Read here for some info.

Panzerkampfwagen T-34(r)

__________________
Man of the Year 1942

Regards, Richard

I think he meant the Bob Semple tank.

I suppose the Germans would be happy to use anything that ran, especially if it had any fuel in it!

__________________

Hi there, just sheltering from a thing under a bridge on another forum.(Hi Za Rodinu.... hohum.)
The chap who's interested in German T34's (DB)might want to have a look at http://www.diving.ee/articles/art035.html
there's some excellent video of a German-Marked T34 being dragged out of a swamp sixty years later and started up!
(it's all in the four links above the picture of the bulldozer.)
Cheers,
Adam.

__________________
It's only the Internet.

thats pretty neat quite interesting, the tank looked to be in good condition for sitting on the bottom of a lake for 60 years, man would i love to be the guys who pulled that gem out...

__________________
"Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning." -Winston Churchill

Holy Cow! Look who's here!

Hey Poop, tell the other guys to forget that troll infested place and come here where we can talk unhindered by a$$orifices!

__________________

Feeling shifty chap!
It's only one big troll.
Feel I should say something to contribute to the topic now...
errr...
ummmm...
to repeat myself from 'another' place my current 't34 nugget' is:
When the Americans investigated the T34 they believed that 8-10% of the weight could have been saved by more efficient use of face-hardening, they also discovered that the transmission parts were direct copies of a design they had rejected circa 15 years before...
that'll do for now
cheers,
Adam

__________________
It's only the Internet.

That's amazing.

__________________

May I say that, even if I know the T-34 was not that good, because its design and production was too rough (nothing nearly as practical as American technology nor as too damn sophisticated as German technology), I doubt even more about the Panther... I think it's a much more over-rated and worse tank than the T-34.

The T-34 was too rough, with very bad quality in the details, but it did the job. The Panther was too sophisticated and it also lacked quality, specially in the late stages of the war. Its optics, gun and hull design were ahead of its time, sure, but this tank was far more unrealiable than the Tigers and not even near as fearful nor effective.

Besides, the Panther is, after all, a heavy tank, not a medium tank like the Sherman or the T-34: it weighed almost 20 tons more! I think it's fairer to compare it with the Tiger, which, after all, had a great deal of mobility (it could move through mud far better than the Sherman), good speed, low profile, very thick armour, unbeatable gun, good optics, very good crew acomodation (the Rolls Royce of tanks!) and an almost impecable combat record.

Or am I nuts?

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

I don't think so! (as far as the Panther comment that is )
I always thought the Panther was an odd inclusion in any ww2 'medium' classification.
And yes, far too sophisticated for the immediate needs and available manufacturing capability, an over-the-top copy of the T34 with too many bells and whistles.
Didn't it start life with a manual traverse?, someone took their eye off the ball.
Still a lovely old thing to look at though. [img]graemlins/panzer.gif[/img] =

[ 24. April 2006, 04:49 AM: Message edited by: Von Poop ]

__________________
It's only the Internet.

The classification thing works both ways.
They had to draw the line somewhere.
The "King" Tiger is a medium compaired to the Maus or E-100.
The Pershing was at first a heavy, but re-classified to medium.
The IS-2/3, probably should be a medium, but they jusy barely crossed the line. Too big of a gun. (I presume?)
Panther side armor was 45mm....not good, and discovered as its weak spot (compaired to Tigers, who had 80mm). Panthers were regularly destroyed from the flank by all allies.
Panthers speed and mobility made it perform as a medium.
Armor, mobility, firepower...the big three.
Panthers gun was too small for heavy (though good).
Panthers speed was too fast for heavy.
Panthers mobility was too good for heavy.
Panthers armor was short of that of heavy tank (as was Pershing).
Apples & Oranges & Bananas(Italian tanks) The big three (light medium, heavy), all fruit, all different.
This does not mean there weren't Grapes (Japanese tanks), and Watermelons (Maus/E-100/KV-2).
I like the M4A3E2 "Jumbo" Sherman. Considered a heavy, but in reality, just a Pregnant Sherman...medium tank. Six inches of armor all the way round of the turret though, seven at the mantlet. Most models had the same 75mm gun, and even slower speed (not much), and much worse ground pressure (even with "Flutes" on the same size(width) track).

__________________
There's one way to find out if a man is honest-ask him. If he says "Yes", you know he's a crook. Groucho Marx

I love the fruit comparisons!
I shall now forever think of Japanese tanks as Grapes.
Cheers for that.

__________________
It's only the Internet.

SkunkW, I'm still trying to work out exactly what you meant in your post

__________________

Za
Basicaly...size, shape, texture, color, and amount of seeds inside. They could also be raw, ripe, or rotten.
Oh, you meant tanks. well
Tank You too.

__________________
There's one way to find out if a man is honest-ask him. If he says "Yes", you know he's a crook. Groucho Marx

I'd still take the T-34, it's not going to end up stuck in the mud or wallowing around the countryside like a big fat cow. My second point is I most likely wouldn't be facing the Tiger head on, I'd be working with other tanks and infantry to sneak around the back of the Tiger and put a few rounds into its engine and let it burn.

I don't even see how you can compare a T-34 to a Tiger, they aren't in the same league. You can sit in your Tiger though, just grow eyes in the back of your head.

Alright then say the russians didn't produce so many t-34's,(that rules out quantity) and you put the same number of t-34 against the same number of panthers (since they are both medium tanks). Which side would you perfer to be on?

__________________
They shall grow not old as we that are left grow old Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We shall remember them. Lest We Forget

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

__________________
They shall grow not old as we that are left grow old Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We shall remember them. Lest We Forget