Well, sort of related to is related to superior German design ideas- they were smart enough to see the importance of radios that the tank branches of other countries either lacked altogether or had in short supply. Consequently, the Germans coordinated better than anyone early in the War.

Oh I totally watched it, not too bad for anime to be honest. Hearts of Iron IV hit and it has been everything related to WW2 since

My tank would be painted in a light red. LIGHT RED.

I wouldn't call it average, I'd rather call it completely awful or very good, depending on who's point of view we're discussing.

An awesome tank for the low skilled factory workers building them in barely functioning relocated factories beyond the Urals. Few, if any of the T-34s produced during the war would've likely passed any quality tests that any Western power subjected its tanks to before sending them to their units.

Also awesome if you happen to be a blood thirsty, insane despot who's in the course of a few years forced your country through the entire Industrial Revolution.

Awesome if you're the brass actually getting tanks when you need them, and in numbers and of a simplicity that makes reliable enough to be kept running throughout the year, and easy to replace when they're destroyed.


Awful if you're in charge of keeping them running. But hey, there's some comfort in knowing that none of them will survive long enough for your failures in this department to become obvious.


The worst nightmare you could imagine if you're a crewman of one. No radios for anyone but the company commander until halfway through the war, suspension and tracks that alerts every German within 10 miles of your presence, sluggish steering, low grade steel that is likely to cause spalling even if your armour isn't penetrated, sloped armour that decreases the space inside the tank to such an extent that it very well might trap you inside the tank if you have to bail out, large fuel tanks inside the crew compartment, and absolutely nothing resembling the wet ammunition stowage of the Sherman tanks. People talk of German submariners as having terrifyingly low chances at surviving. Red Army tank crews would've been more than happy to have a staggering 25% chance of surviving the war, with their +90% death ratios.

Just reading the summary of the Sherman in that article, and I can point out a fair few lies. The Sherman was continually developed upon during the war, even more so than the T-34 ever was. In fact, the memoirs of a Red Army tank officer who was in charge of a brigade of Sherman tanks. There were actually very few regards in which he considered the T-34 better, or even equal to the Sherman in. And if you look at the statistics, you'll see that Sherman crews had probably the highest chances of any tankers to survive. Your average knocked out Sherman "only" had 1 KIA and 1 WIA.

see that's more what I was alluding to, it was a good tank in the sense that it got the job done and fulfilled the role the soviets set out for it but by all other metrics it sorta sucked

Here are a couple links that have good information on the subject.

http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/01/18/ensigns-qa-20-special-edition/


http://www.allworldwars.com/T-34%20Tank%20Service%20Manual.html



This one is very good. Mentions two I was thinking of; two man turret and lack of a turret basket.

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

It's all in how you self-identify.

It set a certain standard that affected tank development, certain aspects were copied, others were drawbacks.

Another bad point is the two man turret, meaning the tank commander is additionally burdened with the duties of the gunner as well- but that also means they can achieve the profile they did with the T-34 without the extra size and space requirements, a three man turret is an advantage over a two man, but with the realities of some crews being quite inexperienced, and I've read accounts of factory workers were driving straight into battle in the tanks with no training, they're not going to last long anyway, but as bullet magnets and just as a means to tie up German resources, even that serves some purpose. Nasty for the individual, for the Red Army Front Commander, he sees the red arrows moving around the map doing what they should. The T-34 is a good disposable tank for purposes like that, if that is the strategy that suits your needs or capabilities.

What about "Field Mods"? Everybody remembers "Kelly's Heros" Sherman. Was that common? Did both sides do it?

I've never seen a T-34 with sandbags and concrete blocks, here is an example with cage armor, seems rare:

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/so...urgGate1945.jpg

You have to look at what period of the war. In 1941 it was by far the best tank in the world. It had no pears. More armor, faster and more fire power than any other medium tank. But they lacked radios and their optics where not so great. Crew layout was also not the greatest. But there where not vary many of them. In the early days when used half way smart they could leave swaths of destruction when used right. Things like panzer II's, 38t's and early marks of panzer 3 and 4's where totally out fire powered and armored.

