Soviet research slots vs German research slots.

[Zauberelefant]

The losses were due to shitty Soviet tactics and strategies. For instance the fact that they had no radio, no coordination with the infantry/artillery, poor command, poor trained crew, etc. Yet, the tank itself was still better than the German panzers. During Barbarossa, they were unable to pierce the T34. They had to get close to destroy them, which they were able to do because the Soviet tanks had no cover, no communication between the tanks and was often attacking alone and became isolated.

Which wasn't the case in 1943/44, which the quoted post mentioned. The tank was cramped, poorly manufactured, prone to break down, poorly suspended, had a 2 man turret in the beginning, low velocity gun. Not a superior fighting vehicle. I think that title goes probably to Tiger and Sherman. Both good machines, very few drawbacks.

 

[valentin4]

Which wasn't the case in 1943/44, which the quoted post mentioned. The tank was cramped, poorly manufactured, prone to break down, poorly suspended, had a 2 man turret in the beginning, low velocity gun. Not a superior fighting vehicle. I think that title goes probably to Tiger and Sherman. Both good machines, very few drawbacks.

Yes .It is true that the T34 was an innovative design and had an influence over future medium tanks, and that it played a role in the war because it was produced in massive numbers, but it was consistently dominated in the battlefield, and performed poorly at the tactical level.

 

[Zauberelefant]

The German heavy bomber effort died with that one air force leader - Waller, Weller or something - as his successor was much more in favor of tactical bombers.

Wever.

 

[Volodio]

Which wasn't the case in 1943/44, which the quoted post mentioned. The tank was cramped, poorly manufactured, prone to break down, poorly suspended, had a 2 man turret in the beginning, low velocity gun. Not a superior fighting vehicle. I think that title goes probably to Tiger and Sherman. Both good machines, very few drawbacks.

It was still the case. Some problems were solved, the Soviet tanks had more support and acted with better coordination with infantry/artillery, but still lacked experienced crew, good command (especially in the northern front), enough radios, etc.

The quoted post used it as an example for his argument that the T34 sucked during the whole war because of the high number of losses:

6. The T34 was a far less impressive weapon that its legend suggests. One clue is to look at the massive numbers of T34 destroyed/broken down during the war, surprising for such a "superior" tank. https://www.operationbarbarossa.net/the-t-34-in-wwii-the-legend-vs-the-performance/

 

[Zauberelefant]

It was still the case. Some problems were solved, the Soviet tanks had more support and acted with better coordination with infantry/artillery, but still lacked experienced crew, good command (especially in the northern front), enough radios, etc.

The quoted post used it as an example for his argument that the T34 sucked during the whole war because of the high number of losses:

Well, it obviously was at no point the superior tank. It won the war, the same way the K98 won the Indochina war: being good enough and available in enough numbers.

 

[valentin4]

It was still the case. Some problems were solved, the Soviet tanks had more support and acted with better coordination with infantry/artillery, but still lacked experienced crew, good command (especially in the northern front), enough radios, etc.

So operational situation improved but massive losses still remain ? And you have to take into account that in 1943/44 as things improved for the Soviets, they tend to worsen for the Germans (crew erosion, less fuel for operations etc...)

could it be... that the T34 was not such a good tank after all ?

 

[Volodio]

So operational situation improved but massive losses still remain ? And you have to take into account that in 1943/44 as things improved for the Soviets, they tend to worsen for the Germans (crew erosion, less fuel for operations etc...)

could it be... that the T34 was not such a good tank after all ?

Are you being obtuse on purpose or you're simply not reading my posts?

 

[valentin4]

Are you being obtuse on purpose or you're simply not reading my posts?

You try to paint the engagement context of the T34 like it's 1941 during the whole war. In 1944 the Soviets are in a much better operational situation, they have the numbers, better supply, air superiority, better crew training and command (as demonstrated during Operation Bagration) and it's the Germans who are running on fumes and scrapping the barrel to continue to fight. Yet, the T34 (mostly T34/85) continue to suffer massive overall casualties and very unfavourable kill ratio.

 

[Zauberelefant]

Then again, same thing happened to allies in the west, because attacking a German late war outfit with tons of AT, Panzerfaust, Panzerschreck and dug in tanks is bound to get costly.

