|
Posts:
3,450
Registered:
11/16/04
|
|
(1 of 42)
Jul 2, 2009 7:00 AM
|
I'm just finishing up T-34 In Action, a collection of interviews with Russian soldiers that had served in T-34's. If you are looking for hard data on the tank there is only a little but as far as getting a good sense of the performance of the tank it is not a bad source.
A couple of impressions and reoccurring messages. The armor of the T-34 did offer protection to its crew at the outset of the war, good protection. Once the Germans started using anything above 50mm anti-tank guns the T-34 was sunk. The hull offered far better protection than the turret which, according to one veteran, would not stop ANY high velocity round shot at it...even small caliber AA rounds. Stated by more than one vet was that the turret of a Russian tank, due to metal compostion, was far more prone to spalling and fragmentation than their lend lease British tanks.
All the vets talked of the T-34 burning. The notion that it didn't burn much was contradicted time and again in this book; fuel fires, not ammo.
The difficulties in driving the T-34/76 were mentioned again and again as well. Apparently the transmission on these tanks was so bad that the driver had to receive help from the radio operator to shift. Apparently the optics in these tanks were horrible as well, bad gunsights, etc. I believe for reasons of both visibility and ventilation it was common practice to keep hatches ajar when in action.
I find it hard to believe that anyone would see this tank as superior to our Shermans. I'd be curious to see the numbers of T-34/85's used in the war as many of these vets interviewed spoke as if they saw few of them. they were still fighting in T-34/76's (or their fourth or fifith one) by war's end.
Note: An interesting practice the Soviets used was to send their crews to the factories to build tanks before serving in them. Not a bad idea...but most of the crewmen did feel more practice time in the tank would have helped tremendously.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,192
From:
NY
Registered:
2/26/04
|
|
(2 of 42)
Jul 2, 2009 9:15 AM
|
JBark, does the book cover field maintenance, recovery ops, major repairs, upgrades, etc.?
I'm curious about those subjects as I suspect that the Red Army was deficient in those both by necessity/circumstance and by doctrinal design. My understanding of the T34 was that it wasn't expected to last beyond 6 months anyway due to combat attrition, thus its simplicity and crude manufacture.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,450
Registered:
11/16/04
|
|
(3 of 42)
Jul 2, 2009 1:11 PM
|
> JBark, does the book cover field maintenance,
> recovery ops, major repairs, upgrades, etc.?
> I'm curious about those subjects as I suspect that
> the Red Army was deficient in those both by
> necessity/circumstance and by doctrinal design. My
> understanding of the T34 was that it wasn't expected
> to last beyond 6 months anyway due to combat
> attrition, thus its simplicity and crude manufacture.
The descriptions of breakdowns and out of action by fire indicates that they did pretty well by recovery. A couple of the tankers said the only tanks not recovered were those that burned. Some stories included the tankers resuming combat in a tank after damage from armor piercing fire. My conclusion would be that they did all right in repair/recovery.
Lasting six months? I should think they could with engine/tranny replacement, if the tank lasted that long. I know the book only describes the experiences of a dozen or so guys but the rate at which they describe the T-34's being destroyed I don't think many lasted that long.
It is a shame that the chances of us reading any good hard data on these battles are pretty slim. For the years foloowing the war if a veteran wanted to tell his story I'm sure the political machine there would make sure it "sounded" right. I've read that the Soviets feared we would learn just how badly thaey had suffered during the war, how close they came to capitulation. Shame, undoubtedly the lions share of the war was fought in the east and our ability to learn about it is severely hampered.
|
|
|
Posts:
5,015
From:
Seattle Area
Registered:
5/6/03
|
|
(4 of 42)
Jul 2, 2009 1:47 PM
|
"Note: An interesting practice the Soviets used was to send their crews to the factories to build tanks before serving in them. Not a bad idea...but most of the crewmen did feel more practice time in the tank would have helped tremendously. "
Perhaps it might have been a better idea to send a few veteran soldiers back to work in the factory?
