Anyone know about the t-34?

I'd take the Panther of course.

 

If I said (heart ruling head) "Panther", it would have to be with a heap of caveats. Start with: The Allied bomber offensive, and the Allied land advance, had failed to eliminate supply of fuel and spares for all German land forces. Go on to consider that 75% of the territory the Reichsheer fought on, was hostile; by the time they fought on friendly territory, the war was already lost. More tanks were lost to infantry or aircraft, than to other tanks. So - remove those two historical facts from the hypothesis, and yes - I'd go with the Panther.

Klive

 

You have to take this both medium tanks business with a hefty pinch of salt, as the Panther weighed a lot more than the T-34. 45tons vs. 27tons. So it's obvious that for the same basic dimensions the Panther being heavier took on a bigger weapon and thicker armour.

We're clearly mixing apples with oranges.

There you go, there's more to it than the mythical featureless plain with the same number of tanks on each side jousting like medieval knights.

 

Maybe so Za but they still are both classed as medium tanks, I don't think it is mixing becasue you don't put a lareger more heavier apples with the watermelon just becasue of the size becasue it is still an apple.

Why are we using fruit to expain this

 

Look Tomcat, the Panther weighs almost double thatn the T-34. The JS-II is lighter than the Panther and yet it's called Heavy. Doesn't calling the Panther Medium sound like an anomaly?

 

Well I suppose I'd rather have a Heavy Watermelon if I was on the top of the Fruitbowl as opposed to a medium Grape although they can pack a punch if not watched

 

The two Tiger tanks in Saving Private Ryan were built on the chassis of T-34s.

As for the "heavy tank" question, I'll have to do more research, but I agree that the Panther should be called a heavy tank, considering that the Panther is as large as a King Tiger (even though it's not as heavy).

 

Well Za we could debate this for ever, but the facts are that the Panther is classed as a medium tank dispite the weight difference from the T-34 just like I expained with the apples example you cant say it isn't just cause it is larger, and as for the JS II all specifications I can find on it point to the fact that it is virtually the same weight or close to the panther, so does that mean that the JS II is a watermelon playing with apples, or that it is really an apple pretending to be a watermelon?

wow this fruit thing is confusing things a bit

 

Not that it matters anyway, but In a comparison, where most guns are broadly similar, and mobility so hard to quantify what other criteria for 'light', 'medium' & heavy can there be than weight/Armour?
A national difference in nomenclature doesn't make an AFV lighter, in comparative WW2 terms the Panther is 'a heavy'.

But if a Pz.IV & Panther together weigh about the same as a Tiger b, we may have to start talking vegetables... maybe a competition Pumpkin?


Unless you think Pumpkin's a fruit...

Cheers,
Adam.

 

Ok in terms of weight/armour it could be said that the panther is a heavy tank. However I don't think it really matters anyway the facts are, they did face each other whether they were light, medium, heavy or bloody Enormous it dosn't matter, which catagory they fit in. We could talk all day which classed as what and who's is bigger and who's is badder but as I said it dosn't matter, the Russians never worried about which class the panther should fall into, all they worried about was how to destroy the thing, and vice versa for the Germans.

But to you Von poop what you said before about the weight/armour, does that mean if my tank for eg. has only a 50mm main gun and a single coaxle main gun, but has a powerful engine and the armour of a tiger, does that class it in the tiger class just because it weigh's about the same or in the medium because of it's main gun and the fact that it really cant face anything(with exceptions) other then other light tanks and tanks with relatively low armour since after all this gun will be useless against a t-34. Since if you put this 'made up' tank into a medium tank battle it will most probably be destroyed, becasue it dosn't have the ability's of a medium tank.

these are the charcteristisc that I feel each class should have

Light:
1. little armour, medium gun(50mm) and fast
eg, stuart, pz I, II, T-70 and so on

medium
1.medium armour, good gun(75mm) and mediium speed
eg, T-34, panther(dispite the weight difference), sherman

Heavy
1.Excellent armour, great gun(88) but slow because of the weight involved in all these.
Tiger, JS II, Pershing.

You wouldn't put the panther in the heavy class becasue the JS II cannon would blow the turrnet off, even if the shell didn't explode, thats why I think that panther is a medium tank and not a heavy.

 

But if the Tiger has a maximum armour thickness of c.100mm, & the Panther a maximum of c.110mm, doesn't that make the Tiger a medium by comparison? Particularly if the Panther II had made it online with it's 75/L100 or 88/L71.
Or even in the same category, given they have broadly similar speeds to represent relative mobility.
.
..
..
I'll get my coat...

