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

[jcd000]

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

If you are the SU, you want the T-34 (or something like it). You can produce it en-masse, repair and upgrade en-masse and use tactically to do the job. The red army proved late-war that its point was to win as fast as possible, not have low casualties, and the T-34 epitomizes this.

Your tank does not have to be better pound-for-pound if you can build more of it, repair more of it, and have more of it available for battles.

Changing tanks mid-war is what Germany did, with disastrous effect (the panther may have been a great tank, if it hadn't been for the problem that it was facing mature machines with experienced crew, while there was no time for its unique problems to be rectified and the crews were unfamiliar with the tank)

Otoh, upgrading the tank, as the Soviets and Americans did meant that you are not losing anything in efficiency during the transition (that may last a year or two - quite important)

PS. i concur with everyone saying that the OP article is a load of crap. Flawed arguments everywhere.

 

[CrasherZZ]

If you are the SU, you want the T-34 (or something like it). You can produce it en-masse, repair and upgrade en-masse and use tactically to do the job. The red army proved late-war that its point was to win as fast as possible, not have low casualties, and the T-34 epitomizes this.

Your tank does not have to be better pound-for-pound if you can build more of it, repair more of it, and have more of it available for battles.

Changing tanks mid-war is what Germany did, with disastrous effect (the panther may have been a great tank, if it hadn't been for the problem that it was facing mature machines with experienced crew, while there was no time for its unique problems to be rectified and the crews were unfamiliar with the tank)

Otoh, upgrading the tank, as the Soviets and Americans did meant that you are not losing anything in efficiency during the transition (that may last a year or two - quite important)

PS. i concur with everyone saying that the OP article is a load of crap. Flawed arguments everywhere.

Does the HOI4 production system reflect this kind of efficiency model? Seems like it does.

Is there any feature in HOI4 that improves Org and Strength recovery? In HOI3 the doctrines speeded up Org recovery.

 

[GermanPower]

Does the HOI4 production system reflect this kind of efficiency model? Seems like it does.

Is there any feature in HOI4 that improves Org and Strength recovery? In HOI3 the doctrines speeded up Org recovery.

I've been playing a lot of Black Ice lately and I do worry how customized units will get. I hope theres a good degree.

I agree with you though JCD. I just worry no one really has customized tanks if everyone does the T-34 method. I dunno. The production lines are a fantastic idea. I just feel they should have flexed out the Tech tree and tied it in mroe.

 

[Denkt]

Better tech is better, yes it do cost some efficiency to switch over but the the quality of the better tank will soon pay back.

Late war shermans and t34 are 1943 tech tanks not 1941 in my opinion.

 

[Shatterfury]

Better tech is better, yes it do cost some efficiency to switch over but the the quality of the better tank will soon pay back.

Late war shermans and t34 are 1943 tech tanks not 1941 in my opinion.

We kind of this in the game but you can realise the full potential of the tank far too early but I guess this can be twinked.

 

[Denkt]

I don't know what you mean?

Researching a tech ahead of time comes at a penalty and variants have their limitations on how many points you can spend on each area.

 

[scroggin]

I'm pretty sure someone went over crew survivability earlier in the thread. IIRC out of the various medium tanks the Sherman had on average 1 crew casualty per armor penetration (which makes sense due to it being much roomier than other comparable tanks).

But yeah, I agree, it all depends on what you look for in a tank. There's no real way to say what is obviously best.

True, once the issue with ammo storage causing fires was sorted the Sherman was the best. The main reason for this was American armour was softer but tougher german and russian armour was harder but more brittle. This meant american armour was easier to penetrate but it didnt shatter sending fragments of metal through the tank when penetrated or nearly penetrated. Not prone to spalling.

The lack of alloying metals Germany suffered from late in the war made it very difficult to make good quality armour. They had problems with cracking on the welds, armour that was brittle on the outside but soft on the inside etc.

 

[Intercept]

I love reading this.

Thanks for the link OP <3

 

[keynes2.0]

Better tech is better, yes it do cost some efficiency to switch over but the the quality of the better tank will soon pay back.

Late war shermans and t34 are 1943 tech tanks not 1941 in my opinion.

Well the way it's supposed to be in the game is that they are 1941 tech with experience spent on improvements. This makes them competitive with a 1943 tech (Patton, panther, T44) without those improvements.

 

[scroggin]

Here is my opinion of the best tank;

1939- Matilda II. Very heavy armour and a good gun for its era. Its only threat was the 88mm antitank gun.

1941- T34 wide tracks meant it could operate where other tanks couldnt. Good sloped armour and a powerful gun for the era. It had a lot of quality issues but they dont outweigh its battlefeild abilities.

1942- Sherman a small step up in firepower and armour but a well ballanced tank with few weaknesses.

