Interesring link about T-34 - NOT the best tank in the war?

[CyberianK]

Ive said it before and Ill say it again.

The odds was against Germany in the beginning, it got a little better with the fall of France but after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour in december 1941 it was just a matter of time...

It is all about numbers and Germany(Axis) did not just have enough manpower, resources and industries to compete with the USA(Allies) in a modern war.

The USA did not beat Germany they were just a sidekick. But I agree on your point that they did not have the resources to take on what they gotten into. Battle of Britain and many bad decisions on the eastern front plus spreading forces over many areas/theatres.

 

[GrafKeks]

If this was the case, why didn't the Germans use the captured T-34 on their own. The reason is that German tank philosophy was looking for an effective tank and not an efficient tank.

And tank vs. tank losses of 3:1 are sure not effective!

Effective = does it get the job done yes/no?

Efficiency = Tryign to quantify how well it gets the job done --> Output/Input

You can't say if something is effective unless you state it's goal. if you want to win 1 v 1 fights ( cuz tanks r into bar fights, they also drop their shirts right before the excrements hit the fan ) then the T-34 was only moderately effective. But since it's also about production costs looking just at it's 1v1 fighting capability is a bad choice. Now let's say the T-34's job was to destroy tanks, it did do that so it is effective.

Now looking at efficiency the output is easy to determine losses on the enemy side. The input is the material cost and the variable costs of the design and ongoing quality control, but also the cost of the crew and their training ( in addition we could add recoverable ressource form the tank if it gets captured etc ). A T-34 costs like a tenth of a Tiger 2, so by pure material costs as long as less than 10 T-34 are needed to destroy 1 Tiger II the T-34 is more efficient. We could of course also go by relative cost --> How much % of our budget is necessary to destroy X% of their budget etc

You don't need to do a good job to be efficient, the relations between your achievements and costs just have to be as big as possible. That being said I like the Sherman and StuG IV best, no contest.

 

[GermanPower]

The USA did not beat Germany they were just a sidekick. But I agree on your point that they did not have the resources to take on what they gotten into. Battle of Britain and many bad decisions on the eastern front plus spreading forces over many areas/theatres.

A side kick who supplied 2/3s of all allied equipment..supplied thousands of trains system and railroad to the SU, Shared countless tech and production knowledge with the Soviet Union and sustained the SU after the massive losses they encountered. So if that defines a side kick sure. Without the US there's a damn good chance the War ends in bitter peace.

 

[Thracian]

as a person who read many things on ww2 tanks i say the article is not right
first of all, he mentions about the many shortcomings of the t-34 which are very well known
for instance, the quality of the engine. the average lifespan of a t-34 was less than a year, so soviets did not put much effort to increase engine quality. the engine lifespan was a year too.
the transmission was terrible and the driver needed help to change the gear
there was not much space inside, the manholes were not placed well in the initial versions etc etc

but it was very mobile, could be produced in mass, easy to use, had enough firepower

btw, the criticisim about the cost is wrong. in a command economy, the tank has no market price, but it has a cost concerning materials, manhours, know-how etc

 

[jcd000]

A side kick who supplied 2/3s of all allied equipment..supplied thousands of trains system and railroad to the SU, Shared countless tech and production knowledge with the Soviet Union and sustained the SU after the massive losses they encountered. So if that defines a side kick sure. Without the US there's a damn good chance the War ends in bitter peace.

A quite small chance tbh. It has been stated time and again in these forums that LL came too late for the battle for Moskow. After that the opportunity for victory had been lost already, so no LL means either an even greater toll on the SU but still Soviet victory, or a stalemate.

Quantifying what LL did for the UK would be interesting though.
Would they be able to not peace out without US help and still force Germany to squander important resources outside the Eastern front?
If the UK falls before SU invasion, bitter peace becomes much more likely... esp. with no US help.

 

[HerrWeltkrieg]

hmmm I always thought that T-34 was a huge success for its time and mindset of the regime that it was produced by.... I mean it was not supposed to last (the tank I mean), it was supposed to be hardy, expendable, afordable and quick to build and it meet all of these criteria, with upgreadability capacity on top of it.... for 1941 warfare I'd say that is a win...

 

[Shatterfury]

A quite small chance tbh. It has been stated time and again in these forums that LL came too late for the battle for Moskow. After that the opportunity for victory had been lost already, so no LL means either an even greater toll on the SU but still Soviet victory, or a stalemate.

Quantifying what LL did for the UK would be interesting though.
Would they be able to not peace out without US help and still force Germany to squander important resources outside the Eastern front?
If the UK falls before SU invasion, bitter peace becomes much more likely... esp. with no US help.

The tide turned against Germany after the conclusion of the Battle of Kursk in mid 1943 not the end of 1941.
If you think that USSR could start pushing Germany without Land Lease than that is a huge leap of faith.

 

[jcd000]

To my eyes Germany's best hope was to get Moscow ASAP, as they were at their strongest at 1941 in relation to the USSR.
After that they kept losing experienced personell and fighting an increasingly more effective and numerous red army.
That was when the tide turned, though it may have been reversible during 1942.. Their fate was sealed in Stalingrad though, not Kursk. There was no strategic hope to win afterwards, with or without US help for the allies. Even a German victory in Kursk would not change anything strategically..