|
|
|
Posts:
2,610
Registered:
7/24/06
|
|
(5 of 42)
Jul 2, 2009 3:54 PM
|
|
one critical factor in designing the tank was the lowest common denominator in intelligence. most recruits had no idea on how to run mechanical equipment and the second is the soviets were lacking in some precision equipment. the T-34 was good because of its all around performance, especially in bad terrain. The t-34 could move in mud and snow that would bring German and Western tanks to a halt.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,450
Registered:
11/16/04
|
|
(6 of 42)
Jul 2, 2009 5:28 PM
|
> "Note: An interesting practice the Soviets used
> was to send their crews to the factories to build
> tanks before serving in them. Not a bad idea...but
> most of the crewmen did feel more practice time in
> the tank would have helped tremendously. "
>
> Perhaps it might have been a better idea to send a
> few veteran soldiers back to work in the factory?
I'm not sure what you are trying to suggest here. The veteran tankers (soldiers?) were already familiar with the tanks, they had already done their stint in the factories and had spent time with the machine. Why refamiliarize them with the tank? Why not give them leave instead?
|
|
|
Posts:
3,450
Registered:
11/16/04
|
|
(7 of 42)
Jul 2, 2009 7:01 PM
|
> one critical factor in designing the tank was the
> lowest common denominator in intelligence.
It is important to remember that this tank was designed before the war at a time when the Soviets had a well developed armor program, unlike some other stupid western countries that couldn't see the writing on the wall or listen to their bright officers. the Soviets had numerous armor schools in full operation before the war and continued to put their tankmen through a good training program before putting them into combat. Of the tankmen sharing their experiences in the book none offered a story of being rushed in to tanks with no training.
most
> recruits had no idea on how to run mechanical
> equipment
I've heard this said about the Germans, not the Soviets. As war progressed I'm sure their were recruits that were inexperienced but they might have ended up in the infantry as well. If you have a source that says differently please share it.
and the second is the soviets were lacking
> in some precision equipment.
Considering the developement of their tank program pre war I'm not sure this is true. I think the design of their tanks was always with expediency of production in mind, as with the Sherman.
|
|
|
Posts:
323
From:
U.S.A. Ohio
Registered:
11/23/01
|
|
(8 of 42)
Jul 3, 2009 4:56 AM
|
"JBARK - I'd be curious to see the numbers of T-34/85's used in the war as many of these vets interviewed spoke as if they saw few of them. they were still fighting in T-34/76's (or their fourth or fifth one) by war's end. "
By comparison, the majority of U.S. M4 Sherman tanks produced were the older models with the 75 mm gun not the 76mm armed models. Approximately 33,000 of the Sherman tanks were armed with the 75mm gun versus approximatley 11,000 with the 76mm gun. ( plus another 4,700 with 105 mm gun)
|
|
|
Posts:
2,610
Registered:
7/24/06
|
|
(9 of 42)
Jul 3, 2009 2:37 PM
|
|
it was not until the 30's that the average citizen in the Soviet Union had access to mechanical equipment, like cars or tractors. In contrast American soldiers were very use to dealing with cars or tractors. My source is the book I have read about the industrialization of the SU. When the SU began their rapid industrialization they had a severe shortage of trained personal in running machinery and lots of accidents happened.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,450
Registered:
11/16/04
|
|
(10 of 42)
Jul 3, 2009 7:07 PM
|
> it was not until the 30's that the average citizen in
> the Soviet Union had access to mechanical equipment,
> like cars or tractors. In contrast American soldiers
> were very use to dealing with cars or tractors. My
> source is the book I have read about the
> industrialization of the SU. When the SU began their
> rapid industrialization they had a severe shortage of
> trained personal in running machinery and lots of
> accidents happened.
I understand what you are saying and I both agree and disagree with your conclusion. You said the T-34 was made the way it was because of the intelligence of the user, I don't agree. Germany had a severe shortage of recruits that had any experience with anything motorized...cars, trucks, tractors, but they made tanks that were far more complex than the Soviets and western allies. They did not have a highly developed industry set up for mass production.
