Thank you so much! I appreciate your input.
T-34
-
This is an extract from a Russian military history magazine.
Yes. Here’s an extract from the article which emphasizes you point. Referring to the T-34 at Aberdeen Proving Ground which broke down at 343 kilometers,
"there was nothing unusual about a tank breaking down after such a short period. At that time T-34 tanks were guaranteed not to break down for 1,000 kilometers, but in practice this number was unattainable. According to a report by the Scientific Institute for Armored Equipment (NIBT) to Ya. N. Fedorenko, the chief of the Red Army’s Auto-Armored Directorate, the average distance a T-34 traveled before requiring major overhaul (capital repairs) did not exceed 200 kilometers. The Aberdeen T-34 exceeded this.
In 1942 the quality of Soviet tanks had significantly fallen for many understandable reasons. These included the difficulty of reestablishing production by the evacuated factories at new locations, factories switching over to new production, the loss of many supply lines and sources of raw materials, a sharp drop in the average qualification of workers due to losses among experienced workers and the hiring of many new, inexperienced workers including women and teenagers. These new workers worked tirelessly and did everything they could for the front, but they were not qualified. Producing the most tanks possible was the priority, which was understandable since the heavy losses of the initial part of the year had to be made up. Therefore the requirement for quality was reduced, and the military accepted any tank that was built. As a result, in 1942 some 34’s could only go 30-35 kilometers before needing an overhaul.
To a certain degree this was justified because tanks, as a rule, did not survive until the expiration of its overhaul life, short as that was. The life of a tank on the front line was not long – on average 4-10 days (not counting time spent in transit by rail and being repaired), or from 1-3 attacks. In 1942 the average mileage before being put out of service due to combat was 66.7 kilometers, which was less than half the average mileage before needing an overhaul. The majority of tanks simply didn’t live long enough to break down.
The V-2 diesel engine which equipped T-34s and KV-1s was still suffering growing pains. At that time its designers were struggling to extend the diesel’s service life to 100 hours, but in reality it seldom lasted more than 60. The engine of the T-34 which was tested at Aberdeen broke down at 72.5 hours, of which 58.45 were under load and 14.05 were while idling. The KV’s diesel lasted 66.4 hours. One of the deficiencies of the B-2, besides a short guaranteed life, was an increased fuel consumption (12% above norm), and, especially, a completely unacceptable over-consumption of oil, which exceeded existing norms by 3-8 times! Therefore the range of a T-34 in 1942 was limited not by fuel, but by oil: according to the averages at that time from the technical department of the People’s Commissariat for Tank Production, a T-34 carried enough fuel for 200-220 kilometers, but oil for only 145. At the same time German and American tanks didn’t require any additional oil; it was simply changed every 2,000 kilometers.”
-
Below I have a list of heavy equipment produced by the Russians that is well known for mechanical reliability.
As you can see from the list it’s not hard to imagine the T-34 might break down a lot just like everything else the Russians have ever built without stealing the plans from someone else first.
Hmmm…
Cute…not accurate but cute.
Having faced Russian made stuff I can tell you it does work and works quite well.
The AK47 and the Makarov pistols are reliable in any conditions, any where and at any time. If the T-34’s broke down at Aberdeen its more likely the Americans had no idea what they were doing with them. Apparently enough of them worked on the battlefield.
Whom did the Russians steal the plans to the T-34? What Russian stuff have you seen break down? :wink:
I didn’t word my second sentence well at all. I was refering to heavy equipment. So you got me. You are correct about Soviet small arma being reliable. My AK is a fine close combat weapon. I just wouldn’t want to rely on it in wide open spaces against an enemy armed with Western long arms. As far as side arms I’ll keep my 1911 thank you. The Soviets did not steal the plans for the T-34 and it was unreliable. So were all their other tanks, planes, trucks, missles, etc. Unless they stole the plans for them. Even then they were not as reliable as the originals. What Soviet equipment have I seen broken down. Lot’s of vehicles. Including the T54-55 my buddies and I tried to take at the “Highway of Death”. What T-34 have you seen that was running so well?
-
I’m sorry the “Highway of Death” had destroyed equipment mostly, not much runs when its been blasted. Once on operations with the Egyptians I saw several of their T-34’s running around, they were using them as enemy forces. This was of course back in the 80’s but they were running then.
So you don’t like Russian heavy equipment, well I guess they had enough of it to route the Germans. And even though I spent most of the 80’s preparing to fight them, I wonder if they would have had enough to route us to?
-
I have enjoyed this Poll and the debate it has caused. Keep the great polls ideas Will.
-
I’ll readily admit I’m not educated enough on this particular tank to make a statement about them I’m comfortable with. However in A&A miniatures, I think the point value of the Sherman Tank is fair considering how good they are based on the mass production of them
Not to change the subject, but I think the Tiger is a tank that is definately not underrated in the game. My only qualm is the point value. Tigers should have a slightly lower point value based on how common they were on the battlefield. The more I read about their role in operation Barbarossa, the more I’m beginning to learn how many of these superior tanks were being used.
-
To some extent the T34s reputation was forged by the unsung KV1. It is these heavies that stopped the German panzers as their thicker armour was very effective against German shells of the time. It was the KV1 that forced the Germans to rush into production their own line of heavy tanks.
