T-34

Just saw a great video about the T-34: YouTube - Top Ten Tanks- # 1: The T-34

Was it REALLY that good to be called, the number one tank of all time?

 

I don't think that list is taking into account amor, firepower, mobility, etc. as much as historical significance. The T-34 takes the top spot there probably because of his role in WWII.

 

Historical significance is important. T-34 came out a on the winning side, against the best world had to offer at that time. Also the length of combat that machine went through is important( 4+ years). Did you also know it was also made by Subhumans.
.

 

Absolutely. Like any machine, tanks are designed and built to be USED. How well they do the job they are built for is the acid test compared to other machines of their type. And the T-34 did its job very, very well. It may have been solely this tank that saved Russia from defeat in 1941.

I saw the show you are talking about and alot of other first-class tank designs made the list, the M1 abrams, German tiger, etc. The show did not discriminate by year of introduction or the wars they were used in, they just mashed everything ever made together and then selected "10 best" according to the writers. As i recall the newer, contemporary French LeClerc tank is in the top 10 of the TV show and im sure its an excellent design. However it has seen very little combat and possibly never taken on another tank in anger at all.

The criteria the show used was based on a bunch of reasons: protection, range, gun, "fear factor" etc. I cant remember them all but the T-34 certainly deserves the #1 spot over all the others.

The T-34 had plenty of things wrong with it and 1 panther or tiger was usually the equal of at least 4 or 5 T-34s (and often the Germans fought on the eastern front with tank odds far worse than this and still won the battle that day). But this tank was perfect for the conditions it was fighting in. The T-34 had good protection with sloped armor (which nobody had thought to do with a tank before) that not only helped alot of anti tank projectiles simply ricochet off, but also increased the effective thickness of the armor (take a 3" thick piece of wood, and tilt it about 45 or 30 degrees then measure a horizontal line through it - how thick is your 3" piece of wood now?)

It also had a good gun and was later upgunned to become the T-34/85 (85 mm gun). It used a diesel engine compared to the gasoline powered tiger and mark IV (which often turned into a death trap for their crews because of fuel choice.) Diesel is not only easier to refine (it is a step or two less in the refining process than it takes to make gasoline) it also has a much higher flash point, making it safer to store and handle than gasoline.

Like i said the T-34 had lots of things wrong with it. Start with most of them not having a radio. Thats right, no way to communicate with anybody except maybe by signal flags (which were often used in battle). Usually only one tank out of 4 or 5 had a radio and that was the unit commanders tank, he got the orders and then the other tanks just followed him. Thus tank for tank, they were much less effective than German tanks, since every German tank had a radio.
Even worse, the turret floor did not rotate with the turret. This meant that when the gunner traversed the turret (early models had only hand traverse and no power assist!) the commander and gunner had to shift in their seats along with the turret. Pretty awkward when you've got a bunch of Germanski shooting at you.

What is more, most of the tank gun rounds carried on board the T-34 were stowed under the turret floor. So to get to the rounds, the gunner and commander had to take off the floorboards, pull the shells out, and replace the floorboards. Anybody want to try doing that in the middle of a tank battle?
(Source: Kursk by Robin Cook).

Despite all that, the T-34 is the tank that saved Russia. They were less effective than most of the German medium and heavy tanks but there were a whole lot more of them, and ultimately thats what counted. Production figures:
German:
Mark IV: over 8,000
Panther: About 5,000
Tiger 1: 1350
Tiger 2: 485

Russian (T-34 only - not counting JS1 or JS2, KV1 tank or others)
T-34 and T-34/85: 80,000.

 

Excuse you? How about you tell that to Sloniksp, I'm sure he would love to hear it (sarcasim btw).....If you are trying to be sarcastic keep in mind that it doesn't show up well on paper.

 

Actually the list takes many things into account, and it includes firepower, armor, mobility etc. It also includes time in service, "fear factor" i.e. surprise of its existance (T-34 scores high here), ease of production, high here too. The T-34 is also the single tank in the list which had high ranks in actual combat time, and why it beat out a number of other tanks. The Abrams and the new British and German tanks as well.

I thought the show was quite fair in its evaluation criteria, and it made sense as portrayed. I too would put the T-34 at the top of the list, of the tanks they picked to be there. Those newer vehicles haven't seen combat as long and as successfully to prove themselves, those older and contemporary are also "not it's equal" or master.

 

Thanks mate but I believe Oleg was being sarcastic... He is Russian afterall.

 

I’m sorry. I did not mean to offend anybody, but being one of them I was hoping it is OK for me to say that.

