Jump to content

T-34/76 to T-34/85 ratio


Recommended Posts

Hi folks,

I've been reading some German divisional histories I have in my possession (in fact, I just bought all 5 volumes of the LAH history recently) and stumbled about an interesting question. German accounts often misidentify the T-34/85 as T-43. So presumably, many accounts that mention T-34s exclusively refer to the old model ones. Even by 1945 those are mentioned a lot. So I was wondering, how many T-34/85 were there in comparison to the older T-34/76 and how did that ratio develop until the end of the war?

Also, at what organizational level would that differ? Tank Brigade or rather Tank Corps?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, I wouldn't assume from one observers mis-ID practices that every reference to something as common as a T-34 must involve a similar mistake, or refer exclusively to the older T-34/76.  Most T-34/85s were probably being reported correctly.

 

Second, the first large scale use of T-34/85s was Bagration, and they equipped entire tank corps with them whenever possible, to simplify spare parts logistics and the like.  There were 2 full tank corps so equipped in the northern part of the front.  Later they do appear at the tank brigade scale in the independent brigades (only after the type became far more numerous); they were not mixed below that level.

 

T-34/76s were leaving the force through losses, and the average turnover of the Russian tank fleet was as fast as once turn per year.  That did fall in the last 6 months of the war, however.  They ended the war with a fleet of about 30,000 AFVs with a production rate north of 20,000 a year.  This means it was an exceptional tank that was still in service even 1 full year after its production date.  There were such, and some of the old models would still be around to the end of the war, but they were not a numerically dominant type anymore, by that late a date.  In mid 1944 they still were the majority of medium tanks.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JasonC,

thanks for the reply. I guess you are correct about my assumption being a little too quick to assume it was a common thing, but I've read that previously unknown to me reference to the T-43 in two or three different accounts in two different books.

 

What would you guess was the point were the ratio tipped in favor to the T-34/85?

 

BTW, I haven't played all all scenarios or campaigns in CMRT but I think so far I have only seen 85s ingame, so I wondered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the Soviets own numbers, average life span of a Tank was about 6 months from the time it left the factory.

By the time of Bagration, there were still many T34-76s left, but they were relegated mostly to infantry support doing the SP artillery grunt work.

T34-85s were mostly found in Tank Corps/Armies/Mechanized Groups and were tasked with the glamorous mobile exploitation role.

T34-76s are in game. There are 2-3 variants in the scenario editor.

Edited by Sgt Joch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is hard to obtain real figures because in most soviet docs T-34 tanks are not listed separately for 76 and 85 mm guns. But, some numbers prior to Bagration exist:

1st TC (1st Baltic front): 120 Т-34-85, 60 Т-34-76

2nd GuardTC: 180 Т-34-85

3rd Guard MechC: 170 Shermans and Valentines, 20 Т-34-76

3rd GuardsTC: 120 Т-34-76, 60 Shermans and Valentines

29th TC: 120 Т-34-76, 60 Т-34-85

9th TC: 180 Т-34-76

1st GTC: 180 Т-34-85 (maybe 60 of them are T-34-76 model) 

1st MC: 180 Shermans and Valentines

11th TC: 120 Т-34-85, 60 Т-34-76

3rd TC: 160 Т-34-85, 20 Т-34-76

16th TC: 160 Т-34-85, 20 Т-34-76

8th GTC: 120 Sherman, 60 Т-34-85

separate tank regiments of cavalry corps: 240 Shermans and Valentines

119th engineering tank regiment (mineclearing tanks): 18 Т-34-76, 4 Т-34-85

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Denis1973 and VanirB, those figures are very helpful.

 

Since the figures in that graph are production figures, I assume that the turning point for the ratio in front line units would be a few months after Oct 1944, with most of the T-34/85 being concentrated in TC and GTC and Mech Corps, right? So the T-34/76 would mostly be in Cavalry units and independent Tank Brigades in the Rifle Armies, is that about correct?

 

Btw, the mis-identification issue I first stumbled upon after reading this wikipedia article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-43_tank

 

interestingly, the combat report where I read the reference (where the T-34/85 was ID'ed as T-43) was from early 1945

Edited by Rokko
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rokko - it isn't just production figures; it assumes a loss rate that is proportional across types, same rate for each type (rate as a percentage of those of that type out by then and still alive).  There are definite idealizations in that - the newer types had lower loss rates, in part by some still being in pipelines / kept out of battle, while older types had more mechanical "falling out" from wear and tear etc, so their real loss rate as a percentage would increase with their age, etc.  But it is a solid first approximation.  

 

It is saying that T-34/76 was 60% of the tank fleet at the start of 1944, with the T-34/85 not yet part of that fleet.  The rest are lights, LL, SUs, etc.  By mid 1944, T-34/76 are just below 50% of the fleet and T-34/85s are up to just under 20%, but the former still heavily outnumber the latter.  It shows them crossing, at about 33-35% each, in September 1944.  By the end of the year, the T-34/76s are down to 20% of the fleet, the T-34/85s are up to a bit over 40%, so they would outnumber the 76s by 2 to 1 or slightly more, at the start of 1945.  The T-34/85s almost reach 50% of the fleet by the end of the war (April 1945 actually), with the 76s down to 10% of the fleet by then.