(need to go and get the ingredients for a Panzer salad.)

Cheers,
Adam.

 

Doesn't matter.

 

What do you mean? Your answer and post? Or something else? Care to elaborate?

 

Was the T-34 that reliable? i have read that engine had a short running life and needed to be replaced after only several 100's hrs of use.

 

From this thread. http://www.ww2f.com/weapons-wwii/21...-kv-workers-aberdeen-testing-grounds-u-s.html

"Evaluation of tanks T-34 and KV by workers of the Aberdeen testing grounds of the U.S."
(from the Tanker's forum, posted by Misha Veksler)

(Footnote 1 -- reads, "The full name of the document is, "An Evaluation of the T-34 and KV tanks by workers of the Aberdeen Testing Grounds of the U.S., submitted by firms, officers and members of military commissions responsible for testing tanks." The tanks were given to the U.S. by the Soviets at the end of 1942 for familiarization.")
The condition of the tanks

The medium tank T-34, after driving 343 km, became disabled and could not be fixed. The reason: owing to the extremely poor air cleaner on the diesel, a large quantity of dirt got into the engine and a breakdown occurred, as a result of which the pistons and cylinders were damaged to such a degree that they were impossible to fix. The tank was withdrawn from tests and was to be shelled by the KV and its "Z/ 3" (?) -- by the cannon of the M-10 tank. After this it would be sent to Aberdeen, where it would be analyzed and kept as an exhibit.

The heavy tank KV is still functional. Tests are continuing, although it has many mechanical defects.
The silhouette/configuration of the tanks

Everyone, without exception, approves of the shape of the hull of our tanks. The T-34's is particularly good. All are of the opinion that the shape of the T-34's hull is better than that of any American tank. The KV's is worse than on any current American tank.
Armor

A chemical analysis of the armour showed that on both tanks the armour plating has a shallow surface tempering, whereas the main mass of the armoured plating is made of soft steel.

In this regard, the Americans consider that, by changing the technology used to temper the armoured plating, it would be possible to significantly reduce its thickness while preserving its protective capacities. As a result the weight of the tank could be decreased by 8-10%, with all the resulting benefits (an increase in speed, reduction in ground pressure, etc.)
Hull

The main deficiency is the permeability to water of the lower hull during water crossings, as well as the upper hull during rain. In heavy rain lots of water flows through chinks/ cracks, which leads to the disabling of the electrical equipment and even the ammunition.

The Americans liked how the ammunition is stowed.
Turret

Its main weakness is that it is very tight. The Americans could not understand how our tankers could fit inside during winter, when they wear sheepskin jackets. The electrical mechanism for turning the turret is very bad. The motor is weak, heavily overloaded and sparks horribly, as a result of which the device regulating the speed of the rotation burns out, and the teeth of the cogwheels break into pieces. They recommend redoing it as a hydraulic or simply manual system.

KV-1 heavy tank at Bovington Museum (England) (photo by [...])
Armament

The gun of the T-34 is very good. It is simple, dependable and easy to service. Its weakness is that the initial speed of the shell is significantly less than that of the American "Z/ 3" (3200 feet versus 5700 feet per second).
Aiming/Back-sight

The general opinion: the best in the world. Incomparable with any existing (well-known here) tanks or any under development.
Track

The Americans very much like the idea of steel tracks. But they believe that until they receive the results of the comparative performance of steel vs. rubber tracks on American tanks in Tunis and other active fronts, there is no basis for changing from the American solution of rubber bushings and pads.

The deficiencies in our tracks from their viewpoint results from the lightness of their construction. They can easily be damaged by small calibre shells and mortar bombs. The pins are extremely poorly tempered and made of poor steel. As a result they quickly wear and the track often breaks. The idea of having loose track pins that are held in place by a cam welded to the side of the hull, at first was greatly liked by the Americans. But when in use under certain operating conditions, the pins would become bent which often resulted in the track rupturing. The Americans consider that if the armour is reduced in thickness the resultant weight saving can be used to make the tracks heavier and more reliable.
Suspension

On the T-34, it is poor. Suspension of the Christie type was tested long ago by the Americans, and unconditionally rejected. On our tanks, as a result of the poor steel on the springs, it very quickly (unclear word) and as a result clearance is noticeably reduced. On the KV the suspension is very good.
Motor

The diesel is good and light. The idea of using diesel engines on tanks is shared in full by American specialists and military personnel. Unfortunately, diesel engines produced in U.S. factories are used by the navy and therefore the army is deprived of the possibility of installing diesels in its tanks.

