Jump to content

T-34 Article


Van Owen

Recommended Posts

Maybe bigger problem than T-34 design was the obsession of quantity over quality.

 

From what Soviet intelligence learned from the T-34 and KV-1 tests at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds, the Americans found both tanks horrible, but acknowledged the beauty of the design, spoiled by poor manufacturing quality.

 

(Incidentally, does anybody know what happened to the poor guy who developped the T-34's air filter? As the report stated "this could only have been done by a saboteur", while the Soviet Leadership was eager to uncover saboteurs...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Replies 126
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

(Incidentally, does anybody know what happened to the poor guy who developped the T-34's air filter? As the report stated "this could only have been done by a saboteur", while the Soviet Leadership was eager to uncover saboteurs...)

 

In 1942 T-34 did not live enough to have problems with filters. By the end of 1943 most problems were corrected and ~70% of T-34s built could finish a 300kms circuit. In April of the same year less than 10% could achieve that.

 

Germans installed cupolas in captured T-34, and it seemed a fairly easy modification. I am wondering why the Soviets did not try to do the same; they captured hundred of German tanks and reuse Panzer-III chassis.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really, some T-34s got TC cupola, but it was not that useful in combat as TC also had to serve as gunner, so he had to switch between coupola and gunner's sight which was more forward mounted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This sort of thread is what Tanknet is about!! Great read and info! :)

 

Regarding M4 flammability, wasn't the danger greatly reduced by improving ammo storage and protection?

 

Wet stowage helped a lot with that.

 

Though, as I recall, the effect came mainly the fact that the ammunition was moved from the sponsons on the side of the tank, where they often subjected to direct hits. Moving alle the ammunition into the bottom of the tank made a fire a lot less likely. They stopped putting water in the ammo containers at some point, I seem to recall som postwar manuals stating that the ammo bins should be kept dry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think about this: the early T-34s had a sort of panel instead of hatches, over the turret. When buttomed-up the TC canno see much. Even with that 'spoiler' open, he cannot see much either, atleast frontally. Why the hell, the Soviets did not simply built a slot in that 'spoiler/hatch' over the turret, as th TC could see good with the thing 'up'? He would have been shielded from bullets and fragments coming from forward, also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Original one had wide-angle periscope on top of that hatch, but it was removed as uncomfortable to use even before war. So TC/gunner was left with telescopic sight and rotatable PT-4-7 periscopic gunsight.

A model, but it is a good ilustration:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, for 85mm there was only Frag O-365 round, with low HE %, IIRC less then Soviet 76/US 75mm.

It was reasonably effective vs infantry, but was not effective vs fortifications which was OK for T-34/85 but was not OK for heavy breakthrough tank, which needed good high capacity HE to deal with concrete fortifications.

 

Indeed,I never saw shrapnel round designation for 85mm, although I have read NKTP requirements which asked for 8 shrapnel rounds per tank,with note that commonly crew took HE rounds instead.

 

On the other I know shrapnel rounds existed for F-32 gun,and cannister (?) per artillery pieces.Please,can you say me more for 76.2mm tank guns shrapnel?I think a lot of confusion came from lack of distinguishing between canister case-shot rounds and timed fused shrapnel rounds.

 

It might be that rounds were developed,or even produced,but not distributed.

 

Again on 85mm,how were BR-365 and BR-365K issued during the war?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

76mm Shrapnel Sh-354, Sh-354T and Sh-354G which were adopted WW1 shrapnel round (G model used cubes unstead of balls). There was also Sh-361 which was adopted 76mm AA shrapnel round with steel bars instead of lead balls.

Canister was not used in 7.62mm (shrapnel was instead set to "muzzle action", ie. zero delay), but 57mm and 45mm had it. 45mm used Sh-240 with 137 lead balls with total waight of 1.48kg.

57mm used Sh-271 with 324 lead balls with total weight 3.5kg.

