T-34 Shockingly Reassessed (Strong Language!)

[John Kettler]

Let me start by saying that those of you who find Blinkov's military analyses with its frog puppet jarring are going to really have an issue with Lazer PIg. That said, if you can get past the bizarre front end and a super abundance of NSFW language throughout, there is a wealth of material here on the realities of the T-34, not the propaganda, self-serving analyses, rigged tests, erroneous assumptions and writings of lazy historians. This makes that long online piece called The Myth of T-34 Superiority seem like a passing thought by comparison, slaughtering sacred cows, "known facts", "reliable data" and other structures built not just on sand, but weak sand at that, with wild abandon, even using statements by Stalin about major T-34 reliability problems. Some long time CM hands talk about depicting Tiger and Panther reliability by reducing the percentage actually available for battle, but that seems highly unfair when you learn that in a 500 km road march, HALF of all the T-34s broke down en route. The Russian crew survival rates were shocking if a. tank was hit and penetrated. Russian figures in Dunn's Hitler's Nemesis showed that when a tank was destroyed, so generally were all the crew members killed or incapacitated by wounds.  This became a huge problem for the Red Army which, unlike the British at GOOD WOOD, who had plenty of replacement tanks and crews with a pretty high overall survival rate (typically 1-2 casualties per tank knocked out), the Russians were being forced to replace the tanks and the crews. This is but one of many topics discussed in this wide-ranging, take no prisoners hour-long video. Frankly, I wish it had been longer, for as deep as it went, there simply wasn't time to really get deeply into various maters. If you've ever heard of the expression "drinking from the fire hydrant", you can experience that by watching this most impressive video. There is a wealth of material, too, in the comments and Lazer Pig's replies. Net net, I believe you will never again look at the T-34 quite the same way again.
 

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited January 7, 2022 by John Kettler

[Erwin]

Well...  that was probably the most entertaining video on the subject, John.  It would be good to see a video argument that disputes the claims of this video cos if most of it is true, the T-34 and the other Soviet era tanks have been modeled wrong - basically using the design specs and propaganda as source material rather than the actual combat and casualty stats.  

[chuckdyke]

How many people use the tank's machine-gun when you plot area fire? It is often more than enough. 

 

[Erwin]

7 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

How many people use the tank's machine-gun when you plot area fire?

I woulda thought one should use it a lot... when targeting inf.  

[John Kettler]

chuckdyke and Erwin,

The Tigerfibel makes this point very strongly about using the main gun only where absolutely necessary, stressing the MGs for dealing, absent special circumstances, with infantry. In the Tigerfibel, one of the main points raised was the cost of an HE round vs MG ammo. Though the Russians absolutely did attack with main guns blazing away, with no stabilization in either axis, this sort of attack technique is really about keeping heads down and not destroying targets. 

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited January 7, 2022 by John Kettler

[chuckdyke]

"Our American friends offer us money, arms, and advice. We take the money, we take the arms, and we decline the advice." ~ Moshe Dayan The man was a genius. 

 

[Baneman]

Sounds intriguing, I'll have to try and find an hour.

I wish this sort of thing was published in writing because I could read in 10 minutes or less what is going to take him an hour to say.

[Freyberg]

Interesting and funny

[Bulletpoint]

I must admit I didn't have the patience to listen to this.

But I think there's a general tendency to assume that since the Germans lost the war, their tanks were probably not all that good, and since the Russians won, their tanks were probably really good. And since everybody knows Panthers had good armour, people think some grand explanation is needed for why the Panthers didn't sweep away the Red Army, and then they start getting myopic about final drive problems.

In reality, all WW2 tanks had their advantages and disadvantages, and mechanical/design problems of different kinds. Some tanks were obviously better designed than others, but it's not the tanks themselves that win or lose wars; it's resources, production, logistics, strategical decisions, etc.

[chuckdyke]

How many German built tanks still drive around today? How many T34's and M4 Shermans drive around today? Logistics is a numbers game.

 

[Lethaface]

3 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

I must admit I didn't have the patience to listen to this.

