The T-34 in WWII: the Legend vs. the Performance

[FIST_OF_DERP 250]

YUS THE MOTHERLAND'S GREATEST TANK GETS A REVIEW ROLL OUT, MASS PRODUCTION MEDIUM TANK, T-34

[worldwarllgeek 18]

The t-34 wasn't really as good in my opinion as the js-2 or js-3, but I leave that to all to decide.  In any case, I would suggest a more modern book for reading then and plz let me know what you find out about the t-44.

[Wenin 2,654]

Somebody mentioned something about the t-44.  I really hate to say it friends, but if there was one really lousy tank design when it comes to reliability, it was the t-44.  It was replaced in two years by the t-54 and basically was never seen or heard of again.  Very few were even used as training tanks.  Plus, the Russian tanks were actually known for being unreliable.  t-34's often carried spare transmissions on their back deck to replace on the go.

 

Well, the reason because it was superceded was that the T-54 fitted the 100mm gun. About the first T-54 prototype: "The tank had virtually the same hull and drive train as the T-44. Major differences included thicker front armour (120 mm on the upper section and 90 mm on the lower section) and a newly designed driver's hatch and vision slot. The turret ring increased in diameter to 1800 mm and had thicker armour (180 mm on the front, between 90 mm and 150 mm on the sides and 30 mm on the roof). The main armament was the 100 mm D-10TK cannon [...]"

 

To the reliability problems of T-34: Initial series had problem with the transmission, but what do you except if a tank is basically rushed into service because of a large-scale nazi-invasion.

British test of T-34: "As for friction clutches on the KV and T-34, they work reliably, provided they are taken care of."

Comparison of life span of tanks (running without replacement, so weakest part counts):

"T-34: 2000-2500 km, 250-300 hours

M4A2: 2000-2500 km, 250-300 hours". Compare that with the data of the panther by a report of guderian: Generally about 700km. Final drive was only able of up to 150km.

And another testing of the panther: "As a result, the Panther is in no way a strategic tank. The Germans did not hesitate to economically increase the engine life by loading the tank onto railcars ­ even for very short distances (25 km)."

 

Considering that the M4 Sherman is generally seen as reliable tank, I don't see a reason for calling the T-34 unreliable.

 

The t-34 wasn't really as good in my opinion as the js-2 or js-3, but I leave that to all to decide.  In any case, I would suggest a more modern book for reading then and plz let me know what you find out about the t-44.

You compare a medium tank with a design with it's origins from 1934 with a heavy tank with a design from 1943/44? But well...^^
 

Not to say that it wasn't used at all, no, but to say the t-44 and the t-54 were similar automotively is pure nonsense.  According to the book Russian Tanks, 1900-1970: The Complete Illustrated History of Soviet Armoured Theory and Design. by John. Milsom, the t-44 was a complete automotive failure and what made the t-54 significantly better was its reliability (which really wasn't that great anyway due to the shoddy job done mass-producing them).

 
Considering that the T-54 is seen as one of the most reliable of the world... well... (considering that after very rough testing in the soviet union the tanks achieved 600 engine hours and runned average 6000km)

To the T-44:
From: Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War Two:        From Soviet Tanks in Combat 1941-1945:
   
 
and: "Early examples had transmission problems" (wikipedia)
battlefield.ru: "The revolutionary design of the T-44 has defined the whole Soviet tank development for the next several decades. [...]
In 1946, after the introduction of the T-54, which was the "direct descendant", the further development of the T-44 was canceled, though it remained in service. It was in mass production until 1947. In 1961 the main parts of the T-44 (engine, transmission, chassis, etc.) were unified with the T-54, and in 1966 the T-44 was equipped with a gun stabilizer.
The modernised T-44M and T-44S served in the Soviet Army up to the end of 1970's. There were many vehicles which were based on the T-44M: artillery and tank tractors, engineer tanks, etc.
Also, it went down in history of Soviet tank development as the predecessor of a large family of T-54/55 and T-62 main battle tanks as well as... movie actor"
 
http://english.battlefield.ru/t-44.html
 

Conclusion: It has teething problems with the transmissions, but well... Which tank has no teething problems?^^

[Shade_Shadow 132]

Well just to make a summary of everything.