Edited by bojan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Read this topic. It is interesting presuming the facts are correct. But it seems that article bashes the T-34. Really every tank has flaws. Some more than others. The T-34 didn't hurt the Russians. It may not have singlehandedly won the war, but it helped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is a result of "sensationalising" the history for popular history sources (films, publications) - "nobody" is interested in boring stats and stuff, it has to have thrills! Plus the turn to "personal history" is often misleading - it often presents just one side (either only advantages or only disadvantages, and with weapons it is often disadvantages of your own, because you see them, while advantages of the enemies, because you do not need to use them and face their disadvantages). For example ergonomics -* while T-34 sucked and was cramped, Pz IV was even more cramped... And early war reports on poor quality of vision blocks get expanded on all optics, throughout the war...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is a result of "sensationalising" the history for popular history sources (films, publications) - "nobody" is interested in boring stats and stuff, it has to have thrills! Plus the turn to "personal history" is often misleading - it often presents just one side (either only advantages or only disadvantages, and with weapons it is often disadvantages of your own, because you see them, while advantages of the enemies, because you do not need to use them and face their disadvantages). For example ergonomics -* while T-34 sucked and was cramped, Pz IV was even more cramped... And early war reports on poor quality of vision blocks get expanded on all optics, throughout the war...

 

I think there's also a piece though where there is a backlash to the T-34 (or Sherman, or Panther, or Tiger, etc) coverage when it has skewed so far to one side. With the T-34, it was a relatively solid tank with a high level of protection and mobility for its class but significant reliability issues (which weren't that impactfull due to short lifespans) as well as ergonomic ones. However, so much of the T-34 coverage is that it is the best medium tank of the war when it was more average than that. This article, I think, is a reaction to that hyper-positive assessment and a counterbalance, which probably goes too far in the other direction.

 

Matt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that article is in same class as those "best tank of world" so called "studies" - useless to anyone who wants to know more then fragment of story.

You don't dispel myth by making over hyped blanket statements, you dispel it by spending time in archives or at least comparing reliable secondary sources. Which author obviously did not do.

It is same level as "Sherman is junk" that "History" channel blathers, very shallow view of issues faced by tank and men that crewed it.

Edited by bojan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that article is in same class as those "best tank of world" so called "studies" - useless to anyone who wants to know more then fragment of story.

You don't dispel myth by making over hyped blanket statements, you dispel it by spending time in archives or at least comparing reliable secondary sources. Which author obviously did not do.

It is same level as "Sherman is junk" that "History" channel blathers, very shallow view of issues faced by tank and men that crewed it.

 

Oh, i totally agree. It's rather like the 'Mythical Weapon" book that buried many of its good points about the T-34's flaws under a constant bitch session. Personally, i would like to see an approach for the T-34 similar to what Zaloga did for the Sherman in "Armored Thunderbolt". I prefer more information, less agenda. . .

 

Matt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The text belows can be found in British evaluation of T-34. I think its quite accurate:

 

The design shows a clear-headed appreciation of the essentials of an effective tank and the requirements of war, duly adjusted to the particular characteristics of the Russian soldier, the terrain and the manufacturing facilities available. When it is considered how recently Russia has become industrialized and how great a proportion of the industrialized regions have been over-run by the enemy, with consequent loss of hurried evacuation of plant and workers, the design and production of such useful tanks in such great numbers stands out as an engineering achievement of the first magnitude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yesterday I found this article on similar myths, so I posted a few comments. I have had to divide the message into parts as the quote option would not work.

 

http://chris-intel-c...ank-of-war.html

 

The aim of the article is good, but there are a large number of inaccuracies. Michulec book is extremely biased and the way the author uses references to point out data is unacceptable. Its much better to use information from authors like Jentz or Svirin.

 

The limited space not only affected crew performance but turned the T-34 into a deathtrap. A US study from the Korean War (based on the T-34/85 that was roomier than the T-34/76) concluded that due to the limited internal space a penetration by an A/T round usually led to the destruction of the tank and loss of 75% of the crew. In the Sherman the figure was only 18%.

 

Yes, but in Korea Shermans received fire from 76/85mm rounds, and T-34-85 from 90mm mounted on Pershings.

