T-34 Lifespan

[SpitfireXI]

I remember reading a while ago in some book that the average lifespan of a T-34 on the Eastern front was less than a week. Does anyone know the exact details? It would make me feel alot better knowing that in reality the Soviets were losing them as often as I am when playing the game.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by SpitfireXI:

It would make me feel alot better knowing that in reality the Soviets were losing them as often as I am when playing the game.

Sorry, even in Russia a week lasts for over ten thousand minutes. Meanwhile the average CMBB T-34 has a life span of 9 minutes.

[JasonC]

Russian tank production and tank losses were about equal for each calendar year. (In 1941 production was lower and losses high, in 1942 losses were lower and the fleet size rebounded, but otherwise the relation is quite close). So one can conclude the average T-34 lived about a year. That doesn't mean they lasted that long in combat, because a portion were kept in reserve, others were being fed forward aka repositioned, others were under repair after mechanical breakdown, etc.

The combat lifetime was still probably several months, on average. A figure as low as a week might apply for outlier cases, like the period from new commitment of a tank formation at Kursk, straight in the path of a major attack, before it was depleted. But it can't be literally true for average uses of them, or they would have run out of them completely in a very short time.

[86smopuim]

perhaps in stalingrad 1 week was the norm.

[Mr. Tittles]

Losses of Soviet Tank Armies and Corps in 1942-1945

Operation Availability of AFVs at the start

Total losses

From report of 1st Guard Tank Army.

Kursk-Belgorod operation. Defensive period 5/7-20/7.1943

start strength 631 (511)

total losses 954 (783)

note: numbers in parentheses are T34

Heres an example of how bad tank losses can be.

In a 15 day period, 1st Guards tank army took an average loss of approx 50 T34 a day. It went over 150% losses. Other stats for 1943-1944 are similar for T34.

It would be interesting to see the end strength. The unit must have been fed tanks and crews during this period. The average lifetime for a new crew during this time may well have been less than a week.

[Mr. Tittles]

Kursk-Belgorod operation. Offensive period 3/8-31/8-1943 542 (418) 1040 (889)

Here the unit has been built up to 418 T34. In a 4 week period of attacking, it loses 200%.

[ichadwick]

That's pretty bleak. But Kursk was an armoured showdown. What about in other battles? Say Operation Mars or Uranus?

[The Cheat]

HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHh Uranus!!!!! hahahah

um sorry yah i agree with whatever you were saying :confused:

[Mr. Tittles]

Kazatin operation.

23/12.1943-1/2-1944

start strength 749 (666)

total losses 1317 (1181)

battle losses 1056 (937)

technical (mechanical) losses 170 (154)

other 91 (90)

(t34)

This is also from 1st Guards. Its a 6 week period from the end of 43 to early 44.

What was T34 production numbers? 1000 per month?

Actually, most of 1943 was a showdown. The Germans big show was Kursk but the armored battles raged in intensity for most of the year. The Germans were being bled and the Soviets were willing to practice attrition as long as both sides bled. They prosecuted this strategy with T34/76 mostly. They knew that changing over a model design during this time would give the Germans a break. The Germans, with the new Panther, old Panzer IV and limited Tigers, were changing horses at the wrong time.

[ December 26, 2003, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[Mr. Tittles]

http://www.battlefield.ru/library/bookshelf/losses/losses3.html

[Mr. Tittles]

http://www.angelfire.com/wi2/foto/ww2/proh/page4.html

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

Actually, most of 1943 was a showdown. The Germans big show was Kursk but the armored battles raged in intensity for most of the year. The Germans were being bled and the Soviets were willing to practice attrition as long as both sides bled. They prosecuted this strategy with T34/76 mostly. They knew that changing over a model design during this time would give the Germans a break. The Germans, with the new Panther, old Panzer IV and limited Tigers, were changing horses at the wrong time.

This is an unusual argument to make as Panzer and StuG production increased during 1943. Also the change over for the PIII to Panthers began in earnest in 1944, this is the period when one sees many of the First Panzer battalions being shipped back to Germany for retraining and Panther equipment.

