Sir, our Armor got slaughtered last offensive...

[wolf1455]

General: We want to know what quality armour and AT the enemy got, so we can plan for new and better equipment.

Leader: Sorry dont ask me, I cant provide you with this information.

General : How about our inteligence forces ?

Leader : Sorry they can only provide info about best equipment researched not what unit are upgraded to it.

General : So its a guessing game then ?

Leader : Sorry but YES.

 

[Kernest]

You should improve everything to a level where they aren't a threat to you (so at least equal) and then just be happily surprised every time you encounter poorly upgraded divisions.

 

[unmerged(38985)]

Well, the T-34's did surprise the Germans. Better quality and very reliable.

 

[Shootist]

Well, the T-34's did surprise the Germans. Better quality and very reliable.

And where did you find this information? The US Army tested all the WWII tanks and rated them. The T-34, while innovative in some aspects, was considered one of the lowest quality tanks of the period. The favorite Tank among the Soviet Armor Corps was the M4 Sherman, of which they had thousands.

 

[sam73]

And where did you find this information? The US Army tested all the WWII tanks and rated them. The T-34, while innovative in some aspects, was considered one of the lowest quality tanks of the period. The favorite Tank among the Soviet Armor Corps was the M4 Sherman, of which they had thousands.

Funny, I always thought the Panther was a response to the T-34. It turns out the Germans were actually in awe of the Sherman. You always learn something new.

 

[DarkSoul1984]

And where did you find this information? The US Army tested all the WWII tanks and rated them. The T-34, while innovative in some aspects, was considered one of the lowest quality tanks of the period. The favorite Tank among the Soviet Armor Corps was the M4 Sherman, of which they had thousands.

Composition of a Tank Corps

* 29 May 1942
o Corps HQ
+ Signal Company
+ AAMG Section
o Heavy Tank Brigade with KV-1or KV-2 tanks (Replaced by a third 'medium' tank brigade in July 1942)
o 2 (Medium) Tank Brigades with two battalions of T-34 and one of T-70 tanks each.
o Motorized Rifle Brigade
o Antiaircraft Battalion
o Guards Mortar Battalion with Katyusha rocket launchers
o Motorcycle Battalion (for reconnaissance)
o Engineer-Mine Company
o Truck Company
o Motorized Vehicle Repair Battalion
o Armored Vehicle Repair Battalion
o Snipers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_corps_(Soviet_Union)

 

[unmerged(153337)]

Americans prefer anything comfortable and complicated over bare and basic any day.
The M4 series had outstanding reliability and speed/range that supported the US doctrine of armor penetration and rear area exploitation.
They were built to match the Pz. III and IV but were outclassed in armor and gun by the Tiger and Panther. Offered many technological advances for mechanically experienced crews. US tank doctrine in WW2 was not tank on tank battles. TDs were to battle enemy tanks, US tanks were to break-thru and advance. When faced with defending armor and no flanking/bypass options, call up artillery/air/infantry and wait.
The T-34 series suffered mass production problems. Hatches often did not fit well and welds left in the rough. To lower profile it was deck mounted instead of having a turret basket as in American and German tanks and was thus very rough riding. None or very basic gun stabilization and turret rotation assists. Very good gun/armor combinations to support Soviet doctrine of tank-on-tank battles and armor shock attacks. See tanks, attack tanks. Very simple controls to match basic trained conscripts with little mechanical background.
Soviet Armor Corps enjoyed M4 lend lease tanks for their reliability, speed, gun and turret assists and quality control production right up till the armor was breached and it burned quickly.

 

[womble]

And where did you find this information? The US Army tested all the WWII tanks and rated them. The T-34, while innovative in some aspects, was considered one of the lowest quality tanks of the period. The favorite Tank among the Soviet Armor Corps was the M4 Sherman, of which they had thousands.

Doesn't mean the T-34 wasn't a surprise for the Germans. Existing tank armament wasn't adequate to penetrate the front glacis, and the Germans had been expecting to see much worse models. The sloped armour meant they were tougher to hurt for their weight than the Germans were expecting and the Panther was a direct response to Russian 'innovations'. The first Sherman prototype hadn't even been built when the Germans rolled into the Rodina. So their 'favourite' tank when the Germans were surprised by the T-34 was probably the KV-1 which was another step up in scary for the poor German tankers. Fortunately there weren't very many of them and the Germans managed to use their better doctrines and experience to neutralise them.

The encounters with Russian armour in the summer of '41 were a direct cause of the lengthening of the barrels of the PzIV class from their original "stubby HE thrower" models, and the inspiration for the Panther.

 

[Mjarr]

The US Army tested all the WWII tanks and rated them. The T-34, while innovative in some aspects, was considered one of the lowest quality tanks of the period.

US perspective, Russian perspective or what? And do they refer to average production model or just few random test subjects they managed to find and rate in general?

 

[Leckan]

Doesn't mean the T-34 wasn't a surprise for the Germans. Existing tank armament wasn't adequate to penetrate the front glacis, and the Germans had been expecting to see much worse models. The sloped armour meant they were tougher to hurt for their weight than the Germans were expecting and the Panther was a direct response to Russian 'innovations'. The first Sherman prototype hadn't even been built when the Germans rolled into the Rodina. So their 'favourite' tank when the Germans were surprised by the T-34 was probably the KV-1 which was another step up in scary for the poor German tankers. Fortunately there weren't very many of them and the Germans managed to use their better doctrines and experience to neutralise them.

The encounters with Russian armour in the summer of '41 were a direct cause of the lengthening of the barrels of the PzIV class from their original "stubby HE thrower" models, and the inspiration for the Panther.

The T-34 was a surprise, along with the reinforcements from the east which pushed the Germans back a bit, once Stalin was sure Japan wouldn't attack Russia.

 

[unmerged(158218)]

The T-34, while innovative in some aspects, was considered one of the lowest quality tanks of the period

How can that be true? Surely the fact that it was a nasty shock to the Germans should tell you that, at that period, it was FAR superior to the German armour in most aspects. Bar the KV series it was the best Russian/Allied tank around until the arrival of the Tiger and Panther.

Well, the T-34's did surprise the Germans. Better quality and very reliable.

The earlier T34's were awful quality wise. They were rough, no comforts and the steel they used was extremely low grade. Only when the Russian war machine started to churn did the T34's start to be made with quality steel.

Americans prefer anything comfortable and complicated over bare and basic any day.

Everything else in your comment is spot on but the Sherman was very simple, which is why it was loved. Easy to maintain, easy to upgrade and versatile, though suffered with ammo storage problems earlier in the war, hence them being nicknamed 'Ronsons'.

 

[unmerged(172056)]

So who of you read the post of the OP?

On topic, I would like to see a more in depth espionage system.

 

[Sangeli]

Seeing as how armored units rarely get hurt, I'd say the whole topic is mute. Moreover, with good intel you can see the enemy's strong techs and weak techs to have some idea. Either way it won't chane anything really.

 

[What?]

Odd. As i understood it the T-34 was the most balanced and "pound for pound" best tank of WWII. Simplestupid controls, perfect balance of armor speed and firepower, easily mas produced. Germans were confused as hell about the superior T-34 in the hands of what they thought were inferiorly equipped Russians and General Reichnau said of the tank when he first inspected it that if it gets mass produced they'll have lost the war

Wheras non-late model M4 Shermans were lampooned as matchboxes by Americans and Tommy Cookers by the British.

 

[Athalian]

T-34 was FAST, much because of the suspension system which the americans didnt want because they werent allowed to change things as they wanted by the designer. Most of the heavier german tanks like the tiger, favoured a sniping role. Meaning they would position themselves and pick off the enemy as they closed. The T-34 was the perfect counter to the heavy sniping german tanks as they had the numbers and the speed to close the distance and get to a position where they could shoot at the side or the back where the armor was weaker and even the T-34 gun could penetrate the side/back armor of the german tanks. The T-34 was also the first tank to use sloped armor which effectively doubled the effective armor thickness and increased the chance of deflection, even a 88 shell could be deflected.

 

[Antenociti]

The US Army tested all the WWII tanks and rated them. The T-34, while innovative in some aspects, was considered one of the lowest quality tanks of the period.

I suspect that that says more about the US Army than it does about the T-34. :rofl:

 

[Palm]

Obviously the T34 was a bad tank performance wise in most aspects except the most important ones, namely the gun and the armor.

 

[unmerged(18513)]

Well, being an old "Tanker" myself, I can tell you that in terms of speed, reliability, armour, production costs and the level of training needed the T-34 was one of the best tanks of WWII, not as deadly as a Panther, Tiger, Pershing or any of the other heavy tanks.

I would equal it to the AK-47 of tanks, rough and ready design that can be used by anyone, just imagine what the Germans could have done with them should they have had them.

For all discussions and similar, check out youtube, there are some fairly excellent documentaries on this subject out there.

But an M-4 will not compare favourably against a T-34 if it isn't of the firefly make and model.

 

[Polycrates]

Obviously the T34 was a bad tank performance wise in most aspects except the most important ones, namely the gun and the armor.

I'd have said quite the opposite; in 1941-2 the gun and armour were great (it outshone the german tanks of the time in pretty much every regard), but later on it was outclassed, and even the T34/85 upgrade had only adequate gun/armour, which lost out in comparison to a Panther. Where it really shone was its speed and maneuverability (in both a tactical and operational sense), its ability to traverse terrain that the german tanks couldn't, its comparative reliability and simplicity of repair and maintenance (they found one recently that had been lying at the bottom of a marsh since about 1943 and still managed to get the thing working again), and of course its cheapness and ease of mass production in truly absurd numbers.
Duking it out one-on-one, they come off badly against a Panther or a Tiger, but that would be missing the point, which is that it outshone them so much at the strategic, manufacturing and operational levels that they could bring many more to the party, better exploit opportunities and be a more effective aid to Russia's fighting capabilities.

 

[Pugmak]

Well, being an old "Tanker" myself, I can tell you that in terms of speed, reliability, armour, production costs and the level of training needed the T-34 was one of the best tanks of WWII, not as deadly as a Panther, Tiger, Pershing or any of the other heavy tanks.

I would equal it to the AK-47 of tanks, rough and ready design that can be used by anyone, just imagine what the Germans could have done with them should they have had them.

For all discussions and similar, check out youtube, there are some fairly excellent documentaries on this subject out there.

But an M-4 will not compare favourably against a T-34 if it isn't of the firefly make and model.

I was an anti-tanker by training. From my understanding, from looking at tanks as targets, the German mistake was in gross over engineering in areas that really didn't matter (such as gears and whatnot made to long out live the life expectancy of any armored vehicle on a battlefield) and over complexing the drive train.

The attrition on German heavy armor was ridiculous. I don't recall the exact numbers, but iirc, it was somewhere in the area of 25% + didn't make it from the lagger to the fight in average engagements. That was just from drive train breakdowns.

Something that is almost always overlooked in the discussions on WW2 Soviet armor is the absolutely craptastic optics in the gun sights. Many gunners found it more effective to punch out the glass and stretch wire across the sight tube to use as a reticle.

Summing up the Germans' efforts in armor design from mid to late war, it always seemed to me the Germans were more interested in building propaganda status pieces, rather than effective fighting tools.