 

Well the T-34-76 when it first came out of pruduction it was pritty much the best Tank in terms of mobility,firpower and reliability it was also easy to mass fabricate. T-34-76 Faced a few problems but 80% of thosue are not couse of the Tank, The crew was illtrained and the T-34-76 didn't go to war when it came out been top modern of it's time like German Tanks that went to war direcly from the factory. SO well the T-34-76 have to wait a Year before even been tested against the German troops. Since the T-34 was a well armored Medium compare to the T-26,T35 and BT-series with a powerfull 76.2mm with a longer barrel then the T35 and BT-7A used.It was a good Tank compare to the tanks it replace.

But well at times of war warscience goes forward very fast and a year much can be developed. This is the case with the T-34-76 I would beleve that the T-34-76 would have made a much bigger impact if it was to be unleashed in 1940 the 3000 T-34-76 against the 250-300 combat ready Panzer IV with short 75mm and the 550 Panzer III and these few tanks of the German had would also be devided a bit since we have the west where they must be and North africa where they must be and then against russia where there also have to be tanks so well the 3000 T-34-76 would probably face 100-150 panzer 4 and 200 panzer 3 and I am probably not the only one who can do the math a 350 vs 3000 it just don't add up and would probably with the army as well the WW2 could then have ended 1941-42.

 

But well that is not the case.

 

the T-34 by 1940's standards is a very good tank for that time and outpreform many tanks from other countries by 1941 it is a tank that is even with the other countries tanks.

 

The Problem for the Tank iself doing the years of the war was due to little development in it compare to the Panzer 4 that was the German main tank. The T-34 got minor upgrades to the tank iself with about 5-10 extra armor for each year (1940-1943) and in 1941 it got the 76.2mm F34 and became the T-34-76 that everyone knows.

 

So the final Development the T-34-76 got a 70mm armor as a max compare to the one made in 1940 that had 45mm. And it was fair tank to go against the Panzer 4 ausf G. And this was even in tanks stats but well then it ends up depending on the crew and command.

 

And at 1943 the T-34-85 starts to roll out at about the same time as the Panzer 4 ausf J so both tanks get a beter gun and armor upgrade and are about even again. But the Russian still suffers from the bad command structure and training but they have a huge advantage in number's.

 

T-34-85 then got an upgrade in 1944 with a new 85mm Zis-S-53 and bacame a very powerfull medium having the biggest cannon of the medium tanks when taking away howitzers. (even thou this was the same before as well with the 85mm D-5T that was replaced very quickly for the beter 85mm Zis)

 

Well comparing the T-34-76 or 85 with the JS or KV series the T-34 was a lot more well to say advanced when it came out in 1940 then the JS-2 was when it came out in 1943. T-34-76 was pritty much the best tank of 1940 in firepower, effective armor and mobility as well as reliability. comparing to the JS-2 who was not best in any of these were the Köningstiger who had a more armor the Jagtiger, SU-152 had the firepower and the M4 Sherman as well as the still going T-34-76/85 had the reliability over the JS-2. (and why I am having TD's in is couse they are just like tanks there all SPG like tanks they only exist to get the gun that it carry fast and safe to the battlefeild)

 

T-34-76/85 could have been bigger and hold a 100mm gun but that would require for a more advanced engine and a new turret and hull and ended up been a T-44 even thou it never got the 100mm gun even thou prototypes were made with T-44 having a 100mm gun but the turret was to small so it got the same gun as the T-34-85. And the 100mm gun was finaly placed on the T-54/55.

[worldwarllgeek 18]

Wenin I never said the t-44 wasn't advanced, but it was too advanced for the primitive conditions it had to operate in.  The t-54 had a bad operating history in the MIDLLE EAST!!! Now what tank that is mass-produced cheaply has not had a bad experience there?  Plus, the early t-54's were only testing prototypes that never went into battle. the T-54 and T-44 were quite different designs on the inside once in actual production and the bugs had been sorted out.  One can say the same thing about the German Panther; once the bugs were ironed out, it was the most potent AFV in its class.  I read somewhere that the Panther wouldn't have been out-of-place on the battlefield until 10 or twenty years after WW2 (mind you that refers to 2nd and 3rd world battlefields, not a supposed Soviet invasion of Europe).

