's Auto-Armored Directorate, the average distance a T-34 traveled before requiring overhaul (capital repairs) did not exceed 200 kilometers. The Aberdeen T-34 exceeded this.

In 1942 the quality of Soviet tanks had significantly fallen for many understandable reasons. These included the difficulty of reestablishing production by the evacuated factories at new locations, factories switching over to new production, the loss of many supply lines and sources of raw materials, a sharp drop in the average qualification of workers due to losses among experienced workers and the hiring of many new, inexperienced workers including women and teenagers. These new workers worked tirelessly and did everything they could for the front, but they were not qualified. Producing the most tanks possible was the priority, which was understandable since the heavy losses of the initial part of the year had to be made up. Therefore the requirement for quality was reduced, and the military accepted any tank that was built. As a result, in 1942 some 34's could only go 30-35 kilometers before needing an overhaul.

To a certain degree this was justified because tanks, as a rule, did not survive until the expiration of its overhaul life, short as that was. The life of a tank on the front line was not long – on average 4-10 days (not counting time spent in transit on rail road and being repaired), or from 1-3 attacks. In 1942 the average mileage before being put out of service due to combat was 66.7 kilometers, which was less than half the average mileage before needing an overhaul. The majority of tanks simply didn't live long enough to break down.

The V-2 diesel engine which equipped T-34s and KV-1s was still suffering growing pains. At that time its designers were struggling to extend the diesel's service life to 100 hours, but in reality it seldom lasted more than 60. The engine of the T-34 which was tested at Aberdeen broke down at 72.5 hours, of which 58.45 were under load and 14.05 were while idling. The KV's diesel lasted 66.4 hours. One of the deficiencies of the B-2, besides a short guaranteed life, was an increased fuel consumption (12% above norm), and, especially, a completely unacceptable over-consumption of oil, which exceeded existing norms by 3-8 times! Therefore the range of a T-34 in 1942 was limited not by fuel, but by oil: according to the averages at that time from the technical department of the People's Commissariat for Tank Production, a T-34 carried enough fuel for 200-220 kilometers, but oil for only 145. At the same time German and American tanks didn't require any additional oil; it was simply changed every 2,000 kilometers."

link

I'm a little confused, how did the T-34 perform as well as it did historically, magic?

The Germans, who used T-34's as well as their own vehicles; considered the T-34 unfightable until the 1943 model came into service. Not that they wouldn't use them, faute de mieux!

There is a fairly long evaluation by the Kummersdorf staff of the T-34 in Panzer-tracts No. 19-2.

These unfightable tanks managed to inflict quite a lot of damage on the Germans, so more evidence for magic? Sneaky, pretend to be atheist but really have Djinns to fight for you, Reds!

The previously mentioned Panzer Tracts 19-2 notes a bounty was issued for the recovery of T-34's and/or parts of.
An operation T-34 earned the unit 2-3 extra vehicles.
A non-operational T-34 rated 40 bottles of alcohol.
Complete engine, transmission, gun sight or radio set got 6 bottles.
A gun, starter, radio etc 1-3 bottles.

Note the claimed 'useless' Soviet gunsight was on the wants list

What magic are you claiming? Or do you believe that soviet tanks could run hundreds of kilometers without breakdowns? And that they didnt lose thousands of them? Where is the magic?

If your tank only needs to last 70 kilometers, and you build it to go 100, that works out just fine.

No magic needed. Just lots of tanks, lots of troops, and omanders willing to expend both in large quantitys. They had all of those things. And used them ruthlessly.

Why does it bother you that the T-34 was not a wondertank? It was a good peice of gear with a lot of flaws. It wasnt super, just good enough.

I am used to fanboois for the big cats. New experience to find the same sort of behavior for a t-34.

Owen

I'm a little confused, how did the T-34 perform as well as it did historically, magic?

Is answered nicely by:

The life of a tank on the front line was not long – on average 4-10 days (not counting time spent in transit on rail road and being repaired), or from 1-3 attacks. In 1942 the average mileage before being put out of service due to combat was 66.7 kilometers, which was less than half the average mileage before needing an overhaul. The majority of tanks simply didn't live long enough to break down.

and by the fact that there were 80+ thousand of them made.

Doug

Having been inside a T-34 76 I have no illusions about its crudity and it certainly was not a wondertank, I'm just querying the stereotypical, Russians won because they had ruthless commanders and lots of cruddy tanks line. As for mileage, is that X-country or road?

Since roads were somewhat lacking in the USSR I would assume cross country. Robert

Sort of like the literary cliche of the sun slowly sink in the west. The fact is the sun does set in the west every day. Very boring that, but what can you say.

Look at the pace of operations, particularly after the russiNS started regular offensive operations. russians make big advance. germans counterattack that works suprisingly well. But they just dont quite get back to where tey where either territorialy, or strenght wise.Pretty much the basis for Manstiens backhand stratery, let them lunge forward then roll them up when they are worn out. I dont think it would ahve actualy change things in the end, but it sure would have made things hardeer for the russians.

It is all a system. The Russians had one. Perhaps crude and wasteful, but it worked. The US had one, and it had its flaws as well, but worked. The Germans didnt really have a system. Unless you consider build a weapon, then make the rest up as you go along. And it hurt them over and over again.

owen

The T34 had a better power to weight ratio and a far superior suspension compared to the German tanks. German armor was designed for offensive operation and yet it did better when the Kitties were used on the defensive. Superior optics and fire power were very useful in a defensive position, because slow tanks made excellent pillboxes. This was an era when a moving tank could hit nothing. Therefore the German supertanks were poorly designed for their intended role. If they had gone on the offensive against hull down Stalins and emplaced 85 and 100mm Soviet AT guns in 44 and 45 the kill ratios would have been reversed.

The Soviets did fix a number of flaws, one trick was to put the engine in an oil bath. This made it a massive fire hazard and it belched deadly black smoke that could be seen from the moon, but it kept the engine going. Same with the steering, they did tweak it, but it became standard to include a mallet to get the tank to move if it was stuck.

I do recall reading that the Germans considered T-34 to be extremely crude, and was built at the lowest possible level of acceptable manufacturing, but they were impressed it did work as well as it did in a combat situation.

The T34 had a better power to weight ratio and a far superior suspension compared to the German tanks.

I'm not so sure about the suspension, really. We in the US tend to think that the Sovs were freaking brilliant to adopt the Christie suspension that we foolishly gave up on, but it seems that there may have been some very good reasons to abandon it. The fact that the Russians went to torsion bars with the IS series and pretty much everything since (along with most of the rest of the world) would tend to support the view that the Christie was not all that after all.

The Krauts had torsion bar suspension in the Pz III, and then in the Tigers and Panthers, so I'd hardly say the T-34's suspension was far superior, even if it had been built well of quality materials.

Doug

Yeah, they were war winners, even with all their flaws.

The Soviets would have had a much harder time with T-28s.
-Kle.

It certainly helped.