|
Posts:
1,192
From:
NY
Registered:
2/26/04
|
|
(16 of 42)
Jul 6, 2009 4:56 AM
|
"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."
Agreed....
Too many novice military history enthusiasts fall for the BS "best of" shows or debates and miss the bigger (or deeper) picture. As far as the T34 is concerned you have to ask a few additional questions to really get a sense of the tank what impact it really had on the battlefield. In spite of its great armor layout and decent gun it had a ton of deficiencies. The bigger picture is that it was part of the combined arms team, it certainly wasn't the whole team. The T34 was great off road, but can anyone name a great Soviet fuel truck, ammunition carrier, wireless radio set, etc.???
Another not so obvious issue is that you can actually train tankers faster than you can mechanics. Building tanks also had priority of manufacture and supply over building recovery vehicles, tool sets, replacement parts, etc.
So in summary, an individual T34 tank might seem like a great vehicle to some, but there is more than meets eye to fielding and sustaining a "war winner". In my opinion the T34 was a piece of junk, but its what they had so they made it work.
The T34 was the most produced tank of the war and was also the single most destroyed model, no surprise there all things considered.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,450
Registered:
11/16/04
|
|
(17 of 42)
Jul 6, 2009 5:40 AM
|
My current read is Panzer Battles of the Waffen SS by Will Fey. He describes battles with the T-34 and so far they don't seem to offer much in the way of problems for the Germans. At the portion of the book I'm in now he is driving a PzIII and dispatching T-34's with the "long 50." The only time they seem to put the Germans back is when they possessed overwhelming numbers and position.
The T-34 was not as superb as some would want to believe. It, like many tanks of the war, was good enough to get a job done. It did not have any of the overwhelming characteristics of the big cat tanks but the big cat tanks did not have the T-34's reliability or numbers. Unfortunately for the Germans wars are not won by special weapons but by numbers.
|
|
|
Posts:
125
Registered:
10/6/08
|
|
(18 of 42)
Jul 6, 2009 7:37 AM
|
Just a little note of caution, Will Fey is a bit of an exaggerator. His famous 14 kills on Shermans of the 23rd Hussars in a single engagement has been debunked on a number of forums, I will post the link and it is best to read through the entire thread (only a full thread page, not too long) since he clears up a few things in following posts.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=147849&start=0
Just something to keep in mind.
That said I do think some of you are underestimating the T-34 to a degree. I certainly don't subscribe to the view it was the best tank of WWII. Certainly we have to be somewhat careful wholly accepting the testimony of Russians veterans given the flaws that inherently come from asking people things 50-60 years later. Many of our own veterans have a tendency to exaggerate the inferiority of the Sherman tank. Especially in regards to the comment about high velocity AAA rounds piercing the turret it should be remembered any crew in a buttoned down tank would have a hell of a time knowing what was hitting them in the first place.
Still the T-34 was good enough to send the Germans into a frenzy, and the design matured over time to become a potent medium tank. We should not necessarily equate the flaws the veterans talk about in their tanks to the actual design of the tank rather than flaws resulting from factory based defects. While I do think the tank tends to get praised more than it is worth I would not underestimate it either. Underestimation was what led to the German defeat in the first place.
|
|
|
Posts:
262
From:
Arizona
Registered:
10/18/07
|
|
(19 of 42)
Jul 6, 2009 1:11 PM
|
|
Actually, the veterans in the book stated their T34 was better than any other tank even after they commented on the flaws. Some of the criticism here comes from outside of T34 IN ACTION.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,450
Registered:
11/16/04
|
|
(20 of 42)
Jul 6, 2009 3:58 PM
|
> Just a little note of caution, Will Fey is a bit of
> an exaggerator. His famous 14 kills on Shermans of
> the 23rd Hussars in a single engagement has been
> debunked on a number of forums, I will post the link
> and it is best to read through the entire thread
> (only a full thread page, not too long) since he
> clears up a few things in following posts.
>
> http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=1478
> 49&start=0
>
> Just something to keep in mind.