German tactics had to adapt to a superior weapon system when it became vary clear that you could not simply blow over a bunch of t34's with German armor. They ended up with orders to not engage the thing. That is get out of its way. Instead had to out maneuver or set up the big guns in ambush to try and kill the things. Mean while a crash program to up armor and up gun everything. While stop gap tank destroyers like the MArder series. Where the first ones took captured zis-3 and F22 76.2 guns and stuck them on now utterly obsolete tank hulls. These could hurt a t34 but had glass jaws. So needed to use in ambush. But in this early period the Red Army was utterly not ready to deal with German Blitzkrieg tactics, but no one was in Europe. So not enough t34's and Kv-1's and not used all that well. But those 2 tanks where totally better than what the Germans had in the same period.

By 1942 the crash upgrade program for German armor was finally getting things to the front that did stand a chance. Still not as good, but better. The panzer 3's short stubby gun was got a long barreled 50mm. while the Panzer 4 F2 got more armor and a bigger high velocity 75mm gun. This could now at least kill a t34. And by the end of 42 low numbers of tiger tanks stared popping up.

So in the early days, the T34 is what everyone wanted. Even the Germans. The captured ones got radios and got send back against the Red Army.

In the mid war its still a better tank in many ways. It lost its fire power edge. But was still faster and more mobile than a panzer 4G. And since all the factory's had gotten east of the Urals, now able to pump them out in ever larger numbers. And in 43, this is where Germany looses the war on the Eastern front. Kursk introduces the panther tank. Its better in most ways than a t34. Except these early marks suck in reliability department and not enough of them. No where enough. Vastly out produced by the T34. And ALL the panthers on the Eastern front are at Kursk. Where most are destroyed, broken down, destroyed themselves with engine fires. And they loose the battle. All Panthers remaining are pulled from the front and sent back to get the bugs out. So Germany will not get their t34 killer in any numbers on the front till 1944. And the Red Army is counter attacking, everywhere with the T34 in the lead.

This is where folks start looking at kill loose ratios. And go, OH its not that great a tank. The Germans have always been good on the attack, but are excellent on the defense too. They are now out numbered but get to often pick where to set up ambushes with whatever. Defense is easier than attack all things being equal. You need less and WILL kill more of the enemy than you will loose. Kill lose ratio was always higher no matter who was fighting the Germans on the defense. But the big one is the numbers game. T34 is cheaper and easier to make. So things like tigers there are only around 1300 made. PAnthers 8000. T34's? UGH ya... 50000 plus.

Late war the Germans have better tanks, for sure. But they lack the numbers. The t34-85 gets to the front in 1944 and it can kill all the big cat tanks and is more mobile. It lacks in armor at this point, as all German guns are counters to the T34. They are designed and intended to kill this tank. When every anti tank gun was designed to kill 1 thing, what does that tell you? Ya, its a good tank.

Then the T34-85 has a long post war life. They are out classed by things like centurions, M26, m48 and what not. But still from time to time, given the chance kill more modern MBT's.

So for a tank that got fielded in 1940, that is a vary impressive feat. No M3 lee grants did that. No cruiser tanks did that. Nothing that started at the front of the war, went on in the post war world as a commonly used item. Sure, a few late model panzer 4's did. But they did not fair to well against Israel. If you are thinking Sherman. It got to the front in summer 42. So hmm ya.

So this is why the T34 was over all, the best tank of ww2. In the quality department the Panther is bar none the greatest medium tank but to too little to late. And the Sherman with wet stowage and high velocity guns was quite good. Good enough to go toe to toe with T34-85's in Korea.

Good enough wins a war if you can make enough of them....

I would like to put this forward again since it is such a good article.


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

Excellent read!

There's a good reason that the Israelis kept upgraded Shermans around for a long, long time.

I find his conclusions cherry picked. Particularly the bit about if it was SO good it would have pretty much stopped the advance in 1941/42. Could say they same thing about Iraqi M1a1's not being able to stop ISIS a couple years back. Or any number of other examples. Like, France had better and more tanks than Germany in 1940. They still lost. If your tactics suck, your crews questionable, or orders insane....you are going to loose no matter what you got. So no, 500 T34s at the start of the war spread out and used in pockets was not going to have much an overall effect on the early days. But it DID make an impression when in local fights it left swaths of destruction.

Things like no retreat and no surrender make great slogans. But all that means is you just got encircled so no more beans and bullets. Enjoy getting chewed up to death is slow bites.