 

[Volodio]

You try to paint the engagement context of the T34 like it's 1941 during the whole war. In 1944 the Soviets are in a much better operational situation, they have the numbers, better supply, air superiority, better crew training and command (as demonstrated during Operation Bagration) and it's the Germans who are running on fumes and scrapping the barrel to continue to fight. Yet, the T34 (mostly T34/85) continue to suffer massive overall casualties and very unfavourable kill ratio.

Glad you decided to delete your post and re-read mines to make a more appropriate answer.

I'm not saying the situation of 1941 stayed the same during the whole war, I'm saying some of the problems encountered in 1941 were still present in 1944. You're the one acting like the operational situation changed but not the rest by saying that the Soviets should get an awesome "kill ratio" simply because of a change in the operational situation, as if there hadn't been new tanks or AT developed.

And I don't know why you insist so much on the situation in 1944 when it's completely irrelevant. The discussion was about the Soviet tank superiority in 1941 because of the OP wanting to give more research slots to the USSR. Examples from three years later don't matter.

 

[mursolini]

Why does the USSR start with 3 slots but Italy and Germany start with 5 research slots? During the 1930s the USSR was continuously ahead of Germany and Italy in technology.

1. In terms of Synthetic rubber, the Soviet Union built the world's first polybutadiene (modern synthetic rubber) plant in which the butadiene was obtained from petroleum. And the Soviet developed process was copied by Germany to produce their synthetic rubber. "The first rubber plant in Europe SK-1 (from Russian "Synthetic Kauchuk", Russian: СК-1) was established (Russia) by Sergei Lebedev in Yaroslavl under Joseph Stalin's first five-year plan on July 7, 1932. By 1940, the Soviet Union had the largest synthetic rubber industry in the world, producing more than 50,000 tons per year. During World War II, Lebedev's process of obtaining butadiene from ethyl alcohol was also used by the German rubber industry.[4]"
2. In terms of heavy tank design, in 1939 the USSR had the KV-1, with 75mm thick armor, was the worlds most powerful heavy tank. Germany a year later had only one kind of "heavy tank" called the Neubaufahrzeug, this "heavy tank" had armor equivalent to that of a light tank, such as a T-26. No German tank until late 1942 was able to compete with the KV-1, this means the Soviets had nearly a year and a half of tank superiority over Germany after Operation Barbarossa.
3. The Soviets began production of the Petlyakov Pe-8 heavy bomber in 1936, it was a long range heavy bomber with four engines, something Germany never achieved. This soviet heavy bomber had a range of 3700Km, which is far greater than any German bomber, and is even greater range than the US Boeing B-29 Superfortress, which didn't begin production until 1943. It also had a greater maximum flight ceiling than any German bomber produced.
4. The largest Soviet aerial Bomb used in WW2 was the FAB-5000, a 11,000lb bomb, the largest German aerial bomb used in WW2 was the SC2500, which weighed 5,300lb.
5. The Soviets had the first modern rocket launcher system in service by 1939 in the form of the Katyusha rocket launcher. The first comparable German rocket launcher (not counting single rocket mortar devices, which are not comparable to a Katyusha) was the 15 cm Nebelwerfer 41, which entered service 2 years later in 1941.
6. In terms of Medium tank design, the Soviets were again ahead, as the T-34 was said by German generals as follows "After the Germans encountered the tank in 1941, German general Paul Ludwig Ewald von Kleist called it "the finest tank in the world"[6] and Heinz Guderian affirmed the T-34's "vast superiority" over German tanks.[7][8]"
7. Industrialization in the regions constituting modern Germany is understood by historians to have switched the region from agriculture to industry between the years 1830-1880. Russia/USSR industrialized and transitioned from an agricultural state to a industrial one in the years 1928-1938. Now to accomplish in 10 years what took Germany 50, had to involve immense technological advancements.
8. In the 1930s, the Soviets, not Germany, were the pioneers of Aeronautic feats. "The Soviet pilot Valery Chkalov was the first to fly non-stop from Europe to the American Pacific Coast. His flight from Moscow, Russian SFSR, Soviet Union to Vancouver, Washington, United States, via the North Pole on a Tupolev ANT-25 single-engine plane (June 18–20, 1937) took 63 hours to complete. The distance covered was 8,811 kilometres (5,475 mi).[2] "

Even during WWII itself the USSR did not loose this technological advantage, contrary to the misconceptions of many about "superior German technology". Soviet choices for example to mass produce "good enough" weapons, instead of superior weapons to those of the Germans, were based on the fact that the Soviets had many more men to equip than Germany did. Focusing on superior designs would have only provided some Soviet soldiers with better weapons than the Germans, and left many others with no weapons. Even with this situation, some Soviet wartime designs were still superior to German ones.

