Sherman Posted February 7, 2001 Share Posted February 7, 2001 heres some info on the T-34 Info From Armord Fighting Vehicles by Philip Trewhitt The T-34 was an advaced tank for its era, produced in vast numbers to an excellent design, a design borne from the best of foreign ideas. Mass prodution begain in 1940 and its powerful gun and thick armour came as a nasty surprise to the Germans in 1941-42. Finesse was sacrificed for speed of prodution, but thir rough and ready appearance belied thire effectivness. The T-34 was used in every role from recovery vehical to personnel carrier and reconnaissance, and distinguished itself at every turn forcing the Germans back onto the defencive. It is no exggeration to say that the T-34 was the most decisive tank of World warII. The upgunned T-34/85 introduced in 1944 is still in use with many armies today. Well thats it what do you think? also I found this in the same book about it armour 18-60mm thick armament one 76.2mm gun with 2 7.62mm machine guns had a top speed of 34 miles per hour(55 km/h) ------------------ CMC Game Master CMC/WWII board [This message has been edited by Sherman (edited 02-07-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mikey D Posted February 7, 2001 Share Posted February 7, 2001 T34-85. used in Suez, Vietnam, Angola, Cuba, Hungarian uprising, Lebanon, Syria, Korea, etc, etc, etc. Imagine the 'modern day' CM mods we could do once we get hold of that beastie! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael emrys Posted February 7, 2001 Share Posted February 7, 2001 Originally posted by Sherman: Well thats it what do you think? I think that if the Soviets had had a well-thought-out doctrine and troops well trained in it in 1941, they would have beaten the Germans a year or two sooner. As it was, the Germans caught them in the middle of a transition while they were reorganising on the basis of lessons learned during the Winter War and watching the Germans apply Blitzkrieg to their neighbors. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted February 7, 2001 Share Posted February 7, 2001 I think that author is vastly over stating the capabilities and the effect of the T-34. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherman Posted February 7, 2001 Author Share Posted February 7, 2001 how so Jeff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattias Posted February 7, 2001 Share Posted February 7, 2001 I think everyone should head over to http://history.vif2.ru/ and read what they have to say about the T-34. That way we might get a balanced picture of it before actually thinking about what it will be like in CM2. M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherman Posted February 7, 2001 Author Share Posted February 7, 2001 your link is dead Mattias Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Eyes Posted February 7, 2001 Share Posted February 7, 2001 Originally posted by Michael emrys: I think that if the Soviets had had a well-thought-out doctrine and troops well trained in it in 1941, they would have beaten the Germans a year or two sooner... Stalin's paranoia of the military and the subsequent purges crippled the Russian army leadership. This led to the disastrous retreats in 1941. ------------------ It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattias Posted February 7, 2001 Share Posted February 7, 2001 I'm pretty sure the site is just down temporary Sherman. Try again later as it is a real eye opener as far as the T-34 goes. M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace Posted February 7, 2001 Share Posted February 7, 2001 The introduction of the T34/76 on the battlefield in 1941 led to the German development of the Panther (in fact, one of the early Panther prototypes looked very similar to the T34). Unfortunately, mishandling of the T34 (and the KV1) and poor command and control by the soviets often meant that the Germans could counter this AFV, even with inferior equipment, during the early war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted February 7, 2001 Share Posted February 7, 2001 Originally posted by Sherman: how so Jeff? Well, lets examine his claims: The T-34 was an advaced tank for its era, produced in vast numbers to an excellent design, a design borne from the best of foreign ideas. The design was ground breaking in thought, very poor in execution. Early T-34s were notoriously difficult to operate, to the extent that it impacted their combat worthiness. The commander could not see forward when his hatch was open. The driver needed a sledge to engage the transmission. The tank lacked a radio. The tank lacked a dedicated gunner. These were all very serious defincies, not an "excellent" design. Mass prodution begain in 1940 and its powerful gun and thick armour came as a nasty surprise to the Germans in 1941-42. This is certainly true. Finesse was sacrificed for speed of prodution, but thir rough and ready appearance belied thire effectivness. The lack of "finesse" made them less useful vehicles, if by finesse he means things like adequate optics, radios, and three-man turrets. The T-34 was used in every role from recovery vehical to personnel carrier and reconnaissance, and distinguished itself at every turn forcing the Germans back onto the defencive. This is just plain ridiculous. The Germans were forced back on the defensive through a variety of different circumstances and events. The T-34 was far and away from decisive, much less the primary cause. It is no exggeration to say that the T-34 was the most decisive tank of World warII. Hmmm. This point is debateable, but I could see the argument made. It might have been the "most" decisisive, but since no single weapon was all