 

German tanks like the Pz III and Pz IV had a conventional hull design but they also used slope in the middle part of their front hull armor

 

The slope was very limited. If it was ok Panther and Tiger-II would not have had slopes like T-34.

 

The new Panther tank was the first German tank to have a fully sloped hull front and sloped sides however the armor layout did not limit interior space like in the T-34.

 

And this resulted in a tank which was overweight by 10tons. Expected weight fro transmission was 35tons, Panther reached 45. This caused side armour to be limited taking into account the weight of the tank.

 

The Christie suspension used on the T-34 had the advantage that it allowed for high speeds on road. Its disadvantages were that it took a lot of internal space and it had poor stability in rough terrain.

 

Yes, but Soviet industry was well versed into the building techniques, and they could use machinery from locomotive industry. Torsion bars suspensions needed more complex machinery, and in some cases it had to be imported. By keeping the Christie suspension T-34 was easier to build in largue quantities. The same goes with turret rings. There were very few machines that could machine a turret with a large turret ring (+1.8 meters). This is one aspect of lend-lease largely forgotten.

 

The caliber numbers look impressive. After all the main German tank of 1941-43 Pz III had a 50 mm gun and that of 1943-45 Pz IV had 75mm. However Soviet tank guns suffered from low velocity leading to poor penetration and accuracy at long ranges.

 

The 76mm gun was excellent, but the strengths need to be found in more specific reports. Manufacturing was very simple, as it had few components. More importantly was the good performance of both HE and AP rounds. 37mm and 50mm guns were way behind in it. Lets see the US report on the T-34 sent to Aberdeen:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Armament

 

The F-34 gun is a very good. It is simple, very reliable and easy to service. Its weakness is that the muzzle velocity of AP round is significantly inferior to the American 3" gun (3200 feet versus 5700 feet per second).

 

Note that the report is from the end of 1942, so T-34-76 had been in service for a while. Germans were also very impressed:

 

"Characteristics of the T34.

 

The T-34 is faster, more maneuverable, has better cross-country mobility than our Pz.Kpfw.lll and IV. Its armor is stronger. The penetrating ability of its 7.62 cm cannon is superior to our 5 cm KwK. and the 7.5 cm KwK40. The favorable form of sloping all of the armor plates aids in causing the shells to skid off.

 

Combating the T-34 with the 5 cm KwK tank gun is possible only at short ranges from the flank or rear, where it is important to achieve a hit as perpendicular to the surface as possible. Hits on the turret ring, even with high-explosive shells or machine gun bullets, usually result in jamming the turret. In addition, armor-piercing shells fired at close range that hit the gun mantle result in penetrations and breaking open the weld seams. The T-34 can be penetrated at ranges up to 1000 metres with the 7.5 cm PaK 40 as well as the 7.5 cm Hohlgranate (hollow-charge shells)."

 

This is a report from May 1942. This other from October 1941:

 

"For the first time during the campaign in the East, in these battles the absolute superiority of the Russian 26 tons and 52 ton tanks over out Pz.Kpfw.III and IV was felt.

 

The Russian tanks ususally formed in a half circle, open fire with their 7.62 cm gun on our Panzers already at a range of 1000 meters and deliver enormous penetration energy with high accuracy.

 

Our 5 cm Kw.K. tank guns can only achieve penetrations under very special favourable conditions at very close range under 50 meters. Our Panzers arealready knocked out at a range of several hundred meters. Many times our Panzers Were split open or the complete commander's cupola of the Pz.Kpfw.lll and IV flew off from one frontal hit. This is proof that the armor is insufficient, the mounting for the commander's cupola on our Panzers is deficient, and the accuracy and penetration ability of the Russian 7.62 cm tank guns are high.

 

In addition to the superior weapons effectiveness and stronger armor, the 26 ton Christie tank (T34) is faster, more maneuverable, and the turret traverse mechanism clearly superior. His wide tracks allow wading of fords that can't be crossed by our Panzers. The ground pressure is somewhat better than ours, so that in spite of the larger weight of the Russian tank the same bridges can be crossed as by our Panzers."