Appreciate it. I take all accounts by veterans with a grain of salt, depending on the topic discussed. I don't think his inaccuracy in the fighting in the west offers much toward this discussion.
>
> That said I do think some of you are underestimating
> the T-34 to a degree. I certainly don't subscribe to
> the view it was the best tank of WWII. Certainly we
> have to be somewhat careful wholly accepting the
> testimony of Russians veterans given the flaws that
> inherently come from asking people things 50-60 years
> later.
Agreed, as I say I take all veteran's stories with a grain of salt, to a degree. There are things you will remember until the day you die, there are things which are more easily recalled, there are parts of stories you have told over and over again which you will undoubtedly remember.
Many of our own veterans have a tendency to
> exaggerate the inferiority of the Sherman tank.
It is easy to pick out those that are worth listening to and those that you know you can disregard.
> Especially in regards to the comment about high
> velocity AAA rounds piercing the turret it should be
> remembered any crew in a buttoned down tank would
> have a hell of a time knowing what was hitting them
> in the first place.
I have to disagree here. Yes, a buttoned up tank hit by rounds from guns they never saw will not know what hit them. The Russian veterans to a man said the T-34 did not go into action buttoned up; the driver and commander both needed their hatches open to see for battle. Secondly, it is not uncommon to come upon a gun of known type and take rounds from it, or to hear the reports of the fire, the telltale automatic fire of an AAA gun.
We should not
> necessarily equate the flaws the veterans talk about
> in their tanks to the actual design of the tank
> rather than flaws resulting from factory based
> defects.
In evaluating the tanks in discussion, as we do here, how does this distinction make a difference?
|
|
|
Posts:
2,608
Registered:
7/24/06
|
|
(21 of 42)
Jul 6, 2009 4:56 PM
|
|
i also mean the men who handle the equipment, the tankers. Germany over enginered their equipment so that few tanks could be fixed in the field but their men had the education needed to handle the sophisticated equipment. The Soviets were masers of K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
Posts:
125
Registered:
10/6/08
|
|
(22 of 42)
Jul 6, 2009 6:41 PM
|
I have to disagree here. Yes, a buttoned up tank hit by rounds from guns they never saw will not know what hit them. The Russian veterans to a man said the T-34 did not go into action buttoned up; the driver and commander both needed their hatches open to see for battle. Secondly, it is not uncommon to come upon a gun of known type and take rounds from it, or to hear the reports of the fire, the telltale automatic fire of an AAA gun.
The problem is automatic AAA fire may have indeed been firing at that time or even at the tank, it doesn't mean that gun is what was causing spalling in the tank. Did he specify what type of AAA it was? I would be horribly shocked if 20mm shot could get through any part of the T-34, even with the possibility of shoddy armor quality. The only way I could see 20mm doing squad against a T-34 would be if the gun crew had a clip of Armor Piercing Composite Rigid ammo , a specialty ammo rationed out similar to US HVAP for the 76.2mm guns.
I am just saying the possibility should be left that while the 20mm was taking the tank under fire something else also fired at the tank. Certainly 20mm shot should not have been doing squat against the T-34s armor (APCR possibly spall only) barring gross armor flaws. I have read an exmaple of several Mark III's with 37mm guns surrounding a disabled T-34 and bombarding it was AP shot only to have the crew of the T-34 bail out because the noise was unbearable. I am just frankly surprised if 37mm shot was having trouble that 20mm AAA shot would do better.
In evaluating the tanks in discussion, as we do here, how does this distinction make a difference?
Factory defects rather than imperfections in the design means a lot in discussion, especially since I was referring (though failed to quote) Javaman's comment the T-34 was a piece of junk and Wicingas comment it was no better than a club. If any of their opinions is based off some of the more extreme examples listed above I think its folly to rate a design based off people who could quite possibly have been in sub par variants because of factory defects.