So the really critical year to focus on is 1942. I have not done much reasearch on the subject, but to my simplistic piont-of-view, if Germany cannot win in 1941, it won't be able to do so in 1942 too, since they are weaker and the SU stronger.
Point in case: with 50% of the initial invasion army lost (900.000 losses out of ~2mil iirc), you have lost half your best soldiers during '41, never mind the opponent losses. Replacements are of a wildly worse quality than the invasion army. Otoh, the red army is facing horrible losses, yet its able to afford them and is gaining experience and learning how to counter german tactics, plus expanding at an alarming rate.

No LL to SU means quite a more bloody and longer war, problems with the mobility of the Red army and also fewer tanks, leading maybe to some sort of stalemate where both countries lack resources to continue with offensive operations, but certainly no more lost ground for the SU.

It is the UK LL that can tip the balance in such an occasion. If we assume that GER and SU are stalemated, if there is no US help to the UK, the situation could stay so until one of the two countries faced a coup (Germany most likely)

 

[CyberianK]

I don't want to degrade the importance of the american forces and the service of the men who fought in Europe. I am basically thankful for what they did back then and also all during the cold war because thanks to them I can live in a free Germany with an amount of personal freedom I would have never had otherwise.

My response was just to the point of "No chance of Germany winning against USA" when that wasn't really what was going on. Germany was beaten by soviet and british forces mainly and after that by all the other allied forces.
But from peoples talking about it you often get the impression it was all USA because they are retroactively heightening the importance of the american forces in the European theatre and projecting from todays superiority.

 

[3ishop]

If we really wanted to find out which the best tank was we could, we'd need to come up with a list of tanks we think could be it and then come up with rating systems, then rate each tank on it's attributes. I'm sure we could rate each one for it's Anti-tank and HE performance, fire rate, cruising speed, reliability, fuel efficiency, production costs, armour and so on...but I don't think we want to do that and I get the feeling people will aruge over each rating system and their scores lol

 

[jcd000]

If we really wanted to find out which the best tank was we could, we'd need to come up with a list of tanks we think could be it and then come up with rating systems, then rate each tank on it's attributes. I'm sure we could rate each one for it's Anti-tank and HE performance, fire rate, cruising speed, reliability, fuel efficiency, production costs, armour and so on...but I don't think we want to do that and I get the feeling people will aruge over each rating system and their scores lol

MCDA would be my way of ranking tanks too.. Good luck on agreeing on the proper weighting of each category (even the ranks of every tank per category would be worth 20-page threads and quite a lot on-probation patches)

 

[HerrWeltkrieg]

The article the author of this thread provided kind of feels biased, since it does not consider realities facing each side. Thing is majority of the fighting was conducted by huge amount of different types of tanks and AFVs + infantry. The fact however remains, in the situation that happened during WW2 T-34 was war winning weapon.... not a sole war winning weapon, but one of them

 

[GermanPower]

Man. What was more important about the US was its threat. Sure the US just invaded and Liberated Italy, Africa, France, and Japan. But they obviously had no impact on the war. Sure they supplied basically half or a little less of the UK's supplies and gave them a fairly large number of destroys, convoys and other things. But that doesn't matter. Stop thinking one connection guys. The impact the US had can not be understated. Without the US...Britain most likely looses in Africa, Without the US Britain does loose the Battle of Britain, This means Operation Sealion happens and the Germans invade a poorly equiped nation...extremely poorly equiped and is taken over. This means All of these massive drain of resources..(Norway, France and so many other places that tied millions of German troops down) Are now freed.

So now you have a Germany that can fight the Soviets one on one...and I don't see the Soviet Union winning that battle. That barely lost with Germany distracted and fighting at one point 3 fronts. Not to mention the stress that affected Hitler so greatly is gone and the generals actually get to conduct the war. Stress I'm talking about the fact a lot of his frustration was with the annoyance of Britain and the looming threat of the US, I feel with those subsided its far more likely Hitler allows his generals a free hand as he did after the success in Poland and France. (To be fair Hitler spoke of them in annoyance. But he put tons of troops to defend areas where clearly Britian was unable to inavde)

The war became unwinnable in the East because of the Enigma code, Winter, Hitler Idiocy, and Logistics. None of those things spell Soviet Army. With the fall or rather peace out with Britain changes sooo soo much. If Britain Falls. The Soviets fall. I think Britain falls without US support. In any event the war would be dragged on well beyond what it normal was and I think the winner of WW2 without the US is up in the air. Guys..just realize that every EVERY GERMAN offensive defense setup was know in great detail by the Soviets post 42...THE freaking Enigma codes alone are extremely important #Polandsabeast. Can you imagine how Citadel would have went without the Soviets knowing exactly what was going down? I see them being smashed through. Entire army groups again being surronded. So much of the value of attack is surrounded by surprise. When that element is taken away..you loose so much. Its a miracle Germany did as well as they did considering. My point is sure the Soviets took the brunt of the losses. But so much pressure was taken away by the Allies...and with just a little more the Soviets most likely pop.