 

By the way, on of the suggestions by the author of the report -the commander of 4 Panzer Dvision- was to install 76mm T-34 gun in Panzer-IV. I guess Michulec missed that one!

 

The KwK 40 75mm used by the Pz IV and Stug from mid 1942 had far better penetration performance and accuracy than the F-34 and the Panther’s KwK 42 was also superior to the ZiS S-53 85mm in the same areas.

 

Panther’s KwK 42 was way superior in armour penetration, but weight was comparable to IS-2. ZiS S-53 was comparable to 75L48. I would consider it superior because of availability of subcaliber rounds.

 

]Apparently the air filter problem was never fixed. A US study of a captured T-34/85 from the Korean War (built in 1945)

 

It was fixed in late 1943. Cyclon filters were installed. I don't know what the US reports refers to.

 

The mental image of the T-34 travelling hundreds of kilometers without stopping is fantasy. The 5th Guards Tank army in 1943 lost as much as 15% of its tanks during its march to Prokhorovka. In August ’43 the 1st Tank army lost 50% of its tanks due to malfunction.

 

After 1943 this mental image was very clear, and 15% is more than acceptable in tanks. V-2-34 engines were much better built and allowed several hundred hours of operations. In Kursk the Soviets did not have much experience on this type of maneouvers but still performed quite well. 29 Tank Corps only lost 12 tanks and 8 Su-76 out of 220 combat vehicles in the first 150 kms (out of 300-400kms). Later in the war T-34 could manage 500kms in 3 days. In January-February 1944 the % of T-34 produced that sucessfully went through a 300kms circuit was around 80%.

 

There is also the question of standardization. The T-34 was produced at several factories. Each factory produced a slightly different variant. Could spare parts from Nizhny Tagil be used on a T-34 from Gorky? Doubtful.

 

Quality of T-34 varied during the war because of tooling and facilities, but later in the war the finishing was ok. You can see many pictures of T-34 with different road wheels. See below:

 

 

Just to give an example the ‘cheap’ T-34 had an aluminum engine. The Germans with more industrial assets than the SU and significantly higher aluminum production reached the conclusion that they could not provide their own tanks with an aluminum engine.

 

This is because Soviet aircraft industry did not need aluminum to mass produce the aircraft. Soviet Union took into account availability of resources when designing weapons. T-34 was conceived for mass production and low cost. The steel used was of just 3 different gauges to simplify production. Refinement was only applied where needed. Semiautomatic welding -created by Paton- saved a large amount of time when manufacturing tanks.

 

It also received more basic armor (50mm from 30mm) plus 20mm bolted on parts. The extra armor negated the performance of the F-34 at long ranges.

 

Yes, but as war progressed T-34 received new ammunition which negated the Panzer-III improved armour.

Edited by alejandro_
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The upgraded PzIV was superior to the T-34 in internal layout, firepower, turret basket, optics, commander’s cupola, radio in every vehicle and its frontal hull armor could withstand the F-34 rounds. A Soviet study in 1943 admitted that the Pz IV was superior to their tank, assigning it a combat value of 1.27 to the T-34’s 1.16 (with the Pz III being the base 1.0).

 

This only applies in Kursk and a few months after. When T-34-85 was introduced the Soviet model was again ahead.

 

The T-34/85 that appeared in mid 1944 was a harder opponent due to its new gun but the PzIV still had an edge in the ‘soft’ factors mentioned above. Moreover the heavier 85mm rounds limited the number that could be carried to 56 compared to the Pz IV’s standard load out of 87.

 

In 1944 T-34 received many improvements which are not that well known: better steel for armour, increased thickness in the turret, subcaliber ammunition, better turret ventilation. On the other hand Panzer-IV was simplified to make up for German problems. The electric engine for the turret was removed. PzGr40 rounds were not available and increased armour affected reliability. It also had more space in the turret for crew, and loader had a periscope for battlefield observation. Finnish also compared T-34-85 favourably with late Panzer-IV.