I think the T-34 was made simple because simple works for wartime production, simple works when you need to produce to replace your losses. Complex tanks are great when you are at peace and you have lots of time for working out bugs and developing systems, i.e., Challengers and Abrams. Shermans and T-34's are what you produce when you understand that the war will be won by producing 50,000 tanks.
|
|
|
Posts:
87
From:
NJ
Registered:
5/6/08
|
|
(11 of 42)
Jul 3, 2009 8:31 PM
|
> I understand what you are saying and I both agree and
> disagree with your conclusion. You said the T-34 was
> made the way it was because of the intelligence of
> the user, I don't agree. Germany had a severe
> shortage of recruits that had any experience with
> anything motorized...cars, trucks, tractors, but they
> made tanks that were far more complex than the
> Soviets and western allies. They did not have a
> highly developed industry set up for mass
> production.
>
> I think the T-34 was made simple because simple works
> for wartime production, simple works when you need to
> produce to replace your losses. Complex tanks are
> great when you are at peace and you have lots of time
> for working out bugs and developing systems, i.e.,
> Challengers and Abrams. Shermans and T-34's are what
> you produce when you understand that the war will be
> won by producing 50,000 tanks.
I would have to agree with you on this. Simplicity was a characteristic of much of the Russian weaponry not because of education but due to the quantities of weapons required. Yes, many Russian recruits did not have the mechanical experience of the Americans but as the war went on everyone faced the same diminishing numbers of skilled personnel. Building large quantities of T-34's provided a decent weapon without the delays of re-tooling or building new factories for another model. No different than the Sherman or the decison to keep producing P-40's and F4F's when better planes were available. The US built more B-25's not because they were a better bombing platform than a B-26 Marauder but because they were half the cost, faster and easier to build and required less skill as a pilot to handle.
|
|
|
Posts:
215
From:
london
Registered:
11/26/07
|
|
(12 of 42)
Jul 5, 2009 4:13 PM
|
The T34 was without doubt the biggest single reason for Hitler's demise.
It was certainly no match on a one to one battle with a tiger, but was any tank? certainly not the British or American models, 121 a Tiger was in a class of it's own.
However, The Tigers and Panthers were complex, difficult to maintain and never available in sufficient numbers, The Shermans, Grant's and and British models were all petrol driven, hence the nickname of 'Tommy cookers' given to them by the Germans.
No, the T34 was crude, simple diesel powered and magnificent, At their peak, Russia was producing 400 a week! a number Hitler could only dream of.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,829
From:
Melbourne, Australia.
Registered:
10/3/02
|
|
(13 of 42)
Jul 5, 2009 4:51 PM
|
Fred,
"The T34 was without doubt the biggest single reason for Hitler's demise."
I though the many examples of Hitler's stupidity had something to do with it, not one single weapon.
John.
|
|
|
Posts:
262
From:
Arizona
Registered:
10/18/07
|
|
(14 of 42)
Jul 5, 2009 10:57 PM
|
It looks like the fuel myth has resurfaced again. Most models of the Sherman and the German tanks used petrol. The "Tommy Cookers" or "Ronsons" applied to the Sherman but NOT due to the type of fuel. Burning petrol was secondary to the issue. It was the Sherman's sponson stored ammo that caused the fires, which was resolved with wet stowage. The Soviets even noted that their T-34 burned more often than their German opponent's or their own petrol driven tanks.
The T-34 was no more magnificent than a club--both were crude and cheap. There were many reasons for the Nazi defeat but the T-34 was not high on the list.
|
|
|
Posts:
203
From:
Pound Va
Registered:
11/15/08
|
|
(15 of 42)
Jul 6, 2009 4:52 AM
|
|
When the fuel tank or fuel line is hit by a high velocity AT or tank shell it doesn't matter if it's gas or diesel, it's gonna burn, and once ignited, almost impossible to put out..
|
|
|
|
|