10 July 1943: 2609 Panzers on the eastern front

31 Dec 1943: 2053 Panzers on the eastern front

(1996 Jentz) Not including StuG and slf (Marders) numbers as I don't have them.

Without Normandy and its loss of 1500 panzers the Soviet strategy of attrition at loss may have proved even more wasteful and actually counterproductive.

[ December 26, 2003, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[Mr. Tittles]

Originally posted by Bastables:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

Actually, most of 1943 was a showdown. The Germans big show was Kursk but the armored battles raged in intensity for most of the year. The Germans were being bled and the Soviets were willing to practice attrition as long as both sides bled. They prosecuted this strategy with T34/76 mostly. They knew that changing over a model design during this time would give the Germans a break. The Germans, with the new Panther, old Panzer IV and limited Tigers, were changing horses at the wrong time.

This is an unusual argument to make as Panzer and StuG production increased during 1943. Also the change over for the PIII to Panthers began in earnest in 1944, this is the period when one sees many of the First Panzer battalions being shipped back to Germany for retraining and Panther equipment.

10 July 1943: 2609 Panzers on the eastern front

31 Dec 1943: 2053 Panzers on the eastern front

(1996 Jentz) Not including StuG and slf (Marders) numbers as I don't have them.

Without Normandy and its loss of 1500 panzers the Soviet strategy of attrition at loss may have proved even more wasteful and actually counterproductive. </font>

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

Whats a war of attrition have to do with Panzer and StuG production increasing?

That this is an indication along with "stable" Panzer numbers on the eastern front and the lopsided exchange ratio that the Germans were not losing the tank war of attrition.

Also increasing Panzer/StuG (of new and more effective types) production tends to indicate that "changing horses" as you put it was not such a major impediment to increasing production rates.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

[

I think that your own numbers show that the number of panzers has decreased on the eastern front? Doesnt matter if the panzer/stug production was increasing or decreasing, they were being attrited.

The fact remains that the Germans had a fleet of MBTs consisting of four tank types in 1943. They were trying to stop one type (panzer III production did stop in 43) and phase in Panthers.

The Soviets pushed with the T34/76 relentlessly in 43/early44. I think they felt that not letting the German war machine recover from Kursk was a main priority.

To wait to field the T34/85 would have been a big mistake. [/QB]

The T-34 were being atrrited at a greater rate though.

The Soviets with their 3 home made tanks KV, T-60/70 and the T-34 and the fleet of lead leased Valentines and Sherman’s were not a homogenous production/logistical concern either.

I should think with the kill and casualty’s ratios of Kursk and 1943 that it was the Soviets who were the one who were more in need of recovery. This would have been especially apparent without Successful allied landings in the Med and Normandy and the lead lease agreements.

[Mr. Tittles]

T34s were possibly being manufactured at a greater rate? I guess thats how I would win a war of attrition.

Wasn't the German army also being pushed back? What a bonus!

[Mr. Tittles]

As far as lend lease, c'mon you must be kidding! If someone is going to bring you free stuff to your door, are you going to insist that it be T34s!!!!????? I believe they phased out KV1 and light tanks also (since light tanks were coming on ships anyway.

The Soviets WERE demanding more fronts and probably felt they were being played. The capatilists know we have the bull by the horns so we cant let go. once committed, they had to keep the Germans reeling backwards.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

T34s were possibly being manufactured at a greater rate? I guess thats how I would win a war of attrition.

Wasn't the German army also being pushed back? What a bonus!

They are almost managing to lose the T-34 entire years manufacture every year due to combat this is not replicated by the Germans in 1943, therefore the Soviets were not winning the war of attrition. The war of attrition did not tip over into the Soviets favour until the Allied landings with its consequence refocusing of German Panzer strength in the West.

I see again you prefer to miss the point.

[Mr. Tittles]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Russian tank production and tank losses were about equal for each calendar year. (In 1941 production was lower and losses high, in 1942 losses were lower and the fleet size rebounded, but otherwise the relation is quite close). So one can conclude the average T-34 lived about a year. That doesn't mean they lasted that long in combat, because a portion were kept in reserve, others were being fed forward aka repositioned, others were under repair after mechanical breakdown, etc.