 

Also, increased armour and firepower affected Panzer-IV much more than T-34. The front turret was still ~50mm, which is comparable to... T-34-85 turret side armour. The vehicle also became nose heavy and had problems in suspension and final drives.

 

As a weapon system however the M4 was superior. It had the same good ‘soft’ qualities as the German tanks (internal layout, optics, radio),

 

They were comparable. Optics were better in T-34-85. In the Aberdeen report they were very impressed with T-34-85 optics. Observation better in Sherman. Yugoslavia compared T-34-85 and M4A3E4 and found them comparable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 1943-45 the T-34 was becoming outdated as the Germans used updated versions of the Pz IV and Stug III equipped with the powerful Kwk 40 75mm gun and of course they introduced the Tiger and Panther.

 

In reality Panzer-IV and StuG-III were considered obsolete. T-34 turret was 90mm thick and provided reasonable protection from 500 meters in a 40° arc. If you look at Peter Muller and Wolfgang Zimmerman book on StuG-III (Volume 1), you can find excerpts of report written in the middle of 1944 that considered StuG far inferior to t-34-85 in frontal, side and rear hits (page 204).

 

Postwar Soviet tanks like the T-55, T-62, T-64, T-72 and T-80 all followed the same design principles as the T-34:

 

The designs were completely different. T-55/62 derived from T-44. T-64/72/80 shared few designfeatures with T-34-85.

 

1. Very low profile which meant limited internal space and poor gun depression.

 

T-34 profile was not that low.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2.Limited weight which led to good speed performance but put limits on the level of armor protection.

 

Protection was comparable (T-55/62) or superior (T-64/80) to Western counter parts. Soviet Union was the first country to introduce a tank with composite armour.

 

Soviet models from the T-64 onwards tried to deal with the limited internal space by automating the ammo loading operation. However their autoloader was problematic and often led to accidents.

 

Not really. USSR took very seriously the possibility of fighting a war in NBQ environment. An automatic loader will not be affected by these conditions. Ask any tanker about loading guns with mask and protection kit... also, increasingly large calibers meant more effort for loader, who would struggle to keep pace. Finally, you save space which you can use for extra armour. All modern tanks fielded recently mount autoloaders.

 

During the wars between Israel and the Arabs small numbers of Western made tanks wiped out numerically superior Arab forces equipped with the T-55 and T-62 tanks.

 

This had more to do with training. Iraqui crews had the upper had against Iranian's, and in this case the training was more comparable.

 

One of the most famous episodes is the Battle of the Golan heights in 1973. The Israeli Centurion tanks of the 7th Brigade faced a huge Syrian force but managed to inflict horrific losses on them as they tried to overcome the tank barrier

 

Which is the normal thing when you charge in a field with limited mobility against tanks in preset positions. Jordanians used American tanks and were beaten by mighty Super Shermans.

 

Also, Israelis got their hands in as many T-55/62 as they could and kept them in service for decades. If they are worst than own vehicles it does not make sense to keep them.

 

This is probably one of the best description of the T-34 I have read. It comes from a British report:

 

The design shows a clear-headed appreciation of the essentials of an effective tank and the requirements of war, duly adjusted to the particular characteristics of the Russian soldier, the terrain and the manufacturing facilities available. When it is considered how recently Russia has become industrialized and how great a proportion of the industrialized regions have been over-run by the enemy, with consequent loss of hurried evacuation of plant and workers, the design and production of such useful tanks in such great numbers stands out as an engineering
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The text belows can be found in British evaluation of T-34. I think its quite accurate:

 

The design shows a clear-headed appreciation of the essentials of an effective tank and the requirements of war, duly adjusted to the particular characteristics of the Russian soldier, the terrain and the manufacturing facilities available. When it is considered how recently Russia has become industrialized and how great a proportion of the industrialized regions have been over-run by the enemy, with consequent loss of hurried evacuation of plant and workers, the design and production of such useful tanks in such great numbers stands out as an engineering achievement of the first magnitude.