 

Oh yea sorry well I had no idea you were Russian, the sarcasm didn't show.

 

I also think credit should be given not only to quantity of T-34 produced, but under which conditions they were made.

Many factories such as Kharkov were evacuated in very short time with all of the skilled workers and some of their families. They were moved vast distances and production began on new locations under open sky in many cases.

Some of the factories (Leningrad, Stalingrad) could not be evacuated 100% and production continued even under siege conditions. In Stalingrad the factory was under German fire and producing tanks that were going directly to the front. There was no time even to finish a paint job.

It was also used around the world well after WW2.

North Koreans had a large number of T-34
French Foreign Legion faced Cuban T-34 in Chad.
Egyptians used T-34 in their conflicts with Israel.
T-34 were used in Kosovo Conflict as decoys
Saddam used them for training in 1990’s
Taliban in Afghanistan had T-34

 

No problem!!!!

 

Only the Panzer Mark IV matched the T-34 in longevity, but then, generation for generation, the superiority of the T-34 cannot be denied. With the long 75mm gun and an extra 30mm of armor the Mark IV temporarily restored the technical superiority of German tanks. Once T-34-85 entered full production at May 1944, it was over for the Germans. One question for those more acquainted with the Red Army--at what point did the T-34-85 equipped more than half of the Russian tank fleet? I hardly see any photographs of T-34-76 after 1944.

 

Soviet tank brigades fought till the last tank was destroyed. And only after that they went at the rear for reinforcement. Most of T-34-76 were destroyed in attacks at first 9-10 months of 1944. That's the answer.

 

To say the truth, about 69 000 of all modifications before and during the War.
80 000 is the total amount of T-34-85, manufactured in 1944--1955.

 

How terrifying

T-34-76 served up to the end of the war, though in 1945 they were few. In 1944 the last 4000 machines were manufactured, and the production was stopped. The practical resource of T-34 never exceeded 350-400 hours, so they "died out" gradually.

 

You can call the T34 the "best of the war" or all time by arranging the criteria such that it is, but to me it was nothing more than a death trap. The single solitary and key reason it was so "successful" was the willingness of the Russians to sacrifice them (and the lives of their soldiers) by the thousands. Is it not the single most destroyed model of tank in the world? The callousness of the Soviet command/culture made the T34's reputation what it is today, not the technical merits of the tank. The Soviets could have done the same thing with the Sherman, Cromwell, Mk IV, etc. if they had them in the same numbers. The Soviet doctrinal conception of "mass" and how to use it in the offensive is what made the T34's reputation, it happended to be good enough to meet their doctrinal requirements and I would hardly call that "the best". If you've ever seen a T34/76 up close you would understand what crude really means.

 

I think the T-34 does deserve the top slot; yes, it might not have been the best tank around, but it was all around a pretty decent tank, it was cheap and it did the job. It's amazing how the Germans didn't catch on to the prospect of "quantity over quality" when it came to vehicles...if they had, then WWII would probably been a lot harder.

 

Just a note, it is important to remember that Germany understood that it could not out-produce the Allied nations in terms of manufacturing, and for that reason attempted to build tanks that might not have the numerical superiority on the battlefield, but would be able to take out more enemy tanks. If Germany was producing the Sherman as their main tank they would have probably around half as many Shermans as the Allies. With the tank specifications equal on both sides, anybody could see that Germany wouldn't stand a chance.

(oh and congrats on hitting 1000 )

 

The endless discussions about which was the best tank are almost silly. Each of the main tanks has it's strengths and weaknesses. A far better question would be whch tank had the most effect on the outcome of the war. In this category the T-34 is probably hands down the leader because of it's tank vs tank capabilities, and the fact that most of the armored activity took place in the east. It was good enough to get the job done under most circumstances, and was available in vast quantities which allowed them to compensate for it's weaknesses. Sure the germans had some outstanding tanks, but even an elephant can be driven off by enough flies. You cannot win a war fighting a much larger enemy if you have slightly better equipment unless that advantage is literally generations ahead of your enemy and available in the right place and time.

 

The Germans couldn't afford to produce a large number of tanks like the T34, they could barely provide enough fuel for the mechanization that they did have (same goes for more trucks and aircraft). They might have been able to produce a thousand more Panthers at the expense of not producing the Tiger II at all, but even that would have been better served as replacement tanks/parts and not new formations. New units need more than just tanks, the fuel requirement for a new division far outweighs its usefulness when compared to replenishing a veteran unit. So basically the Germans couldn't rationalize their tank production to be much more than it was when considering the strategic fuel constraint.