[worldwarllgeek 18]

Forgot to add, this is all based on testing in a facility.  Do you think the British just got some piece of crap t-34 just off the front lines for half a year.  I'm sure the one they got was in good condition, and besides that, the t-34 was a great tank for the situation it was in.  However, it was quite often hurriedly produced with defects that decreased performance.  They were known to catch fire easily, and the t-34's up until the t-34/85 could have the whole turret blown off by a precise shot right at the turret ring because that area was a shot trap.  I was comparing the t-34 and the js-2 and -3 in their respective roles as well, not in the same function.

[Wenin 2,654]

Wenin I never said the t-44 wasn't advanced, but it was too advanced for the primitive conditions it had to operate in.  The t-54 had a bad operating history in the MIDLLE EAST!!! Now what tank that is mass-produced cheaply has not had a bad experience there?  Plus, the early t-54's were only testing prototypes that never went into battle. the T-54 and T-44 were quite different designs on the inside once in actual production and the bugs had been sorted out.  One can say the same thing about the German Panther; once the bugs were ironed out, it was the most potent AFV in its class.  I read somewhere that the Panther wouldn't have been out-of-place on the battlefield until 10 or twenty years after WW2 (mind you that refers to 2nd and 3rd world battlefields, not a supposed Soviet invasion of Europe).

Too advanced? Why that?^^

Middle East... and? Monkey tanks and ill-trained crews.

Furthermore: The design of the both tanks shared many points, that single parts were modernized shouldn't be a surprise.

 

To the Panther:

"And yet the Panther was a developmental dead-end.  Many second world war vehicles and weapons went on to years or even decades of post-war service.  And many had their key design components “borrowed” for further use in post-war designs.  This was true of US, Soviet, and British weapons, but of German weapons as well.  The German Me-109 fighter was produced and further developed by both Spain and Czechoslovakia, and remained in service in modified form until the early 1960s.  So also the He-111 bomber.  Mauser rifles were the backbones of several post-war armies.  Some versions of German armored vehicles, such as halftracks and tank hunters (Jagd Panzers) remained in production and saw post-war developmental changes.  But the Panther was a dead end. "

 

At 3rd world battlefields the Panther would've no chance. Way to hard to maintain and to drive.

Besides that I would call the T-44 more potent.

Forgot to add, this is all based on testing in a facility.  Do you think the British just got some piece of crap t-34 just off the front lines for half a year.  I'm sure the one they got was in good condition, and besides that, the t-34 was a great tank for the situation it was in.  However, it was quite often hurriedly produced with defects that decreased performance.  They were known to catch fire easily, and the t-34's up until the t-34/85 could have the whole turret blown off by a precise shot right at the turret ring because that area was a shot trap.  I was comparing the t-34 and the js-2 and -3 in their respective roles as well, not in the same function.

 
What's your point? Comparative Testing is done at comparative conditions. And the easiest way is to compare "out-of-the-facility"-tanks.^^
Decreased performance? " later T-34s were much more roughly finished; this did not compromise the mechanical reliability however."
Catch fire? Please... do you even read the posts here? To quote roflseal:

25% of T-34s hit caught fire? Pretty good considering that the figure for the Panther was about 63%

 
Blown off turret? German reports say, that the T-34 'posseses a deadly and accurate gun, which is able to rip off the turrets of our currently existing tanks' (I'm too lazy tbh too search the text in the book right now).
Also Tiger tanks lost their turrets too...
 
How do you compare 2 tanks with different tasks "in their role respectively"?

Edited December 18, 2013 by Wenin

[RoflSeal 8,561]

The T-34 sent to England for trials in June 1943 was a model 1941 (whose production ended in March 1942).

 

So the vehicle had likely seen combat and had mostly been returned to the factory for repair before being decided that it was going to be sent to England.