The deficiency of our diesels is the criminally poor air cleaners on the T-34. The Americans consider that only a saboteur could have constructed such a device. They also don't understand why in our manuals it is called oil-bath. Their tests in a laboratory showed that:

- the air cleaner doesn't clean at all the air which is drawn into the motor;
- its capacity does not allow for the flow of the necessary quantity of air, even when the motor is idling. As a result, the motor does not achieve its full capacity. Dirt getting into the cylinders leads them to quickly wear out, compression drops, and the engine loses even more power. In addition, the filter was manufactured, from a mechanical point of view, extremely primitively: in places the spot-welding of the electric welding has burned through the metal, leading to leakage of oil etc. On the KV the filter is better manufactured, but it does not secure the flow in sufficient quantity of normal cleaned air. On both motors the starters are poor, being weak and of unreliable construction.
Transmission

Without doubt, poor. An interesting thing happened. Those working on the transmission of the KV were struck that it was very much like those transmissions on which they had worked 12-15 years ago. The firm was questioned. The firm sent the blueprints of their transmission type A-23. To everyone's surprise, the blueprints of our transmission turned out to be a copy of those sent (?). The Americans were surprised, not that we were copying their design, but that we were copying a design that they had rejected 15-20 years ago. The Americans consider that, from the point of view of the designer, installing such a transmission in the tank would create an inhuman harshness for the driver (hard to work). On the T-34 the transmission is also very poor. When it was being operated, the cogs completely fell to pieces (on all the cogwheels). A chemical analysis of the cogs on the cogwheels showed that their thermal treatment is very poor and does not in any way meet American standards for such mechanisms.
Rolling friction clutches

Without doubt, poor. In America, they rejected the installation of friction clutches, even on tractors (never mind tanks), several years ago. In addition to the fallaciousness of the very principle, our friction clutches are extremely carelessly machined from low-quality steel, which quickly causes wear and tear, accelerates the penetration of dirt into the drum and in no way ensures reliable functioning.
General comments

From the American point of view, our tanks are slow. Both our tanks can climb an incline better than any American tank. The welding of the armour plating is extremely crude and careless. The radio sets in laboratory tests turned out to be not bad. However, because of poor shielding and poor protection, after installation in the tanks the sets did not manage to establish normal communications at distances greater than 10 miles. The compactness of the radio sets and their intelligent placement in the tanks was pleasing. The machining of equipment components and parts was, with few exceptions, very poor. In particular the Americans were troubled by the disgraceful design and extremely poor work on the drive/ gear/ transmission links/ blocks (?) on the T-34. After much torment they made new ones and replaced ours. All the tanks' mechanisms demand very frequent adjustments/ fine-tuning.
Conclusions, suggestions

1. On both tanks, quickly replace the air cleaners with models with greater capacity capable of actually cleaning the air.

2. The technology for tempering the armour plating should be changed. This would increase the protectiveness of the armour, either by using an equivalent thickness or, by reducing the thickness, lowering the weight and, accordingly, the use of metal.

3. Make the tracks thicker.

4. Replace the existing transmission of outdated design with the American "Final Drive," which would significantly increase the tanks' manoeuvrability.

5. Abandon the use of friction clutches.

6. Simplify the construction of small components, increase their reliability and decrease to the maximum extent possible the need to constantly make adjustments.

7. Comparing American and Russian tanks, it is clear that driving Russian tanks is much harder. A virtuosity is demanded of Russian drivers in changing gear on the move, special experience in using friction clutches, great experience as a mechanic, and the ability to keep tanks in working condition (adjustments and repairs of components, which are constantly becoming disabled). This greatly complicates the training of tankers and drivers.

8. Judging by samples, Russians when producing tanks pay little attention to careful machining or the finishing and technology of small parts and components, which leads to the loss of the advantage what would otherwise accrue from what on the whole are well designed tanks.

9. Despite the advantages of the use of diesel, the good contours of the tanks, thick armour, good and reliable armaments, the successful design of the tracks etc., Russian tanks are significantly inferior to American tanks in their simplicity of driving, manoeuvrability, the strength of firing [reference to speed of shell], speed, the reliability of mechanical construction and the ease of keeping them running.

Signed -- The head of the 2nd Department of the Main Intelligence Department of the Red Army, General Major of Tank Armies, Khlopo... (end missing: Khlopov?)


http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/4635/

 

there's little doubt, the T-34 the best all-around tank of the war. Excluding the Pzkfw IV, which was evenly matched with the T-34:
Production figures: German Tiger 1, 1100; Panther, 4,000, Tiger 2, less than 500.
Russian T-34's built: over 80,000.