 

[jcd000]

I think that Enigma would be broken regardless of the US involvement.

[...]So now you have a Germany that can fight the Soviets one on one...and I don't see the Soviet Union winning that battle.[...]
[...]If Britain Falls. The Soviets fall.[...]

i quite agree on these.

I think Britain falls without US support.

this is a real question that i'd like see discussed.

In any event the war would be dragged on well beyond what it normal was and I think the winner of WW2 without the US is up in the air.

i agree again


It's not the impact the US had on the Eastern Front, as much as that Germany couldn't go all-in.
Would Britain on her own be enough to distract so many German resources as they historically did? I think she may not, even if they may barely survive and slowly push Germany out of Africa regardless.
At any rate, the whole affair would be even more world-devastating than it came to be.

 

[GermanPower]

I think that Enigma would be broken regardless of the US involvement.


i quite agree on these.


this is a real question that i'd like see discussed.


i agree again


It's not the impact the US had on the Eastern Front, as much as that Germany couldn't go all-in.
Would Britain on her own be enough to distract so many German resources as they historically did? I think she may not, even if they may barely survive and slowly push Germany out of Africa.
At any rate, the whole affair would be even more world-devastating than it came to be.

Well my point rather would be the Germans would find out. Ya know...I think if they capture London...and start taking British cities it'll become apparent. The Soviets were giving the information. They didn't crack it themselves. Poland started cracking it and got really far..years before. I think in 33 is when they started. Then Britain finished off the polish work and that got circulated to everyone. I'm skeptical if Britain falls in 41 before they give information to the Soviets..that they'll (Being the soviets) still crack it. Maybe in 10 years, lol and lucky getting a few machines.

ALSO Great Britain without US support..does it fail? The real question I think you are asking is.....can Germany successfully pull off a naval invasion. Germany stomps the British Army in 41(They were horribly desperate for basic equipment). In my view..the question is Sealion just a pipe dream? Or can the German Navy supply a large enough army to take over GB. That's another different topic, lol. This is way off topic stuff anyways.

 

[jcd000]

We are way OT now, but i will answer this, then stop.
So, we've discussed it here in the forums (search for the thread) and it was proven beyond doubt that a naval invasion before Barbarossa is a pipe dream. No chance of success at all...(if you assume historical land army buildup, crucial for Barbarossa)

What i was thinking was that maybe the UK without any help either becomes unable to project any real power to hinder Germany, or is forced to negotiate a peace after being starved from raw resourses for a period. To assess this, i'd need to know to what extent the USA help buffed Britain.

 

[GermanPower]

We are way OT now, but i will answer this, then stop.
So, we've discussed it here in the forums (search for the thread) and it was proven beyond doubt that a naval invasion before Barbarossa is a pipe dream. No chance of success at all...(if you assume historical land army buildup, crucial for Barbarossa)

What i was thinking was that maybe the UK without any help either becomes unable to project any real power to hinder Germany, or is forced to negotiate a peace after being starved from raw resourses for a period. To assess this, i'd need to know to what extent the USA help buffed Britain.

What's your stance on the T-34? Do you think the soviets should have moved on in 43 or 42?

 

[Kovax]

Without US support, I'd strongly suspect that the UK would remain "technically" in the war, but be all but powerless to do anything directly threatening to Germany itself. Sure, it could still beat up the Italians in North Africa, and send a few bombers over Germany at night (because daylight raids would be suicidal), but nothing comparable to the massive daylight bombing missions launched by the Americans, and no hope of driving up through Italy or making a credible landing attempt in the Netherlands, Belgium, or France. Germany would still be woefully unprepared for a Sealion scenario (but play up the possibility in propaganda, which would force the UK to commit forces to the defense), which would leave the two powers at an impasse. In essence, Germany would be free to dedicate a much larger portion of its forces to the East, while it and the UK probed and prodded in relatively ineffective indirect economic warfare: submarine attacks on shipping versus night bombing raids.

How that affects the Soviet front is uncertain: not good for the Soviets, but would it be enough to tip the balance? I have to assume that it would, at the very least, drag out the war by several more years, if not force some form of negotiated truce. Ultimately, I suspect that either (or both) Hitler and/or Stalin would fall to internal dissent and assassination, and that Churchill would be replaced at some point, leading to a very different political situation.

Oh, sorry, I guess this is supposed to be about the T-34. Funny how even a volatile topic like that can stray into other volatile discussions.

 

[Denkt]

If I remember correctly UK dropped about half the allied bombs in europe.

UK and the commonwealth defeated Germany and its allies at land, in the air and at the seas, sure they could not launch a direct invasion on central europe but everywhere else other then near Japan they dominated and this was before the D-day.

 

[Opanashc]

If I remember correctly UK dropped about half the allied bombs in europe.
UK and the commonwealth defeated Germany and its allies at land, in the air and at the seas, sure they could not launch a direct invasion on central europe but everywhere else other then near Japan they dominated and this was before the D-day.

And they got 3 times the LL Soviets did.