Edited December 18, 2013 by RoflSeal

[Shade_Shadow 132]

Blown off turret? German reports say, that the T-34 'posseses a deadly and accurate gun, which is able to rip off the turrets of our currently existing tanks' (I'm too lazy tbh too search the text in the book right now).
Also Tiger tanks lost their turrets too...
 
How do you compare 2 tanks with different tasks "in their role respectively"?

 

Well there is also many German tank crew claiming different since they said that the russians always miss there first shot. can't call that much of an accuarcy but well that depend more on the crew not the tank will see how it will do now if it gets any drivers that knows it in Warthunder tanks.

 

And well most tanks loses there turret if they get an ammo explosion, it is pritty much the easiest way for the explosion gas to go up throu the turret since it basicly just rest on the tank. Would think it was more common for the T-34-85 to do something like this then the T-34-76 but well it can happen so it probably did.

 

But when was that statment said since the T-34 was made so early it could have been against early panzer 4, panzer 3 and panzer 2.

[Shade_Shadow 132]

 

To the Panther:

"And yet the Panther was a developmental dead-end.  Many second world war vehicles and weapons went on to years or even decades of post-war service.  And many had their key design components “borrowed” for further use in post-war designs.  This was true of US, Soviet, and British weapons, but of German weapons as well.  The German Me-109 fighter was produced and further developed by both Spain and Czechoslovakia, and remained in service in modified form until the early 1960s.  So also the He-111 bomber.  Mauser rifles were the backbones of several post-war armies.  Some versions of German armored vehicles, such as halftracks and tank hunters (Jagd Panzers) remained in production and saw post-war developmental changes.  But the Panther was a dead end. "

 

At 3rd world battlefields the Panther would've no chance. Way to hard to maintain and to drive.

Besides that I would call the T-44 more potent.

 

 

Well since the Panther was on the development for the Panther 2 that was well we don't know if it would have been good or not and well we all know what the Panther 2 was suppose to lead towards the E-50 standardpanzer that would probably have been rolling out in 1947-48 I would guess so well we don't know it these tanks would have the dame problem with the final drive as the Panther had I think they would try to fix it since such a large number was taken out due to this.

 

I would think if they solved the major problems with the Panther 2 it would probably be able to stand up against the T-44 even thou the T-44 would be more mobile then the Panther 2, but the Panther 2 would have a beter gun. In armor I got no idea but I guess about even. same would probably go for the M46 Patton I would say that the Panther 2, M46 and the T-44 would be even in the real guns are 85-90mm. and then the E-50, M48A5 and the T-54/55 guns are 88-105mm even thou I would think by the time of this 1950's the E-50 would be upguned with a 105mm letting it eb 100-105mm

[Wenin 2,654]

Well there is also many German tank crew claiming different since they said that the russians always miss there first shot. can't call that much of an accuarcy but well that depend more on the crew not the tank will see how it will do now if it gets any drivers that knows it in Warthunder tanks..

Considering that the Tigerfibel says (for ranges over 1,2km) that tankers should shoot with intention too close and get closer with the second shot to hit with the third shot. (or the 4.)... ^^

btw, any source for your statement about what german tank crews claim?

 

 

 

Well since the Panther was on the development for the Panther 2[...]r that would probably have been rolling out in 1947-48 I would guess so well we don't know it these tanks would have the dame problem with the final drive as the Panther had I think they would try to fix it since such a large number was taken out due to this.

 

I would think if they solved the major problems with the Panther 2 it would probably be able to stand up against the T-44 even thou the T-44 would be more mobile then the Panther 2, but the Panther 2 would have a beter gun. In armor I got no idea but I guess about even. same would probably go for the M46 Patton I would say that the Panther 2, M46 and the T-44 would be even in the real guns are 85-90mm. and then the E-50, M48A5 and the T-54/55 guns are 88-105mm even thou I would think by the time of this 1950's the E-50 would be upguned with a 105mm letting it eb 100-105mm

Well, the problem is, at this time the T-54 was already there.

[Shade_Shadow 132]

Considering that the Tigerfibel says (for ranges over 1,2km) that tankers should shoot with intention too close and get closer with the second shot to hit with the third shot. (or the 4.)... ^^

btw, any source for your statement about what german tank crews claim?