 

Also:

Balance

As the piece is in a rear trunnion mounting, it is considerably muzzle heavy. This is counteracted by mean of cast iron blocks of 648 cu. ins. total volume (168.5 lbs. approximate weight), bolted to the underside of the cradle. These are not fully effective and with the blocks fitted the piece is still muzzle heavy.

 

Elevating Gear

...There is considerable play in the handwheel, the operation is jerky and not easy. The position is cramped and the gunner tends to catch his knees while elevating...

 

Power Traverse speeds

.. There is considerable play and back lash in the gearing making accurate laying difficult.

 

Does anyone have the original Aberdeen evaluation of the T-34 and KV? Not the Russian review of the review.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also:

 

And your point is?

 

Does anyone have the original Aberdeen evaluation of the T-34 and KV? Not the Russian review of the review.

 

There is a chemical analysis of armour, but I have never come across any other document on this T-34

 

http://www.ntis.gov/search/product.aspx?ABBR=ADA953302

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The aim of the article is good, but there are a large number of inaccuracies. Michulec book is extremely biased and the way the author uses references to point out data is unacceptable. Its much better to use information from authors like Jentz or Svirin.

When criticizing the critique of others, try some objectivety of your own.

 

Yes, but in Korea Shermans received fire from 76/85mm rounds, and T-34-85 from 90mm mounted on Pershings.
You are implying that when M4s received fire from T-34s they didn't return fire, rather a convenient M26 was around to return fire. I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that, but that is fair reading of what you wrote.

 

The new Panther tank was the first German tank to have a fully sloped hull front and sloped sides however the armor layout did not limit interior space like in the T-34.

 

And this resulted in a tank which was overweight by 10tons. Expected weight fro transmission was 35tons, Panther reached 45. This caused side armour to be limited taking into account the weight of the tank.

Did thinner side armor make a substantial difference? I believe Panther side hull armor would be considered adequate in these more modern times.

 

The Christie suspension used on the T-34 had the advantage that it allowed for high speeds on road. Its disadvantages were that it took a lot of internal space and it had poor stability in rough terrain.

 

Yes, but Soviet industry was well versed into the building techniques, and they could use machinery from locomotive industry. Torsion bars suspensions needed more complex machinery, and in some cases it had to be imported. By keeping the Christie suspension T-34 was easier to build in largue quantities. The same goes with turret rings. There were very few machines that could machine a turret with a large turret ring (+1.8 meters). This is one aspect of lend-lease largely forgotten.

How can you possibly find fault with that very objective statement? Actually, you didn't. You created a strawman and attacked that instead of responding directly to the statement. Edited by DKTanker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can you possibly find fault with that very objective statement? Actually, you didn't. You created a strawman and attacked that instead of responding directly to the statement.

 

I did not find fault. I just added information on the topic.Where is the critique?

 

Regarding the Korean data. I double checked the book used. The next 2 lines are...

 

This imbalance was in part due to the US tankers' practice of hitting a tank repeatedly until it burned to make certain that it was knocked out. In general, the study concluded that the T-34-85 was an excellent tank, but that the North Korean crews were not as well trained as their American opponents.

 

How can you say the tank is a deathtrap using that document when the conclusion is not even close?

Edited by alejandro_
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not find fault. I just added information on the topic.Where is the critique?

Did I misquote you when I quoted your statement about there being a number of inaccuracies, and that it was you that chose to use the critiqe of the Christie suspension? If you have already said that there are inaccuracies, why should the reader not believe you're also including the critique of the Christie suspension as being inaccurate?

 

Regarding the Korean data. I double checked the book used. The next 2 lines are...

 

This imbalance was in part due to the US tankers' practice of hitting a tank repeatedly until it burned to make certain that it was knocked out. In general, the study concluded that the T-34-85 was an excellent tank, but that the North Korean crews were not as well trained as their American opponents.

 

How can you say the tank is a deathtrap using that document when the conclusion is not even close?

First I didn't make any claims. Second, I have no idea to what you are refering.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...