So I ask again, why does Germany and Italy get 5 technological research slots and the Soviets only 3?

Your list is quite biassed. Depending on which facts you want to highlight, you can justify anything.

The "main" reason USSR doesn't have so many slots, is because their doctrines were in abysmal state due to their insanely poor utilisation of their material pool in their wars, and them having virtually no navy. Which, in game, is massive amount of research days.

In contrast, Germany, by game logic had great doctrines, due to good utilisation of its limited material supply.

 

[valentin4]

Glad you decided to delete your post and re-read mines to make a more appropriate answer.

I'm not saying the situation of 1941 stayed the same during the whole war, I'm saying some of the problems encountered in 1941 were still present in 1944. You're the one acting like the operational situation changed but not the rest by saying that the Soviets should get an awesome "kill ratio" simply because of a change in the operational situation, as if there hadn't been new tanks or AT developed.

And I don't know why you insist so much on the situation in 1944 when it's completely irrelevant. The discussion was about the Soviet tank superiority in 1941 because of the OP wanting to give more research slots to the USSR. Examples from three years later don't matter.

but in 1941, the Germans don't have the same tanks and anti-tanks weapons as in 1944.

Anyway, I'm reposting the article that sums up why the T 34 is overrated https://www.operationbarbarossa.net/the-t-34-in-wwii-the-legend-vs-the-performance/

 

[Viper1989]

The Soviets began production of the Petlyakov Pe-8 heavy bomber in 1936, it was a long range heavy bomber with four engines, something Germany never achieved. This soviet heavy bomber had a range of 3700Km, which is far greater than any German bomber, and is even greater range than the US Boeing B-29 Superfortress, which didn't begin production until 1943. It also had a greater maximum flight ceiling than any German bomber produced.

B-29 Range with combat load was in the region of 4,100 miles (6,598 km).

 

[DicRoNero]

In what way was the general "industrial culture" lower in the USSR? what does "industrial culture" even mean? During the 1930s, it seems like most major technological advancements were coming out of the USSR.

Industrial culture means established educated well-paid working class put in decent working conditions and being able to pump products of good quality to make own living off that.

I could have given many various definitions (as one could generally do towards any 'culture' itself), but in strictly practical sense that boils down to what I suggested.

Slaves work poorly, that's what the Germans themselves experienced with their V-weapons and those fighters produced at same sites (like Dora-Mittelbau I once visited).

Implying that Russian industrial workers reached their potential peak during WW2 would be a huge underestimation and an outright humiliation of their human dignity. What they indeed achieved through their sacrificial labor by no means suggests their education and background were not lacking still, and they wouldn't have produced yet more or of better quality if properly fed, taught and otherwise treated. To make the point clearer: Sherman [in theory] was no match to T-34, yet Sherman [practically] was made with the American quality which more than made up for its original design flaws. [That 'multi-bank' engine alone!.. The Germans with their He-177 engines were not that weird, then!]

Slaves also *fight* poorly, and that is something often overlooked at the history of WW2, but that's a bit of a different story for this thread.

---
I know I probably had too much World of Tanks in my life, but each time I see T34 written as that I honestly for the first instance can't help thinking of the American heavy tank with this precise name. It's T-34 you should be saying, why is it that difficult for people? )

 

[Sunforged General]

The first patent was a german patent on synthetic rubber (1909 Fritz Hofmann). Germany produced synthetic rubber during WW1. In 1929 Eduard Bock and Eduard Tschunkur refined the production of synthetic rubber. So your statement is plain and simple false.

The Russian chemist Sergei Vasilyevich Lebedev was the first to polymerize butadiene in 1910.[3][4] In 1926 he invented a process for manufacturing butadiene from ethanol, and in 1928, developed a method for producing polybutadiene using sodium as a catalyst.