 

 

 

Well, the problem is, at this time the T-54 was already there.

 

Not realy it was a ducomentary with German Stug 3 crew and Panzer 4 crew.

 

But well T-54 got out of the factory in 1946 but well yea there you got a T-54 with some problems so I did this with the T-54-2 or B that was fixed with the new turret and an improved gun that is in the begining of the 50's

So thats why I choice to take well the E-50, M48A5 and T-54-2 happy? cosue who knows the T-54-2 became the tank of the east and the Patton the tank of the west and well the E-50 could have taken the place that the Centuiron took that is Europa.

[Wenin 2,654]

Not realy it was a ducomentary with German Stug 3 crew and Panzer 4 crew.

 

But well T-54 got out of the factory in 1946 but well yea there you got a T-54 with some problems so I did this with the T-54-2 or B that was fixed with the new turret and an improved gun that is in the begining of the 50's

So thats why I choice to take well the E-50, M48A5 and T-54-2 happy? cosue who knows the T-54-2 became the tank of the east and the Patton the tank of the west and well the E-50 could have taken the place that the Centuiron took that is Europa.

yeah, happy^^

But I guess the centurion would still be there. Looking bad over from the island ;)s

[Shade_Shadow 132]

yeah, happy^^

But I guess the centurion would still be there. Looking bad over from the island ;)s

 

Well all good then okey :salute:

 

Back to the tropic T-34-76 awesome tank 1940 not so awesome 1942-43. 1941 as good as any other tank.

Edited December 19, 2013 by Shade_Shadow

[AbfangJager 8,028]

Panther most durable tanks in battle

 

[RoflSeal 8,561]

That graph doesn't show durability...

[worldwarllgeek 18]

Hey wenin can you tell me your sources? I'd love to read up on the subject more, even if we don't see eye to eye.  Btw, my comparison of the js-3 and t-34 was stupid ;)s

[Cipher118 423]

LOL , T-34 was one of worst tanks of WW2 - the only adventage of Russians tanks was - less cost of production (let's see... German tanks - almost perfectly polished welds , russian tanks - welds without polishing, rust even when fresh T-34 was out from factory) , T-34 had only ONE BIGGEST adventage on german tanks - numerical superiority so  5-10 PzIV vs 15-20 T-34s. T-34<Sherman. And Russians wanted to have fast production tank + good acceleration + speed , mobility etc.

it had sloped armor and an american suspension system, and the -85 had a huge gun for its size.... where did you get your information? WOT?

[simplicious 7]

In this thread:

"B-b-but my German technology! Their tanks were so superior, I promise! L-look at this cold war era literature by American experts!"

I am just waiting for people to claim Russian bias....

[worldwarllgeek 18]

To sum it up, I agree with Shade_shadow on every point, though not to sound tedious, if the t-44 wasn't so bad, why did they phase it out so quickly?  Russia wasn't just sitting on bales of money to spend after ww2, so they obviously considered it inferior enough to replace Soon™. 

Edited January 15, 2014 by worldwarllgeek

[Wenin 2,654]

To sum it up, I agree with Shade_shadow on every point, though not to sound tedious, if the t-44 wasn't so bad, why did they phase it out so quickly?  Russia wasn't just sitting on bales of money to spend after ww2, so they obviously considered it inferior enough to replace Soon™. 

 

Because they wanted the 100mm gun, and that leaded to the T-54, which at it start was basically a T-44 (I think the prototype was even called T-44B) :

 

 

Well, the reason because it was superceded was that the T-54 fitted the 100mm gun. About the first T-54 prototype: "The tank had virtually the same hull and drive train as the T-44. Major differences included thicker front armour (120 mm on the upper section and 90 mm on the lower section) and a newly designed driver's hatch and vision slot. The turret ring increased in diameter to 1800 mm and had thicker armour (180 mm on the front, between 90 mm and 150 mm on the sides and 30 mm on the roof). The main armament was the 100 mm D-10TK cannon [...]"