The early model stuff about reliability is vary true. Plenty of pictures showing transmissions and what not tied down to engine decks. But you can point the finger at the PAther tank in 1943 where the first 2 lost where do to engine fires driving from the train to the assembly area. But both got better

Another gripe on the article is rarely what version of t34 is he talking about. You have what? 4 main versions. it appears t34 1943 is probably the German designation for the Soviet t34 1942, or mickey mouse model. I find this unclear and often folks use German names of Soviet tanks. But there was a late version of this tank that had a cupola on it. And each factory had its own version of the various models to more confuse the crap out of people. I would suspect those t34 rolling off the Red October line in Stalingrad or those rolling out of Leningrad where crap considering the end of the assembly line was the front line. Time and place is really important when you are talking about models of soviet tanks in ww2. As one factory is a battle ground one moment and then making tanks the next. Other factories got moved by train across the country and I would expect there would be lots of quality control issues while getting set up.

and of COURSE most armored AFV's where not t34's. Its like saying all German armor where tigers. Is bullocks. Most armor is not medium and heavy tanks. Its armored cars, light tanks, self propelled guns, armored tractors and half tracks. This is the crap you run into everyday on the front lines. The tanks are more expensive and massed where they are needed. Not given out like candy. Ask the French how that worked out for them against inferior massed German tanks.

Last stat i wanted to rant about. The bit about 18 percent of M4 Sherman crew died while the rest lived threw their tank getting shot out from them. Its true....AFTER wet stowage. before was the era of the tommy cooker. This is not mentioned. Its rather important. Before was more akin to the T34 rate of 75 percent. Wet stowage was a simple and ingenious thing that saved tons of folks. Its a wonder it did not get used on other AFV's later.

Good posts FlashBurn.

Yes. That came from Allied crews so spooked by the reputation of the Tiger that whenever tanks received fire and started taking losses from an unknown source, it would be presumed to be a Tiger. Shaken Allied crews may say, "Hell with this mess, we're up against Tigers," and that's how they go back to report what's going on. In reality, towed anti-tank guns on both sides were some of the most difficult opponents the crews often went up against. Well concealed AT guns deployed off axis are nearly invisible, and could deliver results out of proportion to how cheap they are compared to AFVs.



True, but under select conditions, a single French tank in a few examples managed to hold up German columns and deliver some tactical surprises that worried the Germans- not because of Allied tactics, but because of the under armed guns on early War German Panzers going up against heavier Allied tanks. A larger French tank positioned at a choke point which couldn't be flanked presented a problem, the German shots would have no effect like they didn't on T-34s early in the War. The Germans would have to either bring up towed guns or call in the PaK howitzers or the Stukas if they couldn't dislodge the 'pillbox' holding them up.



In the event of WW3, the crews are calculated to have little chance to make it to be a concern. The idea is that it's not going to be a conventional war that drags on for years, but a horrific NBC war that's over in days or weeks. The best most tank crews can expect is to survive long enough to accomplish their objectives before they succumb to radiation exposure, likewise, another world war would be over too quickly and catastrophically to worry about recovery and depot level repair of damaged vehicles. Having said that, the compartmentalized storage of ammo in the M1 Abrams design is beautiful for crews.

Sherman crew survival was one of the best there were even before the wet stowage, an average 2 WIA and 1 KIA per killed tank.

IIRC the most common Soviet AFV was actually the T-34, or at least most common tank. Close after it was the Su-76.


In regards to improvised extra armour, most of it appears to have been more of a psychological bonus than an actual bonus. In the case of HEAT projectiles extra armour could prove downright dangerous, due to initiating the explosively formed projectile at a more effective range from the armour than these earlier forms of them had been tweaked to.

I suppose that's possible, but it's also arbitrary- one could simply decrease or increase the spaced air gap as necessary, and not all HEAT warheads have the same standoff range.

In modern examples, if you look at the probe extender on a TOW missile, that is to provide the optional standoff for the jet to form and penetrate, which is not the same as on man portable AT weapons or other heavy ATGMs, still slat armors and other types of applique armors are used and can make the difference.

There were a few examples of Iraqi tanks surviving hits from AT weapons at least with Milan or TOW class weapons just by welding on a few centimeters of extra steel, enough to perhaps disrupt the optimal standoff distance or divert the jet away from an optimal 90 degree deflection angle.

Soviet production, http://ww2-weapons.com/russian-arms-production/

The stats of 45k T-34's lost out of ~58k built is pretty telling.