that decisive (with maybe the exception of the A=bomb), his point is moot. The upgunned T-34/85 introduced in 1944 is still in use with many armies today. So what? There are still Shermans in service today. There is still artillery from WW1 in use today. This is a meaningless datum. The Soviets had tens of thousands of them and sold them to everyone and anyone. The early T-34 was a revolutionary vehicle crippled by some serious deficiencies. It had a nice gun, great armor, and great mobility for its time. However, the lack of a three-man turret and a radio killed much of its potential. The Soviets missed the point of the battle tank, and concentrated on the wrong things. A lesson the Germans drove home in 1941 and 1942. But they learned quickly, and fixed the problems. The T-34 was a very good weapon, it just wasn't the decisive weapon the author makes it out to be. Despite the supposedly vastly superior T-34, the Germans managed to reach the outskirts of Moscow anyway. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
busboy Posted February 7, 2001 Share Posted February 7, 2001 The Panther was in development before the T-34 was stumbled across. I'm sure the Panther took some lessons from the T-34, but the Mk V was not a rip-off or evolution. I agree that the T-34 was a fine tank, but Russia's stupidity combined with an indifference for human life led to horrible losses. I just can't stand Commie Russia... ------------------ busboy CO, 99th Dragons A Warbirds Squadron 'We will heat you up' "It is well that war is so terrible, else we would grow too fond of it." -Robert E. Lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted February 7, 2001 Share Posted February 7, 2001 Originally posted by Mace: The introduction of the T34/76 on the battlefield in 1941 led to the German development of the Panther (in fact, one of the early Panther prototypes looked very similar to the T34). I think one of the German proposals was to basically just copy the thing. Unfortunately, mishandling of the T34 (and the KV1) and poor command and control by the soviets often meant that the Germans could counter this AFV, even with inferior equipment, during the early war. The lack of command and control (read: three-man turrets and radios) made the German equipment superior during the early war. I'll take a tank with inferior firepower, inferior protection, and inferior mobility over one with inferior command and inferior control. Jeff Heidman [This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 02-07-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skipper Posted February 8, 2001 Share Posted February 8, 2001 Apparently, it was extreme smartness and concern for human lives that led France to failure a year before the Barbarossa, despite all the help from other allies. It was also extreme smartness and a concern for human lives that led Germany to the ultimate defeat. I also take it that there were some superior human beings (race, maybe?) from some other country that could do better on behalf of soviet leaders (err... without 20:20 hindsight, please). I finally understand, that you can name at least one country that did not make major blunders during the WWII (no references to Switzerland, please). At 1941 the theory of deep offensiove operation was well developed, but the defensive answer to that (defending directions, rather than fronts) was basically yet unknown and untested. If USSR would strike first, quite possibly there would be a mirror scenario (well, not so miraculous as wehrmacht results perhaps, but still the same in principle). Speaking of the tanks. There are a dozen variants of T-34s - so while the above mentioned design bugs existed in earlier version, they were sorted out in later versions. German panzers of 1941 (namely, Pz-III and Pz-IV) had their share of bugs, some of them more serious (such as being prone to mechanical failures when used in certain reallife conditions). Basically, as a workhorse of deep operation, they were all less mobile than T-34/BT combo. Needless to mention, there was no such thing as a "heavy tank" in german arsenals then. The only really big one for soviet tanks was the lack of radio. That was by no means a design fault (hey, they all had slots to put it in), but an industrial capacity constraint. You cant have everything at once 15 years after you start with totally devastated country. Radios at the time were very expensive, and pre-war USSR production was limited. With hindsight, they probably should have commited more resources to radio production. However, in other WWII scenarios that would not play such a big part. To the soviet armor 1941 combat record. Luftwaffe ruled the sky. That meant heavy interdiction and excellent recon for ground troops and arty. Nearly every account of german attack on a hastily prepared position begins with arrival of recce plane, and then an arty barrage or Stukas, or both. And the first german thing most frontline troops saw was a german plane. For many it was also the last. Majority of russian tanks lost in the first few months were not killed in fighting, but either bombed out or ditched by crews [after runnig out of fuel and/or ammo and/or broken and/or when the crew was not really willing to die for the motherland]. When they could get it to the battlefield, they did funny things. > I'll take a tank with inferior firepower, > inferior protection, and inferior mobility > over one with inferior command and > inferior control. I do not think this sentiment was exactly shared by panzer drivers at the time. Obviously, there was little or no inherent C&C fault in the design itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skipper Posted February 8, 2001 Share Posted