[Spitfire_ 7,306]

LOL , T-34 was one of worst tanks of WW2 - the only adventage of Russians tanks was - less cost of production (let's see... German tanks - almost perfectly polished welds , russian tanks - welds without polishing, rust even when fresh T-34 was out from factory) , T-34 had only ONE BIGGEST adventage on german tanks - numerical superiority so  5-10 PzIV vs 15-20 T-34s. T-34<Sherman. And Russians wanted to have fast production tank + good acceleration + speed , mobility etc.

Good grief...

[Merlin_J 29]

I forgot who claimed ridiculously low reliability of T34 (only 75 kilometers lifespan of transmission), and especially early ones, so I post some data here.

 

 

16 октября меня вызвали в штаб 50-й армии и предупредили, что я буду разговаривать с Верховным Главнокомандующим. До этого мне еще ни разу не приходилось говорить со Сталиным, и, признаться, прижав трубку ВЧ к уху и прислушиваясь к ровному гудению аппарата, я волновался.

— Здравствуйте, товарищ Катуков, — раздался в трубке хорошо знакомый голос с характерным кавказским акцентом.

Осведомившись о боеспособности бригады, Сталин сказал:

— Вам надлежит немедленно погрузиться в эшелоны, чтобы как можно быстрее прибыть в район Кубинки. Будете защищать Москву со стороны Минского шоссе

Я доложил, что перебрасывать бригаду поездами в сложившихся условиях нецелесообразно. Грузиться с подсветкой нельзя: в воздухе непрерывно висят фашистские бомбардировщики. Чуть мелькнет огонек — тут же налетают. А при погрузке в темноте танки могут свалиться с платформы.

— Прошу вашего разрешения идти к Москве своим ходом.

— А как же с моторесурсами? Ведь надо будет пройти триста шестьдесят километров...

— Это не много, — ответил я. — Для ведения боевых действий моторесурсов хватит с избытком.

— Ну, раз вы ручаетесь, двигайтесь своим ходом.

 

In rough translation, during defense of Moscow, brigade of Katukov made 360 kilometers march, and still had left more than enough reserve resource left on tanks to fight.

In addition to upper quote, a friend of mine, that actually serve on T34/85, stated that their tanks had to go to intermediate repair after 800 kilometer march, and to capital repair after 1600 kilometers. Same friend stated that 85mm gun had 8-10 shots per minute (in dependance of loader) real life rate of fire. Earlier 76mm should fire even faster, despite two man cupola. So 3 time rof advantage of German tanks is ridiculously exaggeration. This should mean that Pz4 fire with above 30 shots per minute. :)

[worldwarllgeek 18]

Uhh.. most likely your friend is driving an upgraded t34, not a world war 2 version.  btw wenin, im getting sick of arguing with you about the t-44.  stupid thing sucked according to every book I've ever read (which includes American, English, and Russian publications). tell me one factual book not out of the ussr that says it was good.

[Merlin_J 29]

First T-44 is used even today as movie tank, and is redecorated to play even German tanks. :) If it was so bad, Russians would use any more common tank to play roles. T-55 wold be cheaper, because it is available in large numbers, and cost a dime, as military surplus. So presence of this tank means, that it is reliable enough, not to be considered for replacement. Personally I don't argue, that it was great tank. It had adequate armament for ww 2, but during late 40`s and 50`s is already pointless to build tanks with 85mm gun. That is main reason for being considered as obsolete and replaced with upgunned T-54, T-55.

 

 

Uhh.. most likely your friend is driving an upgraded t34, not a world war 2 version.

 

I don't know what is version, I admit. But most probable they were war time surpluses undergo some modernizations. Yes they were better than war time models, but not by much. It is ridiculous to think that post war modernized T-34 is 10 times better than wartime model. If we look at quote from memories of Katukov we could suppose that transmission of postwar modernization become roughly two times more reliable than same on 41 model of T-34/76. We see that worst built versions of T-34 can make 360 kilometer march, and to enter in heavy fight. Work of loader could not be changed that much. Especially considering weight and dimension difference between 76 and 85mm shells. I would suppose at least 10 or 20% faster reload speed of 76mm cannon of earlier T-34, than postwar modernized model. Especially if you consider almost two time heavier 85mm shell (9.2kg for 85mm and 6.1kg for 76mm shells) with almost two time bigger dimensions.