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

[Wenin 2,654]

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.

Zaloga, "Soviet tanks in combat 1941-1945: medium tanks".

But don't bother to read my previous posts, where I told that already

[worldwarllgeek 18]

This is what a fellow reader of that book said about the t-44: "The last section covers the ugly duckling of the family, the T-44, which was a technical disappointment, but served as a testbed for the very successful T-54 and T-55 series of the postwar era."  Ha ha that's very funny that you must be reading it upside down since another reader said that just like I've been saying.  Here's the link:http://www.amazon.com/Soviet-Tanks-Combat-1941-1945-Armor/dp/9623616155.  Read the comments below.  :facepalm:  Oh and merlin,  just sayin, I think that it is quite possible that the tank is heavily upgraded considering the Ramses II, an Egyptian t-55 that is modernized with a British L7 105 mm gun, night scopes, laser sighting, and many other improvements to make it a potent middle eastern tank.

Edited January 17, 2014 by worldwarllgeek

[Wenin 2,654]

This is what a fellow reader of that book said about the t-44: "The last section covers the ugly duckling of the family, the T-44, which was a technical disappointment, but served as a testbed for the very successful T-54 and T-55 series of the postwar era."  Ha ha that's very funny that you must be reading it upside down since another reader said that just like I've been saying.  Here's the link:http://www.amazon.com/Soviet-Tanks-Combat-1941-1945-Armor/dp/9623616155.  Read the comments below.  :facepalm:

You do realise that I quoted that book and another already and I'm not basing that on REVIEWS of random people?

[Nuclear_Squirrel 0]

You do realise that I quoted that book and another already and I'm not basing that on REVIEWS of random people?

 

 

This is what a fellow reader of that book said about the t-44: "The last section covers the ugly duckling of the family, the T-44, which was a technical disappointment, but served as a testbed for the very successful T-54 and T-55 series of the postwar era."  Ha ha that's very funny that you must be reading it upside down since another reader said that just like I've been saying.  Here's the link:http://www.amazon.com/Soviet-Tanks-Combat-1941-1945-Armor/dp/9623616155.  Read the comments below.  :facepalm:  Oh and merlin,  just sayin, I think that it is quite possible that the tank is heavily upgraded considering the Ramses II, an Egyptian t-55 that is modernized with a British L7 105 mm gun, night scopes, laser sighting, and many other improvements to make it a potent middle eastern tank.

Lets just say russins always win. (lol Geek is gonna hate me for this. and yes king kcaleb. you do need me two cents)

Edited January 17, 2014 by Nuclear_Squirrel

[worldwarllgeek 18]

Wenin your views are just as random to me as that man's are.  Why should I believe you over him?  He could be a fifty year-old Russian tank enthusiast with years of reading experience.  Btw nuclear,  Russians don't always win as I shoot them down more than any other country except the British.

[Nuclear_Squirrel 0]

Wenin your views are just as random to me as that man's are.  Why should I believe you over him?  He could be a fifty year-old Russian tank enthusiast with years of reading experience.  Btw nuclear,  Russians don't always win as I shoot them down more than any other country except the British.

Really? But your always complaining about how you always get shot down by them! :learn: :lol:

[Nuclear_Squirrel 0]

BY THE WAY IT HELPS IF YOU QUOTE

 

Wenin your views are just as random to me as that man's are.  Why should I believe you over him?  He could be a fifty year-old Russian tank enthusiast with years of reading experience.  Btw nuclear,  Russians don't always win as I shoot them down more than any other country except the British.

[worldwarllgeek 18]

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.

Ugghh people, understand that making a movie is much less strenuous than combat in the field.  A t-54 that could be upgraded for combat is worth more than a t-44 that is too old and too small to have useful mods to make it a viable tank in 3rd world combat.

[Fox9920 2]

now if only the T34 wasn't dead accurate in war thunder, it can also reload in a few seconds, nothing like what is mentioned here Gaijin please increase T34 reload time and maybe make the gun less accurate to simulate bad gun sights

[Nope 10,634]

and maybe make the gun less accurate to simulate bad gun sights

 

Or just emulate actual gun sights and find out that aside from light gathering and FoV the early T-34 optics were not bad. Later optics were actually better than US optics and could potentially rival some German ones.

[Ulatersk 8,959]

 

 

Or just emulate actual gun sights and find out that aside from light gathering and FoV the early T-34 optics were not bad. Later optics were actually better than US optics and could potentially rival some German ones.

 

Thats not about optics.

 

Polished steel mirrors were used for loaders and commanders observation devices for the first year of war.

 

Drivers periscope was also largely insufficient.

 

And gun sights were not articulated at first either, so the gunner had to move his head with the movement of the gun.

[Wenin 2,654]

Polished steel mirrors were used for loaders and commanders observation devices for the first year of war.

That was actually done intentionally, because it was believed that usual observation devices would shatter/crack/etc etc on the battlefield, so they choose to go with polished steel mirrors even before the war, but they were relative quickly phased out.

 

and your things don't have that much to do with gun accuracy?

Edited June 4, 2015 by Wenin

[Ulatersk 8,959]

 

That was actually done intentionally, because it was believed that usual observation devices would shatter/crack/etc etc on the battlefield, so they choose to go with polished steel mirrors even before the war, but they were relative quickly phased out.

