Are history books wrong?

[Carl Deppen]

Follow up, what the Soviets thought of the T34.

http://www.battlefield.ru/t34_76_2.html

In the summer of 40, the Soviets themselves thought the Panzer III was a better tank. Read the article above and be surprised. As always, thansk to Valera and his wonderful site.

Rune

Yes, I've read through your linked site before and on another page at the same site:

http://www.battlefield.ru/t34_76_3.html

It states what the German's thought of the T-34:

"On 26 May 1942 the General der Schnellen Truppen beim Oberkommando des Heeres distributed the following "Instructions to units on the Eastern Front for Combating the Russian T-34 Tank with our Panzers:"

"Combating the T-34 with the 5 cm KwK tank gun is possible only at short ranges from the flank or rear"....."the 5 cm KwK can only be expected to penetrate the flanks of the T34 at short range"

This, however, is not what I was seeing in the Kalinin Raid scenario.

Great site, by the way.

Carl

[BeauCoupDinkyDau]

Originally posted by gunnergoz:

Read your history, fellas. When you do, you'll take note of the extraordinary numbers of T-34's that were KO'd on the road to victory.

Yeah, I remember reading somewhere how German TH teams would hide out and smoke dozens of these things with 'fausts as they "tank wave rushed" the German positions.

And these were late war T-34/85s!

[ October 18, 2002, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: Vader's Jester ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Slapdragon:

This is why they got to the gates of Moscow -- they destroyed ten thousand or more tanks along the way.

This statement, while true, is misleading in the context of the paragraph from which it is taken. It suggests that the ten thousand tanks destroyed were all T-34s, which—as I'm sure Slapdragon already knows—is not the case. The vast majority of Soviet tanks destroyed during Barbarossa were obsolete BTs and light tanks. There were only a few hundred T-34s in service at the beginning of the war, although many more came later.

Michael

[Bluecoat]

Woah!

I think we do nee to zoom the map out a bit - as Gunerdogz explains...

Soviet victiory came for a combination of factors - and not because the T-34 was tottally Uber.

If you look, for example, at the Allie tnkas in france in 1940 - they OUTNUMBERED and several types OUTCLASSED the German tanks. E.g. better armour and guns - the thing tanks are suppsed to be strong in - that would make us call them a tank.

The only reason the Germans could win and did win inf France was by the way they employed their weapons. So it matters how tought your tank is but how you use it.

As has been said - the Russians went for huge concentrated attacks....anyone read about Operation Goodwood in Normandy??? Very similar I would argue, to Soviet ideas.

Massive pressure to break the enemy - an economic war - not the quality of the tank. All the Panthers and tigers could do were delay the inevitable german defeat - despite the 3:1 kill ratio sustained by the Germans on the eastern front (superior tactics in defense).

CMBB - the First Revisionist Computer game??

[onodoken]

Gentlemen:

Weapons and Tactics go hand in hand, diesel engines, transmissions, sloping armor etc. all have their points and counter-points but the fact is that Germans possessed two very important things during the opening campaign in 1941 and later.

1) German tanks were equipped with radios.

2) German Panzer units operated in unison and NOT in support of infantry units.

The radio communication allowed for better target acquisition, faster employment of offensive and defensive methods and strategies, thus increasing their tactical effectiveness. Panzers trained to work as an independent arm and thus were able to achieve highly proficient tactics (German crews were better trained and had more experience i.e. France and Poland).

So it is not just armor thickness and muzzle velocity, the placement of shots and the ability of a tank crew to communicate and utilize winning tactics were just as important.

Cheers

[ October 18, 2002, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: onodoken ]

[CRSutton]

The real strength of the T-34 does not show to well in a small tactical level game like this. That is it's simplicity, reliable engine, good mobility, and so on. Although not as good mechanically as a sherman, the T34 was a good tank for it't time. That plus the fact that the Russians were able to produce a ****load of them.

I venture to say that most tank losses were operational rather than combat. That is, they may have been lost in combat but the cause was a bog, broken track, transmission break, rather than due to a hit. Russian T-34s were better because they did not break and bog as much as German tanks.

[Renaud]

Originally posted by Carl Deppen:

Keep in mind that it's quite possible that General der Schnellen Truppen beim Oberkommando des Heeres was talking out of his ass in an effort to give SOME kind of instructions. The T34 rear and upper side hull is just as tough as the front. The actual weaknesses are in the front center turrent, lower hull sides, or from shots that greatly reduce the effective slope from it's 0-angle-of-incidence 60 degree rating (like medium range high angle impacts).

Ren

[rune]

Carl,

But that is a different model of tank then the 1940 and had more armour. Don't forget there are multiple types of t34/76s, and the one in that scenario are the early models the Soviets themselves said were inferior.

Rune