"The Myth of the Disposable T-34" Topic

"This is a claim that I'm sure many of my readers have seen. It's usually worded something like "the lifespan of a T-34 tank on the battlefield was X hours, so the Soviets saw no reason to produce a tank that lasted X+1 hours". The number varies, but the sentiment is generally the same slight rewording of the "human waves" myth, pushing a narrative of disposable soldiers with disposable weapons sent to die in incredible numbers. However, one would consider it strange that an army whose main breakthrough exploitation tank was so short-lived would not only survive in a war characterized by long and deep armoured thrusts measuring hundreds of kilometers, but excel in it. Even a brief glance at contemporary documents demonstrates that reliability was always an important component of Soviet tank manufacturing.

Let us begin at the beginning, before there was even such a thing as a T-34. When it was discovered that the A-32 chassis was capable of carrying additional weight, the first trials were performed were reliability trials. The A-32 with the additional weight was subjected to a 1230 km march in addition to off-road mobility trials specifically to determine how the extra armour that was planned would impact the function of the tank's mechanisms. 1230 km already sounds like a lot for a "disposable" tank, but this was much less than 3000 km covered by the first A-32 in prior trials. The A-20 was also no slouch, having travelled 4200 km…."
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Read Kavallerchik's book – "The Tanks of Operation Barbarossa" for a realistic appraisal of the T-34's operational reliability from the Soviet's own point of view.

Very useful book, IMO.

B

Zaloga discusses that while early T-34 were hand-built and quality checked to make them similar to Western-built designs, quality suffered as they switched to wartime production, emphasizing numbers over quality.

Welding was found by both the Americans and Germans to be more than adequate, sometimes even stronger than the plate itself, but fit and finish was often poor to bad and some T-34 leaked when exposed to rain.

Mechanical components were heavily modified to make them both cheaper and easier to make and also more reliable. After comparative tests the Soviets got a ton of feedback and they began to push for better quality.

By 1943 the Design Bureau approached GABTU to improve quality control and introduce greater standardisation between the various producing factories, as monthly quality fluctuated between 10 and 85% being able to reliably run 300+ km factory trials. By 1944 production engine hours and mileage were extended to 150% of expected life on randomly picked tanks. Given that a Panther was not even expected to have this kind of endurance …

While some production may have been done under great stress, in extreme circumstances, many later T-34 and KV/IS tanks proved to be quite reliable and very decently-built, if not up to say US standards, the T-34's unique mix of advanced high-tech concept and rugged construction proved to be an excellent tank, capable of being produced in huge numbers, when you imagine that Germans peaked at around 1000 Panthers on the Eastern Front, while Soviet production reached more than 1200 T-34 per month.

By Western standards Soviet tanks were crudely finished, but a huge amount of thought was put in trying to make the most advanced possible tank that could be built very simply and cheaply by Soviet industry in wartime. While it had inherent flaws the overall design shows incredible ingenuity.

By Western standards Soviet tanks were crudely finished, but a huge amount of thought was put in trying to make the most advanced possible tank that could be built very simply and cheaply by Soviet industry in wartime. While it had inherent flaws the overall design shows incredible ingenuity.

Yeah, my standing comment about the 'ideal' product design team is a Russian engineer to design the item, with a German or Swiss mechanic to build it using components provided by Americans.