 

and your things don't have that much to do with gun accuracy?

 

 

Considering the stance of officials ersponsible for armament and report examples which pointed to bad situational awareness, polished steel coated with celulosis really wasnt the best secondary observation device.

 

And secondary observation devices have everything to do with your gun and optics accuracy, because if they are bad, you wont going to capitalize on good accuracy.

 

Thats why there are multiple reports from Tiger companies of T-34 driving eratically in between  firing Tigers at very close range, not firing, presumably totally oblivious to their presence.

 

Or a squadron of KV 1s "engaging" a squadron of Pz IV at 15-20 meters, not being capable of putting a single shell their way.

[Wenin 2,654]

Considering the stance of officials ersponsible for armament and report examples which pointed to bad situational awareness, polished steel coated with celulosis really wasnt the best secondary observation device.

 

And secondary observation devices have everything to do with your gun and optics accuracy, because if they are bad, you wont going to capitalize on good accuracy.

 

Thats why there are multiple reports from Tiger companies of T-34 driving eratically in between  firing Tigers at very close range, not firing, presumably totally oblivious to their presence.

 

Or a squadron of KV 1s "engaging" a squadron of Pz IV at 15-20 meters, not being capable of putting a single shell their way.

So whole companies of T-34 m.41 with steel mirrors in late 1943/1944 onward? I somehow can't believe it that much.

 

And in how far does have spotting the enemy to do with a general penalty to accuracy because of the gunsight?

[Ulatersk 8,959]

 

 

So whole companies of T-34 m.41 with steel mirrors in late 1943/1944 onward? I somehow can't believe it that much

 

I didnt say 1943/44.

 

Those steel mirrors got phased out in second half of 1942.

 

 

 

And in how far does have spotting the enemy to do with a general penalty to accuracy because of the gunsight?

 

I wouldnt put penalty on accuracy, but on giving penalty on actually finding the enemy, or  practical rate of fire.

Edited June 5, 2015 by Ulatersk

[Wenin 2,654]

I didnt say 1943/44.
 
Those steel mirrors got phased out in second half of 1942.

I'm not aware that full Tiger companies were in service in 1942? Weren't their only 4 tanks near Leningrad in 1942?

I wouldnt put penalty on accuracy, but on giving penalty on actually finding the enemy, or  practical rate of fire.

I would love to have real tank interiors, then you wouldn't need some strange penalties or multipliers or cookies.

[Ulatersk 8,959]

 

 

I'm not aware that full Tiger companies were in service in 1942? Weren't their only 4 tanks near Leningrad in 1942?

 

Replacements werent better either, the situation stabilised only with T-34/85, and even then the MK 4 periscope wasnt provided for part of them.

 

 

 

I would love to have real tank interiors, then you wouldn't need some strange penalties or multipliers or cookies. 

 

Same here, but since gaijin is going that way and will be for a long time....

[Doktor_Junkers 8,441]

The T-34 was a solid tank design held back by somewhat bad economics at the beginning of its service time and first and foremost by the dreadful Soviet tactics and strategy. Thank Uncle Joe for purging his army.

 

/thread

[JagdstroyeR 210]

Large majority of T-34 lost in 1944 were T-34-85s is a really big "wat?" to me, considering that at the start of Bagration, very few units were equipped with the T-34-85 and any brigades that had the T-34-85, were mostly complemented by the T-34-76. Only until the Vistula-Oder offensive were all frontline T-34 tank brigades units fully equipped with the T-34-85.

In 1941, the Russians had the 2nd best gun sight optics in the world. The first being the Germans with their articulated Zeiss Optics. British and Americans were behind in terms of optics quality (specifically very low field of view compared to the Russian and German counter parts). The quality of gun optics decreased in late 41 to 1942 with the dislocation of Soviet industry but significantly improved after 1943 especially with the introduction of the new Tsh series of articulated sights.

Observation devices on the T-34 and all Russian tanks were poor until the introduction of the MK4 periscope in 1943.

A large number of T-34 lost in 1941 and 1942 was due to insufficient training especially in fixing simple mechanical problems, A large number of tanks were simply left on the road then.
The large loss ratio of T-34s in 1942-1943 can be attributed to very poor tactics, training and horrendous observation with poor recon and increasingly in 1943, superior tanks.. The large losses in 1944 can be attributed to using mostly uncompetitive variants (T-34-76) and always being on the attack against an well trained enemy.

Most of the time in 1944 the Germans were on the defensive; most of the time, when the Germans tried to do armored counterattacks, the suffered high losses and achieved nothing. To give a few examples
Ogledow (14 King Tigers lost in combat in 2 days of fighting, plus 20 or so other tanks, when the Germans tried to wipe out the precarious Russian bridgehead at Sandomierz, 3 King Tigers were knocked out by 1 T-34-85 camouflaged in a haystack, 300m away).
Various failed counter attacks (which had about as much incompetency in the planning and execution as Russian counterattacks in 1942) during the Vistula Oder offensive which essentially wiped out the German armored reserve in the first few weeks.

Because really poor trained crews. The guy who destroyed 3 Königstigers was the tank commander Aleksandr Oskin and his crew.