1944- panther by then most of its reliability issues were sorted. Its firepower armour and cross country ability trump its high maintenance requirements.

 

[wergy]

The T-34's main perk was that it was cheap to produce and cheap to operate. Heck, that thing is capable of running on VODKA! However, other than being cheap there was not much else that could be said about it compared to other tanks. It's a good tank definitely, but far from the best.

 

[fredgiblet]

The Americans provided the majority of Soviet logistical capacity, we gave them more, and better, trucks than they made themselves as well as hundreds of locomotives. We also kept them fed since vast amounts of their farmland was captured by the Germans. We also provided a large number of planes and tanks. Bare minimum impact is that the Soviets wouldn't have been able to advance nearly as fast without our support, they would have lacked the logistical capacity to sustain long drives and if they attempted to (and they probably would have) they would have lost lots more troops than they did historically.

And that's not considering the western front. If the US didn't provide LL to Britain and ASW support in the west atlantic then the Brits wouldn't have gotten as much of their OWN supplies as they ended up getting, not even counting the supplies the US provided. The Brits didn't do daylight bombing, we did, without that the effectiveness of the strat campaign would have been drastically reduced. The Brits didn't have single-engine escort fighters that could make it to Berlin, we did. The Brits didn't have the industrial capacity or manpower to invade France successfully, combined we did. Without the US the Brits might have been able to invade Italy, but wouldn't have been able to do both and very likely would have failed to invade France if they tried.

It's highly unlikely that the Germans could have invaded Britain, but it's entirely plausible that they could have starved them into peace. Had the BoB gone slightly differently the Germans could have pounded Britain with near impunity, and without the US that difference might have come up.

Could the SU have beaten Germany without the US? Maybe, I don't think it's probable but I think it's possible. Less food, less aircraft, less logistical capability, no second (or third!) front. With all that taken into account I wouldn't be surprised if the Germans were actually able to attrit the SU out, the Soviets had vast manpower reserves, but not inexhaustible.

And to appease the Soviet fetishists I'll also point out that without the SU there was no chance of an Allied victory. If the Germans were able to put all those units towards us instead of the Soviets we'd have been utterly unable to penetrate.

 

[jcd000]

And to appease the Soviet fetishists...

Don't say it if you don't believe it. Otherwise i agree.
Without LL to soviets, the allies win again, but with slower war and larger casualties.
Without LL at all and zero US involvement, Germany could have actually bitter peaced the SU and white peaced the UK.... Or the SU would have conquered all Europe..

 

[vertinox]

Lol. The funniest thing about this thread is people making arguments that the author stated were myths.

Which means they didn't read the article and just started posting away.

I mean if you don't believe the myths and provide an argument why they aren't myths is one thing.

But to keep posting the myths that the author specifically pointed out is sort of silly.

Everyone reading this post should actually go read the article.

 

[jcd000]

Everyone reading this post should actually go read the article.

Be sure to crosscheck what you read with facts and spot the weak points in arguments when they happen.
Don't believe everything you read.

 

[vertinox]

Be sure to crosscheck what you read with facts and spot the weak points in arguments when they happen.
Don't believe everything you read.

I know that, but people are stating things as fact without actually refuting his points. I mean if they had read the article they could actually point out what is wrong with the arguments rather that repeat the the supposed myth without citation.

 

[Turboflex]

The T-34's main perk was that it was cheap to produce and cheap to operate. Heck, that thing is capable of running on VODKA! However, other than being cheap there was not much else that could be said about it compared to other tanks. It's a good tank definitely, but far from the best.

"quantity is a quality all of its own"

 

[jcd000]

I know that, but people are stating things as fact without actually refuting his points. I mean if they had read the article they could actually point out what is wrong with the arguments rather that repeat the the supposed myth without citation.

IIRC many people in the initial 3-4 pages of the thread did refute most of the arguments..

 

[Loke]

Here is my opinion of the best tank;

1939- Matilda II. Very heavy armour and a good gun for its era. Its only threat was the 88mm antitank gun.

1941- T34 wide tracks meant it could operate where other tanks couldnt. Good sloped armour and a powerful gun for the era. It had a lot of quality issues but they dont outweigh its battlefeild abilities.

1942- Sherman a small step up in firepower and armour but a well ballanced tank with few weaknesses.

1944- panther by then most of its reliability issues were sorted. Its firepower armour and cross country ability trump its high maintenance requirements.

1943- Tiger I

 

[vertinox]

IIRC many people in the initial 3-4 pages of the thread did refute most of the arguments..

Like the fact the T34 lacked a radio and had poor gun sights?

Or was cramped. Though the T72 was also cramped.

Or are you talking about the losses.

I mean where the quotes about Stalin complaining about the unreliability just not true?

Wikipedia also lists that Soviets lost 44,000 medium tanks.