 

Note that both types combined are running 60-70% of the whole tank force.  The percentage of heavier types and SUs is rising in the late war (though a fair portion of the SUs are lighter SU-76s - all Russian light tank production switched over to those by the last year or so of the war), LL is declining slightly, and the fleet total itself is rising perhaps 50% in the final year, as the loss rate falls (especially so in 1945) while production stays high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jason C what would be your opinion on this source.  Since the subject is about T-34/76 and 85's.  A friend of mine led me to this web page.  Although I have a lot of books from Thomas L. Jentz.

 

 

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

 

Production and Loss ratio:  http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.gr/2013/01/tank-strength-and-losses-eastern-front.html

 

If anyone can chime in on how accurate this source is would be cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GhostRider - that source is tendentious horsefeathers, to put it charitably. Straw man argumentation, believing German fairy tales, slipshod relative loss reasoning without actual imputation of causes of loss, ignoring the whole operational history of the second half of the war, etc. the Germans won WWII in the east and handily defeated the dumb Russians, clearly, everyone knows that.n that's about the quality of the "reasoning", and of the miss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

heh, that article prompts me to paraphrase Churchill:  "the T-34 was the worst tank of the war, except for all the other tanks".

 

Well, except for that other series that had a 3-man turret and radios from the get-go, was much more comfortable for the crew (increasing combat performance), could be easily transported on ships, and matched or bettered the T-34 in pretty much all the other categories (gun & armor, ease of production/maintence, etc.) except for track performance in certain extreme terrain conditions. :P

Edited by Macisle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, except for that other series that had a 3-man turret and radios from the get-go, was much more comfortable for the crew (increasing combat performance), could be easily transported on ships, and matched or bettered the T-34 in pretty much all the other categories (gun & armor, ease of production/maintence, etc.) except for track performance in certain extreme terrain conditions. :P

Ah yes, the one which was introduced some eighteen months after the T-34?

 

I'm not gonna get drawn into a pointless debate about "the best tank",  but I think that when considering the question you have to consider them on a relative basis, compared to the tanks they were deployed against.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recall a conversation with a playtester heavily involved in CM just as CMBB was being released, discussing the T-34 vs the Panzer III long (50L60).  He thought "the T-34 is a piece of crap" and that the Panzer III should and would smoke it like a cheap cigar, all day.  He was hopelessly wrong, and that opinion falsifies the whole history of the war in the east.  

 

Tanks are meant to accomplish a concrete combat task, which isn't cuddling the driver's backside.  The T-34, warts and all, pretty much won WWII.  Does that mean it was a superior tank, one for one, to the Panther, say?  Of course not.  It does mean that it was as good or better, in practice, as all other common main battle tanks of the war, and that properly used it fulfilled all the tactical and operational functions a main battle tank needed to perform in that war.  When revisionists try to tell us otherwise, they are engaged in an attempt to get us to believe them instead of our lying eyes, and its just hopeless.  T-26s wouldn't have retaken European Russia from the Germans in 30 months of high intensity combat.  T-34s did.  Not "could have", not "had some potential", DID.  And no amount of spin can detract from that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not even worth answering anymore, the tank minutiae battles. That the T-34 was common enough to be present usually and effective enough to be obviously better than 90% of what it'd run into was what mattered. The same story goes for the Sherman, the vehicle that near-universally equipped the Allies and won the war for them too.

Running into a Tiger or even a Panther was up there with getting struck by lightning. Sucks for the guys it's happening to but the fact is they're a tiny minority in a war full of elaborate weapon systems that are having a much bigger effect on the fighting and its consequences.

Edited by CaptHawkeye
Link to comment
Share on other sites

heh, that article prompts me to paraphrase Churchill:  "the T-34 was the worst tank of the war, except for all the other tanks".

 

Well regardless of the article.. and not one to get into which tank is best and all that as well. as clearly people here have their own ideas of what is good and what is not.  I think everyone can agree that Germany enjoyed a pretty good Kill ratio though,  I mean for the size of the country that it was and not even reaching war time production until 1943.  In my Opinion influenced by books from Jentz,  the Panther and the King Tiger showed all three aspects of what a tank needed to have to survive.  Not saying Russian tanks were bad, they just had enough to keep pushing on.  Manpower, definitely a plus, but I think any nation facing two Industrial Super weights and the entirety of the UK and commonwealth will have issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think any nation facing two Industrial Super weights and the entirety of the UK and commonwealth will have issues.

 

Yes, and arguing over weapons systems is a moot point for any nation that lost its air superiority. The allies could have won the war without having as much as a single tank.

Edited by Bulletpoint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well regardless of the article.. and not one to get into which tank is best and all that as well. as clearly people here have their own ideas of what is good and what is not.  I think everyone can agree that Germany enjoyed a pretty good Kill ratio though,  I mean for the size of the country that it was and not even reaching war time production until 1943.

If that is a yardstick you measure something with such scale, consequence, and implication as a world war you should rethink your attitude. Does who's army killed a few million more or less than another really matter in a war that saw the death of millions of everywhere?

Edited by CaptHawkeye
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that is a yardstick you measure something with such scale, consequence, and implication as a world war you should rethink your attitude. Does who's army killed a few million more or less than another really matter in a war that saw the death of millions of everywhere?

You misunderstand me.  I am talking about Tanks..  I don't need an attitude check.. thanks for your comment. but I think you Assumed I was talking about total numbers of war.. which I was not.. (Although if I was I would have stated it... )  Just talking tanks here Pal.  But I wont comment anymore about it on this Post as its getting off topic now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...