Factory defects can strike by random, the Panther tank is perhaps my favorite example. The Panther was a great design, but there was a bit of "Russion roulette" in being assigned one given the varying degrees of armor quality each one possessed depending on when they were built and where. The A series for example is generally recognized as overall being the single most flawed variant but even between variants the quality varied. Allied tests on the 2" thick side armor of Panther Gs found they could be cracked and blown open by medium caliber HE rounds including the Sherman tanks 75mm HE shell. Similarily the glacis plate of Panthers displayed varying degrees of quality, to being outright impenetrable to just about everything to being holed by 17 pdr shot at standard battle ranges.
The same can also be said of 17 pounder APDS ammo, which displayed varying degrees of accuracy, the initial batches being very inaccurate due to factory defects, but overall corrected by 1945 and afterwards just as accurate as APCBC shot.
So while I do believe factory defects and their predominance are important for judging a tank, to condemn an entire design because of a few rather extraordinary stories of susceptibility to weak guns is rather ludicrous. Did T-34s often fall victim to small caliber AAA? If so than condemn the tank but if its extreme examples I would refrain from doing so.
As for those who claim the tanks only strength was numbers, one should look at the soviet tank strength in 1941 and ask if numbers were all that mattered why the masses of BT-7s and T-26s didnt halt the whermarct in 1941. The t-34 was a competitive and effective design, boosted by superior numbers that allowed for replacement of combat losses during high tempo Soviet operations. The fact was it proved able to defeat most of the German tanks it faced, and for those with superior armor and gun, it had numbers to swamp with.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,450
Registered:
11/16/04
|
|
(23 of 42)
Jul 6, 2009 7:44 PM
|
> The problem is automatic AAA fire may have indeed
> been firing at that time or even at the tank, it
> doesn't mean that gun is what was causing spalling in
> the tank. Did he specify what type of AAA it was?.....
Yes, there may have been multiple guns firing...and there may not have been. We have the word of a war veteran and your speculation that he is wrong. I'll go with the experienced man on this against you guessing. No, the caliber was not specified, only that it was smaller caliber.
> Factory defects rather than imperfections in the
> design means a lot in discussion, especially since I
> was referring (though failed to quote) Javaman's
> comment the T-34 was a piece of junk and Wicingas
> comment it was no better than a club. If any of their
> opinions is based off some of the more extreme
> examples listed above I think its folly to rate a
> design based off people who could quite possibly have
> been in sub par variants because of factory defects.
Read your own words here; "...who could quite possibly have been..." In other words, you want to base a discussion on guessing and maybes. Let's not discuss what we know but what might have been, what happened in a few cases here might have happened there. Yes, there are cases of factories doing some bad work and they are worth note but bringing them in to a discussion without documentation, without the ability to decide if defect is germaine is pointless.
> Factory defects can strike by random,
My point, why discuss random if you don't know for certain whether it is a factor or not. If you can say tank #123 was built at Smith & Jones Tank Factory, who were known to produce inferior armor plate...then I support your desire to mention defect. I don't see that offered here.
> So while I do believe factory defects and their
> predominance are important for judging a tank, to
> condemn an entire design because of a few rather
> extraordinary stories of susceptibility to weak guns
> is rather ludicrous.
I think you have to judge the source and if you judge it sound I don't think it ludicrous at all.
> As for those who claim the tanks only strength was
> numbers,...
I trust this is not directed at me?
|
|
|
Posts:
1,803
Registered:
10/30/07
|
|
(24 of 42)
Jul 7, 2009 5:07 AM
|
> The problem is automatic AAA fire may have indeed
> been firing at that time or even at the tank, it
> doesn't mean that gun is what was causing spalling in
> the tank. Did he specify what type of AAA it was? I
> would be horribly shocked if 20mm shot could get
> through any part of the T-34, even with the
> possibility of shoddy armor quality.
First of all the round doesn't have to penetrate to cause spalling. Multiple hits can also result in penetrations where no single hit would, especially if the armor is over hard.
Let's see according to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34
The thinnest armor on a T-34 is 15mm going up to 20mm on later versions.