Of course the T34 really came into it own when the Soviets went on the offensive, where it’s greater manouverability was the crucial factor. -
I’m sorry the “Highway of Death” had destroyed equipment mostly, not much runs when its been blasted. Once on operations with the Egyptians I saw several of their T-34’s running around, they were using them as enemy forces. This was of course back in the 80’s but they were running then.
So you don’t like Russian heavy equipment, well I guess they had enough of it to route the Germans. And even though I spent most of the 80’s preparing to fight them, I wonder if they would have had enough to route us to?
If you want to question my integrity that’s fine. I know what we found, where we found it, and the shape it was in. I’m sure you’d imply I don’t have any of the Iraqi letters and the dairy I found there. That’s fine.
I’m going to follow your logic for a minute. The Russians made tanks in so great a quanity the Germans could never hope to come close to keeping up. That makes those Soviet tanks awesome. Therefore I guess the Sherman was one of the all time greatest tanks. Same logic, different country.
A quote from Andrew Cockburn’s The Threat:Inside the Soviet Military Machine refering to the T34 “The transmissions were so delicate that tanks would be sent into battle with spare sets roped to the decks. When American analysts had the opportunity to make a close examination of T34s captured in the Korean War, they found that some components had a working life of about 14 hours.” This book was written in 1983. In it Cockburn tried to tell the world the most modern of Soviet armor did not come close to matching the West’s armor. I’m guessing he knew a thing or two.
The most reliable Soviet truck built immediately after the war were direct copies of the Studebakers they received from lend-lease. Down to Studebaker printed on the valve covers. Their best long range bomber shortly after the war. A copy of the B-29. American jets were known to have 3-1/2 times the operational readiness of their Soviet counterparts. I could do this all day.
So you saw modernized Egyptian T34s running around. Thanks for making my point for me. Even the Egyptians had the good sense to replace the motors and transmissions. Just like the Soviet armor I supposedly trained with in Germany. All had Western engines and transmissions. Were these T34s you saw left with there original turrets, were they T34/100s with the BS-3 100 mm AT gun, or were they T34/122 SPGs. I’m sure they weren’t the oil well fire fighting versions. Those had two Mig 21 engines strapped to the top sans turret. You would have noticed that.
Soviet tankers who used both Western and Soviet armor say Soviet armor was unreliable. Military analyasts, historians, servicemembers hwho worked with Soviet heavy equipment, authors who study such equipment, the Russians themselves (try to read a44bigdog’s post), and so on say the Soviet big toys don’t work well. Then there is you.
Say what you want past this point. I will not be replying to your posts. It’s just not worth the effort.
-
The T 34 helped the Russians win World War 2. Overated or not. With issues or not. I guess sometimes numbers do count.
I am not questioning your integrity. I was on that highway too. I don’t recall seeing any T34’s, several T54/55’s however, I must admit my time was very limited spending only a few minutes getting past that mess and moving on. If you spent more time there then your knowledge on the scene is superior to mine.
This whole thread has brought back some serious memories, was it really 17 years ago?
I just respect any tank shooting at me, whether or not its overrated or not. Nothing more terrifying than having 125mm shell whistling past.
-
I have to ammend my last post. I can’t think too fast. One of my many faults.
The vehicle I was thinking of was not a Studebaker truck. It was a Packard car. In 1938 (I think) Packard sold some tooling to the Soviets. With this Stalin’s crew made copies of one of Packards models. This ended for a while because of some uninvited German guests. After the war production continued until the late '50s. The engine was reliable enough to have suppodedly found it’s way into some trucks. These engines had Packard on the valve covers.
My confusion/stupidity came from the fact the Soviets received a huge amount of Studebaker trucks thanks to lend/lease. These trucks were so popular some Russians started using the word Studebaker as a generic term for truck.
Legion 3 the tank I mentioned was near the top of the hill. The ground leveled off at one point before continuing upward towards the crest. Going up the hill the T54/55 would have been on your left. Not a scratch on it. Unfortunately some a$$hole stole the pictures the pictures I took there or I would have scanned a couple a posted them.
To anyone interested in how whacked out a T34 can look check this out.
http://www.jedsite.info/tanks-tango/tango-numbers-su/t-34_series/t34-series.html
Look at the T34 HU Firefighting, and the Syrian T34/122. Thinking about the Egypian 122 SPG reminded me of the Syrian version. So I googled and found this site.
-
Holy cow that hungarian fire fighter is awesome. LMAO at “specific recognition points”
-
I just don’t remember seeing it but I will defer to your memory, As I said I was there for only minutes and we were constently on the move and of course had other things on my mind then :wink:
-
“Very worrying”, Colonel-General Heinz Guderian, Commander of Second Panzer Army.
“We had nothing comparable”, Major-General F.W. Mellenthin, Chief of Staff of XLVIII Panzer Corps.
“The finest tank in the world”, Field-Marshal Ewald von Kleist, First Panzer Army.
“This tank (T-34) adversely affected the morale of the German infantry”, General G. Blumentritt.
-
“Quantity has a quality all on its own.” (or something like that)
-Josef Stalin
-
“Quantity has a quality all on its own.” (or something like that)
-Josef Stalin
Totally. I think that quote sums up the Russian victory on its own.
Suggested Topics