But I think there's a general tendency to assume that since the Germans lost the war, their tanks were probably not all that good, and since the Russians won, their tanks were probably really good. And since everybody knows Panthers had good armour, people think some grand explanation is needed for why the Panthers didn't sweep away the Red Army, and then they start getting myopic about final drive problems.

In reality, all WW2 tanks had their advantages and disadvantages, and mechanical/design problems of different kinds. Some tanks were obviously better designed than others, but it's not the tanks themselves that win or lose wars; it's resources, production, logistics, strategical decisions, etc.

 

Well it is quite well known and documented that Panther / Tiger / King Tiger etc had reliability issues, from hasted development, lack of spareparts, etc. Not only from German reports, but for example France tested out quite a few after the war.

Also, I think those 'shocking' revelations about T-34 aren't really exclusive. I didn't watch the video, but for example IIRC it is well known that T-34 could not go more than couple hundred KM before 'breakdown' / repairs needed. Also, what is 'the' T-34. There have been quite some variants with improvements. 

Whatever the video said, It still was a good enough tank for what it needed to do. And given that there are plenty around I'm quite sure that almost all that is to be known about m was already known. It's not an uber tank and has its flaws. Still Germany thought it was good enough to develop the Panther on the same concept.  The Panther is widely regarded as one of the best / best medium tank designs from WW2.

This video seems a bit like warming up old soup, throwing in some fresh spice and selling the funky taste as 'something you never tasted before'. 

[chuckdyke]

36 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

as 'something you never tasted before'.

Well said! 

[Commanderski]

The book "The Tanks of Operation Barbarossa: Soviet versus German Armour on the Eastern Front by Boris Kavalerchik"  (  https://www.amazon.com/Tanks-Operation-Barbarossa-Soviet-Eastern/dp/1399014293/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1641566389&sr=8-1) is a very good read on the actual quality of the German and Soviet tanks. One aspect of the Soviet tanks that is very rarely mentioned is that quite a few of the people building them never even saw a bicycle before and now they were building tanks! 

The Soviet engineers continually reduced the amount of parts that went into the T-34 so they wouldn't be that complicated to build.  It's been a while since i read it and should read it again but I remember thinking that the T-34 quality wise was a piece of junk compared to the Germans but as Stalin reportedly has said "Quantity has a quality of it's own."

[Erwin]

5 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

it's not the tanks themselves that win or lose wars; it's resources, production, logistics, strategical decisions, etc.

+1

1 hour ago, Commanderski said:

the T-34 quality wise was a piece of junk compared to the Germans but as Stalin reportedly has said "Quantity has a quality of it's own."

We all love that statement.  What was interesting in the video is that he pointed out that the "quantity" also requires a much larger quantity of logistics.  He makes the point that once one adds up the cost of all the extra support required for that "quantity" as well as the cost of replacing crews since something like 85% were KIA along with their tanks, that cheap tank made in quantity becomes a poor quality tank that is expensive.  

Am not expert enuff to evaluate the claims made in the video.  But, what was memorable:

Due to the crappy gear system in the war-production models the T-34 actually had a speed of about 30Km/hour - slower than the PzIV and much slower than all the other MBT's in WW2.

The T-34 was only capable of firing 2 rounds/min.

The interior was so claustrophobic that crews were exhausted when they reached combat.

The hardened steel was so brittle that it often shattered when struck by AP.

The T-34 was actually very unreliable and not rugged.  Most would break down after 50 Km.

The T-34 myth arose largely after the war when production quality was much improved.  

 

It would be interesting to have each of the points evaluated by someone who knows about this stuff.

[danfrodo]

There's lots of good assessments of T34s out there, but for all the negative features it did something that none of the british tanks were doing in 1941 -- causing serious trouble for the germans (despite all the things wrong with it) -- note that the panther was not designed based on matilda, it was based on T34.  It was the best thing (w KV1) the russians had and as it improved over time it was more and more a factor on the battlefield.  Those of us here, I think, mostly already know the T34 negatives.