February 8, 2001 By the way, that history.vif2.ru is a good link indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaka Posted February 8, 2001 Share Posted February 8, 2001 Originally posted by busboy: ...but Russia's stupidity combined with an indifference for human life led to horrible losses. I just can't stand Commie Russia... Russia stupidity !!!... Russian stupidity won the war and defeated 8/10 or more of the German Army. Luckily for me, I know that you are a stupid American and that moste of the Americans are not like you... or I might have jumped in a stupid conclusion about American stupidity To claim that 100000000 people are stupid is really something, you must be a genius Indifference for human life !!! You shure are mad... I see you had never been in a positon where there is nathing to lose and everything to gain. The 12000000 russinas that died during the war, many of them were civilians killed by Nazis in detention camps. Do you knon that more civilian rusians died then civilian Jews in 2nd WW ?, (some were Russian and Jews at same time). I can asure you that those people loved the live as you do... It seams to me that your major malfuction is that you don't make the disticion between Russian people and Russian leaders, mainly the infamous treacherous/butcher IS... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skipper Posted February 8, 2001 Share Posted February 8, 2001 Speaking of IS. Although I'm comin across as "satalinist" - pun intended - I am not. Give me an example of WWII country leader who you can surely say is smarter than Uncle Joe. Oh, he was not russian, by the way, he was georgian. Megrel, iirc. There is a big distinction to make. When you call soviet troops russians, you forget about other USSR nationalities. That's not fair - they comprised 25-30% of RKKA I'd say, not like in Germany, where the vast majority were germans. Hence, soviet is the correct name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Commissar Posted February 8, 2001 Share Posted February 8, 2001 Silly, silly foreigners! Stupidity? Disregard for life? Why, my misinformed comrad, you obviously have no understanding of "Asian" philosophy towards life. Now, before anyone jumps in, Russia is more European, but the Asian outlook on life carried over on its people. To understand Russia during WW2 - excuse me, the USSR since the other countries were in it as well - you have only to take a look back at history. Russia has ALWAYS been like this - and its not stupidity. Picture it as a chess game: if you need to sacrifice all your pawns to Check Mate an opponent, would you do it? Of course you would. Thats what makes Asian countries so "wasteful" - and so terrible to fight against. Each soldier is a part of a whole, and they arent as afraid of getting their men killed as much. U.S. learned this in Vietnam. Russia knew this, and still uses it (look at Chechnia *sigh*) but has lost the fanatacism that has always been the hallmark of its typically under-trained military. Speaking solely from my opinion, its to due with a little thing called religion. Russians have always been nearly fanatic when dealing with religion. Thats why they fought to the death even when not under threat of death by NKVD troops. Its been like that forever (versus the French at Borodino, for one). Now that Russia is not as religious as it used to be (dont ask me why, Im not religious myself), that driving force is gone from its soldiers. Now their just conscripts - not fanatical, "Die for the Motherland!" conscripts. Oh, and dealing with world tyrants. Did you notice how many of the tyrants to rule major countries during this millinia were born and raised in other countries? Napolean was a Croatian. Hitler was Austrian. Stalin, Georgian. Just something to think about... Cheers! ------------------ "...Every position, every meter of Soviet soil must be defended to the last drop of blood..." - Segment from Order 227 "Not a step back" [This message has been edited by The Commissar (edited 02-07-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andrew Hedges Posted February 8, 2001 Share Posted February 8, 2001 Originally posted by busboy: The Panther was in development before the T-34 was stumbled across. I'm sure the Panther took some lessons from the T-34, but the Mk V was not a rip-off or evolution. Umm, it's true that there were vague designs for the tank that later became the Panther before 1941, but the designs were very preliminary and didn't include, for example, sloped armor. The sloped armor idea came directly from the Panther. Rip off or evolution? Napolean was a Corsican, not a Croatian. [This message has been edited by Andrew Hedges (edited 02-07-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattias Posted February 8, 2001 Share Posted February 8, 2001 It will take quite some time to loosen up the multitude if misconceptions plaguing the view of the fighting in the east. A good thing CM2 is a few months away because it is clear that some historical revisionism (a positive mean if used for positive goals) is in order. If anyone has it at hand I suggest reading a book like the Battle diary of the German 198th Infantry division. It tells in detail the story of a hard fought advance in southern Russian, blissfully free from the prevailing stereotypes. Russian infantry, tanks and artillery demanded and received respect! Only by having one of the strongest forces ever assembled in terms of sheer troop quality and skill were the Germans able to go as far as they did. M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherman Posted February 8, 2001 Author Share Posted February 8, 2001 bump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts