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

[Jongmaster]

excellent read, thanks for the link

 

[frolix42]

A cross-section of some of favorite things:

• History
• Economics
• Infographics
• Tanks

I think the T-34 was the most effective tank in World War 2, not because it was the best performing but because it was so cost-effective relative to it's opponents. The T-34 was a solid performer, it wasn't a Tiger II but you could build ten T-34s with roughly the same amount of resources.

I don't understand how people would downvote @TheRomanRuler for posting a link and asking a question.

A lot of the "bad" things about the T-34 are shared by it's contemporaries.

The T-34 was supposed to be the first tank that employed sloped armor. This characteristic meant that the armor protection was significantly enhanced, compared to straight armor. However French tanks of that period like the SOMUA S35 and the Renault R35 also had sloped armor.

Because the T-34 was not the first tank in the world with sloped armor doesn't mean that this wasn't a great characteristic at the time. The French tanks, the R35 and S35, they were developed years earlier than the T-34 and didn't have nearly the same capabilities as the T-34. For the majority of World War 2, German tanks had relatively unsloped armor.

 

[calebmarkle]

One issue with the article is they talk heavily about the fact the tank interior is too small so the tank crews wouldn't be able to function. I didn't see it mentioned that the SU only used small/tiny men for tank crews which countered the need for space. Sure the T-34 isn't the greatest tank of the war, but they could build tens of thousands of them and they were effective. Plus in 1941 they were way ahead of anyone else's tanks

 

[CrasherZZ]

I never even realized that there was this myth, and the article makes you wonder how the Soviet Union won the war. The tone of the author though, sounds like he has some kind of axe to grind. What's the criteria for best tank? If you go by which country won the war, that would be the Sherman and T-34. Neither of them are my favorites but hey - they won the war.

My vote (even though no one is counting or cares) is the Panther. I need not elaborate since I'm sure there have been hundreds of posts about it.

 

[BurdenedWarrior]

The guy that wrote that analysis doesn't seem to knows that the soviets kept track of any tank that no longer could continue to fight a "destroyed tank." Like lets say in a offensive attack a t34 blew an engine. They say it was "destroyed." Then they'd tow it back, replace the engine and send it to fight again to be potentially be "destroyed" again.

So I'm skeptical of these numbers.


T-34 production and losses

1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 Total
2,800 12,553 15,812 13,949 12,110 57,224 Production
2,300 6,600 14,700 13,800 7,500 44,900 Losses


Also "best" tank is such a dumb question. Tanks had different roles and opportunity costs. Is the specialist, or jack of all trades the best? The most expensive or the cheapest? ect ect ect.......................................... but personally, i love the t70.

 

[Zaku]

Oh boy here we go again...

Someone please also open a Bismarck was the best battleship thread. I love pointless arguements and I need my daily popcorn intake.

KV-2 laughs at littleman tenks KV-2 fitted with armor forged by Stalin himself destroy little fascist tenk with the 152mm portable nuke launcher......

This comrade knows it, nothing beat the Tower of Stalin. Anyone who say otherwise gets gulag.

 

[Axe99]

Pffft....Matilda II or go home .

Am impressed thread has been sensibly civil so far. Interesting link in the OP as well. T34 stats are tricky because (I think - someone else posted this in these parts) repairs at the factory were counted as a 'produced T-34', and statistics during Stalin's time were a dash notorious for a bunch of reasons (statistics these days still need to be interpreted very carefully!) And, of course, the most important thing to keep in mind is that AT guns, aircraft, breakdowns and a bunch of other things kill tanks as well as other tanks.

The other tricky thing is what is 'best'? Tanks did a range of jobs - and were rated on a range of characteristics, and you'll never get a clear-cut best. The T-34 was great cross-country and in mud and snow - so I think I'd give the WW2 cross-country tank award, but then you've got other tanks that were crazy well armoured (Matilda II for it's time ), had a great big gun (Tiger I and II). From a rivet factories perspective, the best tank might be the one that used the most rivets .

The T-34 and Valentine tanks both had their turrets put on boats, which is something a bit special, and the T-34 far more often, so if 'best' means 'used most in naval and riverine warfare', then the T-34 wins by a country mile .

 

[aruon]

KV-2 laughs at littleman tenks KV-2 fitted with armor forged by Stalin himself destroy little fascist tenk with the 152mm portable nuke launcher......

I'm sorry I found it too funny to resist.

This comrade knows it, nothing beat the Tower of Stalin. Anyone who say otherwise gets gulag.

heh heh. since you mentioned the Destroyer of Worlds, i'll just post this from the War Thunder wiki on it:

This behemoth is lovingly referred to by the following
"the barn"
"the mountain"
"nuclear death cannon"
"Ahh COME ON!"
"HURRY WITH THAT RELOAD!"
"The Tower of Stalin"
"тнe haиd of Sтaliи"
"King of Deep"
"Troll Cannon"
"Fridge"
"The King of Derp"
"Tsar Bomba"

KV-2 is stronk. sure it may turn like a bolted down chair, but it is terrifying... and i love it!

 

[Shade205]

I don't think it was the best tank in the war, I don't really think you can overall have a tank with such a general title.

Different nations in different situations needed different tanks, end of story.

T-34 was perfect for what the Soviets needed and it filled it's role to lethal effectiveness.

So did the Panzer IV, and Stug Assault gun, and the Sherman.

 

[fellaz007]

My 2 cents:

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/the-t-34-in-wwii-the-legend-vs-the-performance/

Here you will find an analysis about the performance in the field of the T-34-76. Other forumites have pointed out quite nicely how cost efficient the T-34 was in the production, but a tank that was not able to overcome a 3:1 loss ratio against it across its entire service has some serious performance problems.

Its sloped armor and 76mm gun gave it pretty good stats which give it an above average outline at a glance, but its was a poor fighting vehicle. Due to its sloped armor and light weight it was very crammed inside, which didn't allow the crews to work and fight effectively. It had only a 2-man turret, lousy optics, no radio and a turret hatch which which didn't allow fast open and close. Therefore it placed a too high burden on the tank commander to operate effectively and made it especially difficult to coordinate with other tanks of the platoon or the company. This is one of the reasons why entire tank companies were clogging to the company commander tank and were not able to perform as individual platoon or tank, this severely reduced the performance of the Russian Tank corps.

Another often quoted story tells about the a PAK'36 gun that shot and hit 23 times at an approaching T-34 to no effect. While this is often quoted to highlight the good armor of the T-34, it is seldom talked about why that T-34 allowed itself to be hit 23 times without disabling the PAK/AT site or moving out of sight. Here is a good indicator for the inability of the T-34 to identify a threat on the battlefield and react to it.

 

[Loke]

During the early stages 1941/42 the T34-76 was indeed a good tankdesign with sloped armor, broad tracks and 76mm gun but thats about it, later it became outclassed.

 

[_Sohei_]

It was good enough for the time and use it was designed for. It had an advantage against the majority of German tanks until mid 1942 despite its flaws. Sure, it was cramped but have you seen the controls? About as simple as you can get. Sure, it had extremely limited ability to maneuver and coordinate due to reliability and communication limitations. But if you lined up a mass of them they could put shells downrange and take out lesser tanks. Sure, they suffered horrendous losses but this was in line with the priorities of Soviet leadership at the time to value a 1:1 loss ratio or even worse as a victory because of their large manpower pool. It didn't matter much how many tanks were lost as long as the enemy was destroyed.

Of course they were not the end all and be all of tanks but they played a role in victories when it mattered most - early in the war. Later on it was outclassed and less practical for a rapid advance because of its limitations. But by late war the Soviets obviously found enough other stuff to throw at what was left of the Germans to get to Berlin. It did its job. I would not want to have been a T-34 tank crew member but the tank served its strategic purpose.

 

[LordOfWar16]

If a tank does exactly what it is supposed to do and wins you the war, then that is essentially what i call the best tank. Sure, the T-34 in its early variants was a throw away tank. The soviet doctrine was simple, it should drive 300km and destroy atleast one german tank before it breaks down. Then it was conisdered an success. The later models were much more focused around usability and relieability, even tho the crew itself wasnt really the priority.

The early models were an insanely advanced tank design due to its sloped armor everywhere and gave the germans a very hard time since they didnt know it existed, one of many reasons barbarossa didnt went how they expected. It was then later outclassed as things usually go with tank designs of course.

In my eyes the T-34 was essentially the first main battle tank approach of a weapon plattform design that gets mass produced and constantly upgraded. That basicly won them the war.

 

[wingo]

The thing with T-34 is, Soviets were aware of its deficiencies and were preparing a replacement fixing the most glaring problems. But then, you know, Barbarossa happened, and a working tank now is better than a better tank tomorrow.

Of course it was not the best tank of the war, that was IS-2. Very mobile for a heavy tank, excellent gun capable of dispatching anything in its way, be it enemy tanks or fortifications, good armor; truly and excellent all-rounder. And all of this in a package similar to a german one trick pony Panther.

And if you absolutely, positively want to open german tin cans, you can always use ISU-152

 

[jpd]

all you ever wanted to know about the T-34"

 

[Gort11]

How did the Tiger 2 stack up in cost versus other heavy tanks like the IS2 or the Churchill 7, or the Pershing?

 

[fellaz007]

The T-34 was a very efficient vehicle (in therms of productions) and it had very good armor, track width and gun system when it was introduced, but it sure was not a good fighting vehicle. Even in 1941 (when the T34-76 was far superior to all German tanks in terms of armor and gun) one can deduct a tank vs. tank loss ratio of no better than 2-3:1 against the T-34.

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/the-t-34-in-wwii-the-legend-vs-the-performance/#The T34’s Overall Combat Results in 1941

Even Heinz Guderian admitted that the T-34 was superior to any German Panzer. It was the best tank of the war, period.

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!

 

[wingo]

The T-34 was a very efficient vehicle (in therms of productions) and it had very good armor, track width and gun system when it was introduced, but it sure was not a good fighting vehicle. Even in 1941 (when the T34-76 was far superior to all German tanks in terms of armor and gun) one can deduct a tank vs. tank loss ratio of no better than 2-3:1 against the T-34.

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/the-t-34-in-wwii-the-legend-vs-the-performance/#The T34’s Overall Combat Results in 1941



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!

Never look at tank lossess out of context. If you read the whole thread, you would know Germans and Soviets counted lossess differently, and there are a lot of other reasons for differences like training, operational and strategic situation, leadership, maintenance, supply and of course opposition (hint - tanks were not the main tank killer).

Edit: Also, about Germans using captured T-34, yes they did:
"Germans were always more than happy to employ as many captured examples as they could and many served with various units. T-34/76 employment by German formations was not always temporary but sometimes permanent until the end of the war."
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzerkampfwagen-t-34r-soviet-t-34-in-german-service.htm

 

[Skjold89]

On a strategic level the T-34 was a good (enough) tank. In large scale warfare like WW2, the strategic level is what matters. Pretty much all tanks of the war had major quirks and faults and if a fanboy of X wants to defend hes tank of choice he normally points out the flaws of Y.

If you setup the criteria as follows

• Had a significant effect on the war on the strategic level.
• Was relativly cheap and easy to manufacture and maintain.
• Is at least competitive with the tanks it was most likely to face up against.
• Is relativly easy to transport by rail or sea.

Then the best tanks in the war is imo the M4 Sherman and T-34 families of tanks, plus the Panzer III and Panzer IV families of tanks (mostly due to StuG III, StuG IV) but that is my opinion. Out of all those? I feel that the one that ticks the most boxes are the M4 Sherman and T-34 families of tanks, and due to the crude but revolutionary design of the T-34 i consider that one the winner. This is ofcourse, highly debatable and it is just my personal opinion..

 

[Denkt]

The british tanks are not terrible either, although slow and not build in the numbers the Sherman was, they did play a role in defeating the axis.