But some of the claims, as Erwin notes above, are ludicrous.  They all break down after 50km??  Then how did they drive the Germans back over 100km at a time, over & over & over?  I bet a lot of them broke down in 1941, but I also bet that number decreased significantly over time.  So this might be cherry picking the data from 1941 and extrapolating that forward in time.  Heck, in 1941 there was a serious shortage of soviet 76mm ammo which very significantly reduced T34/KV1 effectiveness, probably as much as anything else. 

We know the poor crew ergonomics & lack of commander were an issue -- this reduced efficiency but it didn't render the crew catatonic.  And top speed is often less important than mobility, and the wide tracks did have better mobility than the germans.  And it was waaaaaay faster than the matildas.

The steel quality was often poor -- yet we know this same armor was very resilient against the main german gun of 1941 -- the 37mm.  And pretty good against the 50mm.  Yeah, hit it with a high velocity 75mm and it's in trouble, but those were non-existent in 1941 and still a minority in 1942.

And 2 rounds per minute??  Does that sound correct to anyone?  That sounds more like SU122 or SU152 firing rate.

Anyway, whether the video is over-hyped or not it's always fun to see tank discussions

 

[Bulletpoint]

4 hours ago, Lethaface said:

Well it is quite well known and documented that Panther / Tiger / King Tiger etc had reliability issues, from hasted development, lack of spareparts, etc. Not only from German reports, but for example France tested out quite a few after the war.

I'm not saying they didn't have reliability issues. Just saying most (all?) WW2 tanks had issues of some kind - some more than others.

[BeondTheGrave]

3 hours ago, Commanderski said:

One aspect of the Soviet tanks that is very rarely mentioned is that quite a few of the people building them never even saw a bicycle before and now they were building tanks! 

Probably because they were kids!

Soviet industry, never of great quality in peacetime, set some absolutely abysmal standards for wartime production. They drafted so many men into uniform that many factory workers were women, whod never done factory work before, children, the elderly. In many cities food rations were used as a tool to enforce job attendance. If you didn't go to work (and this would include those who couldn't work due to age, illness, or injury) you would either get severely reduced rations or nothing at all. Even if you did work, you only got an individual's allotment which meant workers with dependents struggled to feed many mouths with small portions. And thats before you even get to genuine shortages thanks to diverted war materials. I've read accounts of people working without shoes, half naked, in factories exposed to open air, etc. Workplace accidents and deaths were extremely common, and people were 'fired' for even slight workplace infractions, tardiness, or absenteeism. Being fired at its best meant you'd lose your ration wages. At worst (or best, by another light) it meant arrest and a trip to the Gulag where you would be put back to work, this time as a prisoner! In 1941 the population of the Gulag system was ~2mil people, almost all men. By 1944 it was just under a million, except the majority of that population (for the only time in the USSR's history, by the way) were women, the men had all moved to military service positions and penal detachments. Where did they come from? Predominantly from work violations of one sort or another. Oh and the mortality rate in the war years was north of 20%.

So when it comes to any piece of WWII Soviet equipment, if it wasnt built in the US odds are it was probably built in the USSR by a half starved, half naked, shoeless woman who had been a peasant prior to the war and who was trying do dodge both crippling injuries by wild machinery and the floor boss who would send them to the Gulag for any old thing. For the T-34, it may or may not have been good on paper. Ultimately we can say it was 'good enough' because it did the job it was asked to do. But individual specimens, crew experiences, and even broader statistics will always weight against the T-34 just because of the absolutely abysmal conditions in which they were made. Maybe your T-34 would have been made by someone who knew what they were doing, in which case congrats! You wont the lottery. Or maybe you could take comfort in knowing your blood wouldnt be the first spilled inside your metal deathtrap. 

But hey, it sure beats walking. 

[Lethaface]

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

I'm not saying they didn't have reliability issues. Just saying most (all?) WW2 tanks had issues of some kind - some more than others.

Every (motorized) vehicle has a reliability factor. My 2006 volkswagen so far is doing rather fine on that front. The mix of heavy and hastily developed WW2 German tanks and the lack of standardization / multitude of models didn't help on the reliability factor.

