Info on T34 add-on armor

[Bigduke6]

Pamak,

Sure. Here's the tank's service service manual (this was for the driver/mechanic, as opposed to the whole crew, which is what I have been citing), and it lists the same checks and when you do them. 250 km., 500 km., 100 km., and hours too. One of the drivers' jobs was to count hours of operation, I assume he had a little book or something.

Anyway, the translation is accurate everwhere I checked.

Read it end-to-end and maybe You Too Can Become A Well-Paid And Highly-Respected Qualified T-34 Mechanic! (I tried but I kept falling asleep at the part about secondary fuel injectors, or something.)

http://www.gjames.com.au/chris/t34/service.html

At the end of the day the V2 was a pretty basic machine. It stands to reason (to me anyway) if you did the basic maintenance it would generally do what it was supposed to, which is run even if the conditions aren't lab-clean. But the engine clearly required lots of attention, nothing complicated true but time-consuming work by the driver and to a lesser extent the crew.

JK,

That description of cranking a T-34 was really funny, thanks.

[JasonC]

There were lend lease Shermans (minus turrets and armament) still being used in railway yards in southern Russia in the 1990s, as tractors to push freight cars around. Kept 'em running for 50 years. Saw an article about it several years ago, occasion was retirement of the last 2 they used. There is ordinary maintenance and then there is mechanical reliability, two different things.

[MikeyD]

I go away for Thanksgiving and look what happens to my little uparmored T34 post! Lots of new and interesting info, quys.

Comparing T34 to Sherman, I believe the Sherman's add-on bow armor which started showing up in '45 was also an attempt to defeat the 75mm Pak. Oftentimes you see pictures of extra armor plate covering the bow transmission bolts, making transmission overhaul pretty awkward. This is especially true of the single-piece steel plate that was being manufacured in liberated France and fitted to the more vulnerable cast-hull Shermans. I think I read somewhere that, like the T34, the combat life expectancy of a non-uparmored Sherman was considerably shorter than its transmission maintenace schedule so easy access to the transmission wasn't exactly a priority.

[pamak1970]

At the end of the day the V2 was a pretty basic machine. It stands to reason (to me anyway) if you did the basic maintenance it would generally do what it was supposed to, which is run even if the conditions aren't lab-clean. But the engine clearly required lots of attention, nothing complicated true but time-consuming work by the driver and to a lesser extent the crew.

I think that is the case with tanks in general.

I do not see up to now any evidence sugessting that T-34 required more maintenance man hours than other tanks.

Today many people consider the M1 Abrams to be the best MBT ,still the earlier model required 2,67 maintenance manhours per one operating hour and the figure for the new model is 0.85.

I do not have similar data for T-34 and other wwii tanks.

I do know however that according to cooper who had first hand experience with recovery of Sherman tanks , quote

"an armored force of 50 tanks moving 30-40 miles a day will have between 15-20 drop out during the day just for maintenance and repair."