Jump to content

t-34 paridy or not?


Recommended Posts

The fella likes his bombast, doesn't he?

Give me 10 minutes of Manic instead...

16:30--Matilda II's 'shrugging off' 88mm?

He didn't differentiate between the 76mm and 85mm guns

Edited by shep854
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I kinda like him.  I haven't dug into that a great deal but it tracks with hat I have been told by people who have restored both the post-war -85's and the early/mid war T-34-76's.  Apparently the -76's in particular are really, really mechanically awful. . . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm about halfway through the video.  Overall, his comments track with Nick and other people I believe credible, noting both positive and negative.  His comment about most T-34s that have been studied by Westerners being more refined post-war production is interesting and I'd like to see others comment on this.

Edited by shep854
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

i feel like we should by downing beers along with him and his wine. ...but my liver troubles prevent that...😟

 

luv the humor....any one who includes Terry Gillian [Monty python] in his vids is alright in my books...and his anti PC flavor

Edited by P Lakowski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he gets his facts right and his conclusions wrong.

The Soviets knew they may need a better tank, hence the T-34M (cancelled by the war) and the T-43 (overtaken by events) and finally, the T-44 (too late), but with the Germans wiping out the pre-war Army in 1941, they didn't have a choice but to put the pedal to the metal in the producton of all weapons to re-equip the rebuilt Army (and they had pretty much the same issues with the Air Force), so there wasn't a conscious decision to go for quantity over quality, as once they got all factories geared up to build as many tanks as possible, inertia took over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, RETAC21 said:

I think he gets his facts right and his conclusions wrong.

The Soviets knew they may need a better tank, hence the T-34M (cancelled by the war) and the T-43 (overtaken by events) and finally, the T-44 (too late), but with the Germans wiping out the pre-war Army in 1941, they didn't have a choice but to put the pedal to the metal in the producton of all weapons to re-equip the rebuilt Army (and they had pretty much the same issues with the Air Force), so there wasn't a conscious decision to go for quantity over quality, as once they got all factories geared up to build as many tanks as possible, inertia took over.

Thanks RETAC21

yeah that's pretty much what i'm seeing.I suppose having so many different factories being forced to modify their approach to T-34 assembly, this is bound to perpetuate confusion.

 

One of the critical points BIRD & LIVINGSTON showed was that cast armor always resist less than rolled plate when hit by over- matching  shells. So no surprise when smaller German ATG cant penetrate , while the next years bigger guns can penetrate. ALSO welded RHA plates leads to much weaker resistance if the plates have tendency to break open  AT THE WELDS...this leads to "edge effects" , further reducing resistance. This is also true for cast steel turret plates hardened and welded together.

 

 

Edited by P Lakowski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm trying to bring myself to watch it.

EDIT: Just watched it; he pretty well skewered the 'reformers'.

Edited by shep854
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the T-34 was an absolutely horrible tank--with armor so brittle as to be practically worse than nothing and so unreliable as to be virtually worthless with more than 50 per cent breaking down before they could get to a battlefield.   Truly a garbage excuse for a tank--the "Most Destroyed Tank of All Time" not just because it was built in huge numbers, but because it was an absolute piece of shit.   Just one man's opinion, of course, but check out the below:   

 

https://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Loads of bull.

Quality of crunchies have really gone down those days. :( 

Edited by bojan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That article was discussed in this topic. It is worth reading it as there is some really good information about how T-34 compared with other tanks.
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lot of poor showing was by doctrine. For some reason Soviet tankers were instructed to fight buttoned up, making them almost blind. Lack of AP ammunition in early war and 2-man turret in T-34 hampered them a lot.  And mostly no radios lower level than company commander didn't help situation. 

But Germans had to spend LOTs of energy and time to KO those T-34s and KV-1s.

I'd recommend this book, that discusses all the issues of 1941-42 from both sides:

https://www.amazon.com/Tank-Warfare-Eastern-Front-1941-1942-ebook/dp/B00OZ3HSNA/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/7/2022 at 2:55 PM, Sardaukar said:

Lot of poor showing was by doctrine. For some reason Soviet tankers were instructed to fight buttoned up, making them almost blind...

They tried fighting open early in Spain and had horrific casualties due the arty, mortars or just plain small arms, so doctring changed to buttoned up. Which turned to be another type of problem entirely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, bojan said:

They tried fighting open early in Spain and had horrific casualties due the arty, mortars or just plain small arms, so doctring changed to buttoned up. Which turned to be another type of problem entirely.

Basically commander as gunner made it bit Catch-22 until T-34/85 came around. Getting proper commander's cupola might have helped a bit, not sure if some T-34 models in 1941-43 had one?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AIUI the early T-34 had a pretty large, and presumably heavy, hatch that opened forward. Doktrin permitting would it even have been possible for the commander to operate with an open hatch while the tank was moving? Could the hatch be locked in an open position?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, wendist said:

AIUI the early T-34 had a pretty large, and presumably heavy, hatch that opened forward. Doktrin permitting would it even have been possible for the commander to operate with an open hatch while the tank was moving? Could the hatch be locked in an open position?

Model 1942 ("Mickey Mouse) was not much better in that sense...

24RbXIELYq3fBf40ytucFwbaM4N4FWMpPvphTzui

 

T34_tank_in_german_service.jpg

That looks very unsafe for commander... Plus it'd be impossible to operate main gun quickly by commander....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forward opening hatches were intended to give some protection to a crew bailing from a disabled tank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sardaukar said:

Basically commander as gunner made it bit Catch-22 until T-34/85 came around. Getting proper commander's cupola might have helped a bit, not sure if some T-34 models in 1941-43 had one?

 

Very early T-34s had wide angle TC periscope. It was not liked by the crew and was soon deleted. Later some got TC turret, but it was again not really liked.

As you have noted, there was no real solution until 34-85 came around, and it was basically totally new tank from the turret ring up, Not only did it get TC turret, but all turret crewmen rotatable/reversible periscopes. It basically went from a substandard ability to see to a pretty good one. Only M4 (later ones) were better, and not by the large margin.

 

Edited by bojan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sardaukar said:

Model 1942 ("Mickey Mouse) was not much better in that sense...

24RbXIELYq3fBf40ytucFwbaM4N4FWMpPvphTzui

 

T34_tank_in_german_service.jpg

That looks very unsafe for commander... Plus it'd be impossible to operate main gun quickly by commander....

About that "Mickey Mouse" moniker the Germans used, you only really see that resemblance when the hatches are open (as in the picture above). Is it possible that the Germans when they used captured T-34's did fight with open hatches whenever possible, despite the danger, because they considered fighting buttoned up even more dangerous?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Germans fought buttoned up as often as they fought with open hatches.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, bojan said:

Germans fought buttoned up as often as they fought with open hatches.

 

Perhaps they considered it less dangerous to fight buttoned up in a Pz.III or IV than in a captured T-34.

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...