.

If the losses/production are about equal, and I am pushing the enemy back and his fleet is decreasing (and no one is bombing my factories), aint I winning a little?

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

As far as lend lease, c'mon you must be kidding! If someone is going to bring you free stuff to your door, are you going to insist that it be T34s!!!!????? I believe they phased out KV1 and light tanks also (since light tanks were coming on ships anyway.

The Soviets WERE demanding more fronts and probably felt they were being played. The capatilists know we have the bull by the horns so we cant let go. once committed, they had to keep the Germans reeling backwards.

Again you miss the point.

KV-1S were still being manufactred up till Dec 1943 because of problems with the manufacture of the 8,5cm gun for the KV-85. By the time the KV-85 was ready the IS-1 was ready for mass production. Here more eveidence that changing horses is an irrelevent argument concerning hamstringing production rates. Besides which the Soviets had no other "horses" to change over too due to the bottle neck in 8,5cm and 5,7cm gun production in 1943. The T43 or modernised T-34 was a dead end as was the eventual KV-85.

The T-70 and T80 light tanks were both produced and continued to be used in 1943.Like the PIII when the gun proved increasingly poor versus the enemy they converted it's production to the Su76

The Soviets were demanding more "fronts" because the German continued to inflict lopsided kill/casualty ratios, these could not be maintained by the Soviet Union indefinitely.

The Soviet Union was involved in a modern war with an agrarian economy versus a industrialised nation, lead lease especially in the food, petroleum and trucks and aircraft insured that the relatively small Soviet industrial base could concentrate on manufacturing obsolescent tanks to go get shot up at the front. Even then the number of civilian death due to starvation because of an overstressed infrastructure are quite striking and cast forbidding shadows if the Soviet Union had to continue fighting the axis on their own.

[ December 26, 2003, 09:56 PM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JasonC:

Russian tank production and tank losses were about equal for each calendar year. (In 1941 production was lower and losses high, in 1942 losses were lower and the fleet size rebounded, but otherwise the relation is quite close). So one can conclude the average T-34 lived about a year. That doesn't mean they lasted that long in combat, because a portion were kept in reserve, others were being fed forward aka repositioned, others were under repair after mechanical breakdown, etc.

.

If the losses/production are about equal, and I am pushing the enemy back and his fleet is decreasing (and no one is bombing my factories), aint I winning a little? </font>

[Mr. Tittles]

Production (T34/76)

1940 - 270

1941 - 2.800

1942 - 12.520

1943 - 15.812

1944 - 3.500

Production (T34/85)

1944 - 11.000

1945 - 7.650

[Mr. Tittles]

http://www.onwar.com/maps/wwii/eastfront2/1efrnt4344.htm

a nice picture showing the effects of attrition

[Mr. Tittles]

You're missing the point; the German fleet was decreasing in the East because Panzer strength and production was increasingly focused on the West. Not because the Soviet's themselves were winning the war of attrition.

I think maybe myself and a few others would like you to substantiate this.

Show that a increasingly focused amount of armor was sent to the west during 1943. Compare it to the flow to the east.

If you dont or cant, dont feel bad; many people that rant that others are 'missing the point' are just keyboard tapsters with self-feeding delusions.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

You're missing the point; the German fleet was decreasing in the East because Panzer strength and production was increasingly focused on the West. Not because the Soviet's themselves were winning the war of attrition.

I think maybe myself and a few others would like you to substantiate this.

Show that a increasingly focused amount of armor was sent to the west during 1943. Compare it to the flow to the east.

If you dont or cant, dont feel bad; many people that rant that others are 'missing the point' are just keyboard tapsters with self-feeding delusions.

Sigh,

Ignoring Italy and Sicily the change over to the West began during the spring summer of 1943/44 as units were shifted to France for refitting. your argument seems to have developed into a strawman. Without Normandy there would have been another 1,500 panzers to add to the east as opposed to being engaged and overrun during and after Normandy.

28 Feb 1943 1,686 Panzers in the east

31 Dec 1943 2,053 Panzers in the east

(1996 Jentz) Again no fig for StuGs, slf etc due to the fact that I don't have those figs.