From another perspective: German tanks deep in Russia were very far from there homebase on extended supply lines. T-34s could roll out the factory directly on the frontline ;-). A bit exaggerated, but the strategic context does matter. So reliability and field-repair capability was more important for German tanks compared to Russian tanks, at least when the fighting was going on inside Russia.

Also, German industry and war production wasn't on the same scale as US. So if anyone standardization could have helped Germany a lot, probably more than the USA forces. If Germany had only built PzIV long 75 since '41 with standardized parts they probably could have fielded a lot more (operable) tanks. 

So Sherman tanks also broke down, but since it wasn't as hastily developed and more standardized reliability was better/less of an issue. But yes every vehicle has reliability issues, some more than others.

Edited January 7, 2022 by Lethaface

[Vanir Ausf B]

1 hour ago, danfrodo said:

 They all break down after 50km??  Then how did they drive the Germans back over 100km at a time, over & over & over?  I bet a lot of them broke down in 1941, but I also bet that number decreased significantly over time.  So this might be cherry picking the data from 1941 and extrapolating that forward in time.

+1

I haven't watched the video but it does sound like it makes overly broad generalizations.

--------

Another key ingredient in the rejuvenation of the Soviet tank fleet was the improvement in quality control. Through 1943 output quantity had remained the emphasis; quality control was weak, as mentioned in the previous chapter. The Nizhni-Tagil design bureau had been pressing the GABTU to allow them to impose greater uniformity on the several plants manufacturing the T-34/85 and to put more emphasis on quality control at the subcontracting plants. This began to pay off in 1944. The policy of testing new T-34 tanks on a test track in 1943 found that only a small fraction could run the minimum requirement of 300 kilometers before breaking down. By early 1944 this dismal record had been overcome and T-34 reliability finally reached acceptable levels. During February 1944 tests 79 percent of tanks reached 300 kilometers, and of the test batches 33 percent reached 1,000 kilometers. This became immediately apparent to the tank troops. The deputy commander of the 1st Guards Tank Army, P. G. Dyner, commented that tanks in 1943 would reach only 75 percent of their guaranteed life span in engine hours and mileage, but in 1944 they reached 150 percent.

-- Steven Zaloga, Armored Champion

Edited January 7, 2022 by Vanir Ausf B

[Erwin]

3 hours ago, danfrodo said:

They all break down after 50km??  Then how did they drive the Germans back over 100km at a time, over & over & over?  I bet a lot of them broke down in 1941, but I also bet that number decreased significantly over time.  So this might be cherry picking the data from 1941 and extrapolating that forward in time.  Heck, in 1941 there was a serious shortage of soviet 76mm ammo which very significantly reduced T34/KV1 effectiveness, probably as much as anything else. 

The main claim made in the video is that all our stats about T-34's come from post WW2 manufactured tanks.  The video is claiming that the tanks produced during WW2 - especially early war - were very poor in almost every aspect.  He quotes some data that most broke down within 50Km.

[danfrodo]

Thanks Erwin, interesting stat, though it still sounds very suspicious.

[Centurian52]

What blasphemy! Don't you know that the T-34 was made of pure stalanium and invented the concept of angles!

[Erwin]

35 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

invented the concept of angles!

LOL  The video also shows many older tanks that had sloped armour to show that others had thought of it before the T-34 but presumably had different ideas.  The video points out that sloped armour, heat-treated armour and other steel quality and production issues need to be considered.

It really is an amusing and fun video with some very provocative premises.  I recommend the commitment of 50 odd minutes to watch it.  

[Centurian52]

11 minutes ago, Erwin said:

It really is an amusing and fun video with some very provocative premises.  I recommend the commitment of 50 odd minutes to watch it.  

I watched it, I was just poking fun at the common talking points and memes surrounding the T-34. I really enjoyed the video.

[chuckdyke]

4 hours ago, Lethaface said:

My 2006 volkswagen so far is doing rather fine on that front.

Air-cooled engines don't do well in Australia. Spent 3 days involuntarily camping trip because the engine just couldn't cope. They did better in Russia I understand.