According to http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ATRart.htm
a late WWI 13mm German AT mg will penetrate up to 20mm
|
|
|
Posts:
125
Registered:
10/6/08
|
|
(25 of 42)
Jul 7, 2009 11:50 AM
|
Yes, there may have been multiple guns firing...and there may not have been. We have the word of a war veteran and your speculation that he is wrong. I'll go with the experienced man on this against you guessing. No, the caliber was not specified, only that it was smaller caliber.
No you have the word of a veteran based on memories from 60 years ago against hard written data by the people who tested the guns before they went into production in the 30's and 40's. German tests of 20mm caliber weapons show it could only go through 20mms worth of armor, and that was at a range of 100 yards. I am pretty sure the Germans knew what their guns could do more so than a veteran on the other side. A T-34 should have had 4cm thick side armor at the very least (earlier 1941 variant) and it was sloped. This is why they proved so difficult to destroy from all sides, and totally invulnerable to German 37mm pzgr. 39 ammunition.
Now I am not saying ti couldnt happen nor am I claiming that veterans all lie and you cant believe a word they say. But we have data to know what was probable and what wasn't. There is a youtube clip of P47 pilots claiming to bounce .50 cals off the road to KO tigers by having the rounds strike their bottom armor because it was thinner. German data CLEARLY shows the bottom armor was as thick as the top armor and thus the pilots accounts cant be possible. And lets not forget the tendency of so many allied soldiers who claimed they fought tigers when they were fighting Mark IVs, or tankers who claimed they were KOed by 88's when in fact it was far more often a 75mm gun.
So barring armor flaws and APCR shot the 20mm couldnt possibly have done squat to any armored part of a T-34. That is what German testing data combined with Russian data stating the armor thickness of their tanks show. When backed up by German accounts of 37mm shot bouncing harmlessly off the sides of T-34s at point blank I am inclined to agree a weaker smaller round would have no chance.
First of all the round doesn't have to penetrate to cause spalling. Multiple hits can also result in penetrations where no single hit would, especially if the armor is over hard.
lwd spall only occurs when a round has the power to penetrate roughly 90% of the armor. So 20mm APCR ammunition with its 40mm penetration at 100 yards would certainly have been able to produce spall at fairly close range. Its just APCR was pretty rare and not usually given to AAA weapons, rather to 2cm armed tanks (panzer 2's) and armor cars with 2cm guns.
Just using historical data it seems rather unlikely though certainly not impossible. My feeling is that given the fear of death most humans have its highly unlikely an AAA gunner would attempt to take on a tank himself and its quite possible AT assests were near the AAA gun, and perhaps the AAA gun was directing fire at the tank to cause it to button down as machine gunners often did on advancing tanks to allow their ATGs and tanks to engage the much more blinded tanks.
I think you have to judge the source and if you judge it sound I don't think it ludicrous at all.
I have no problem accepting sources if it is corroborated by other sources. Now I have not read this book, but if all the veterans talk about how hard it was to shift the gears and the lower quality of the gearbox's I will accept it. I know from elsewhere I have read T-34 gearboxes were in general poor quality, so I can accept that aspect as fact as other sources back that conclusion up. However I have read far more accounts of the T-34s strong armor standing up to early campaign German guns far more often than accounts of them being holed by 20mm shot.
Now if several veterans claim their tanks armor could be holed by small caliber AAA weapons I will reconsider, but given German data of their own guns, Russian data about what thickness they made their armor, and accounts of 37mm shot bouncing off the side armor of T-34s at close range, and am inclined to be skeptical of the veterans account and look for other possible explanations as to what could have occurred. Those include the possibility of the AAA firing at the T-34 in combination with other ATGs that had the power to cause armor flaking inside the tank. I don't totally discount the possibility 20mm could have done that, but I look for other possibilities based on my knowledge of what was possible.
|
|
|
Posts:
125
Registered:
10/6/08
|
|
(26 of 42)
Jul 7, 2009 11:55 AM
|
|
I replied to your post a bit above. In regards to the 15mm and 20mm parts of the T-34 you are looking at the floor and roof armor, not usually areas that can be targeted in battle.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,803
Registered:
10/30/07
|
|
(27 of 42)
Jul 7, 2009 12:44 PM
|
> T-34 should have had 4cm thick side armor at the very
> least (earlier 1941 variant) and it was sloped.
A source I found showed 45mm but not all of it was sloped and their are edge effects.
;
> So barring armor flaws and APCR shot the 20mm couldnt
> possibly have done squat to any armored part of a
> T-34.
Not quite. Like I said edge effects and multiple hits can resutl in penetrations in cases where armor is judged proof against the round.
> lwd spall only occurs when a round has the power to
> penetrate roughly 90% of the armor.
I would think that would be highly dependent on both the armor and round.
Looking at the table if an AA gun were causing them problems I would suspect 37mm or higher:
http://www.panzerworld.net/armourpenetration
> near the AAA gun, and perhaps the AAA gun was
> directing fire at the tank to cause it to button down
> as machine gunners often did on advancing tanks to
> allow their ATGs and tanks to engage the much more
> blinded tanks.
It would certainly make me happier if I were a Panzershreck gunner if the tank was buttoned up and looking for an AA gun. With a Panzerfaust I might be a bit nervous about the AA gun myself.
|
|
|
Posts:
125
Registered:
10/6/08
|
|
(28 of 42)
Jul 7, 2009 6:21 PM
|
No I would agree it would have to be 37mm AAA but depending on what year the incident occurred the gun may not have been in service.
Again its not impossible, but generally it dependent on certain circumstances being met for it to be a possibility (assuming we are talking about 20mm, 37mm seems more plausible) that I think its worth keeping an eye out for other possibilities, such as an AT gun engaging the tank shortly after the AAA gun did so.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,450
Registered:
11/16/04
|
|
(29 of 42)
Jul 7, 2009 8:17 PM
|
wokelly: "...A T-34 should have had 4cm thick side armor at the very least (earlier 1941 variant) and it was sloped..."
after reading my post which offers: "...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.
Now, if you can't read and clearly understand what I wrote why should I believe you understood anything else you've read?
You want to fixate on the 20mm round which we all know is not the only small caliber AA round. You want to ignore the fact that our own tests at Aberdeen on the T-34 the armor was found to be surface hardened only and soft underneath. You want to ignore the fact that in the heat of battle a soldier will fire the weapon he has without stopping to check on armor penetration tables to see if it will be effective. You want to ignore the fact that through the course of the war there are numerous cases of weapons being used for purposes other than their initial design.
I think you want to argue for the sake of arguing and showing how much data you can throw on the page, regardless of whether or not it is relative to the topic.
I think I would rather judge for myself what sources are believable and which are not. I appreciate your sharing the information on Fey, I will look more into that. The rest of what you argue does not seem to be substantive, but speculation for the sake of arguement.
|
|
|
Posts:
262
From:
Arizona
Registered:
10/18/07
|
|
(30 of 42)
Jul 7, 2009 11:58 PM
|
Wicingas comment it was no better than a club.
I didn't say that. I said it was no more magnificent than a club. T-34's were crude (or simple, if you prefer) machines. As with any crude weapon, if employed carefully or in sufficient nunbers, it could be quite effective. There were many flaws with the T-34 in both design and construction. The veterans in T34 IN ACTION mention only a few of these flaws which can be found in other sources.
That the T-34 was not sealed against moisture is well established. Thus, several of these veterans comment on the high value they placed upon tarps in order to keep the tank and themselves dry. The poor optics and visibility they speak of is borne out in other sources as are its mechanical problems, poor quality armor, etc.
On the idea of a light AA gun penetrating the T-34, it is possible and it would not even have to penetrate the armor. The Soviets put the turret so far forward that the turret ring was exposed to fire. This was a flaw that the Germans did their best to exploit (the T-34's armor design could actually richochet incoming shot into the ring). If an American Stuart's 37mm gun could froce a Tiger out of combat by penetrating through the turret ring, as occured in Tunisia, 20mm AA could do the same to a T-34.
|
|
|
|
|