I listed my sources. Polybutadiene, the main form of modern synthetic rubber in the 1930s and 1940s, was invented by a Russian chemist, and the first plant mass producing it was built in Russia.

Prior forms of synthetic Rubber were inferior and not as widely used in the 1930s and 1940s as Polybutadiene.

 

[Sunforged General]

B-29 Range with combat load was in the region of 4,100 miles (6,598 km).

Source? This says the B-29 had a range of 3,250 miles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-29_Superfortress#Specifications_(B-29)

The B-29 had a further ferry range, which means it can fly farther while carrying no bombs, but any bomber can do that if they aren't carrying bombs. Weight burns fuel.

 

[Sunforged General]

Well, it obviously was at no point the superior tank. It won the war, the same way the K98 won the Indochina war: being good enough and available in enough numbers.

At no point? In 1941 Paul Ludwig Ewald von Kleist called it "the finest tank in the world"[6] and Heinz Guderian affirmed the T-34's "vast superiority" over German tanks.[7][8]

Are you calling the German generals liars?

 

[Alpha2518]

I'll have to add to the T-34 discussion but I'll also throw in the KV-1 here.

But first let us focus on the T-34, Heinz Guderian may have said the T-34 to have been superior. However we must consider that like many German soldiers, he was biased in what appeared to be an impenetrable super tank compared to "obsolete" German tanks. As such closer inspection is required.

The T-34 suffers from poor Fire Control Effect or FCE. FCE is everything from identifying the target, acquiring the target, and shoot the target. This is not just due to poor optics on the gunner sights, this also includes the ability of the driver, commander, etc, the entire tank as a whole because everyone should be able to identify targets for the gunner and call them out. Because of this poor FCE many T-34s were destroyed by so called "obsolete tanks" even after the major operational losses of 1941 and we start getting into majority combat losses in 1942. The Soviets gambled on a superior gun and superior armor. However, the Germans had the correct idea in emphasizing FCE over armor. After all if you hit the enemy first, you don't have to worry about the enemy. But also if you get hit first, you ensure that the enemy is hit more often.

Given the increasing firepower of ATGs and tank cannons increasing armor was a futile effort. This is vindicated by post war tank design with a large amount of the tank dedicated to FCE. Hence it is strange to tout the KV-1 as being superior on armor alone. After all, armor means nothing if the tank is destroyed in ambush by ATGs, close in infantry assaults etc. In fact these are responsible for the majority of tank losses, not tank on tank engagements.

Getting back to the T-34, this poor FCE remained even on the upgraded T-34-85. The result was that no matter how good the soviet crews were in relation to their german counterparts, they could not overcome this fatal design flaw that the T-34 had right up to the end of the war. Also who would call a weapon system that can not achieve better then a 3:1 loss to kill ratio a good weapon system. No one would say this of any German or Western Allied weapon system and the T-34 does not deserve special treatment.

That being said, at the strategic level it was successful. But only because other German armored fighting vehicles were having to be directed against the Western Allies. Remove the Allies and the kill to loss ratio for German AFVs to Soviet AFVs, that is TDs, SPGs, MBTs, etc, is still in the German favor and not only wipes out the entire Soviet AFV production in the war, but also the entire soviet AFV force in operation barbaossa. This is without correcting for no strategic bombing, luftwaffe air superiorty because they are not defending the Reich from bombing, and 10,000 heavy ATGS with full complement of supply.

In short, the superior armor and firepower and cheap mass production abilty of the T-34 is not enough by itself and could not save the Soviets with swarms of T-34s. The T-34 needs help at the strategic level in order to succeed and luckily for the soviets, they had that strategic help.

 

[Timmysoboy]

In what way was the general "industrial culture" lower in the USSR? what does "industrial culture" even mean? During the 1930s, it seems like most major technological advancements were coming out of the USSR.

One example here is the AK47. It was designed after similar rapid-production ideas as the German STG-44 (namely, easy to produce stamped parts). After putting the weapon into production, the Soviets quickly realized stamped parts were not realistic for them, and returned to the older technique of milling the receivers of the weapons. Metal stamping was eventually figured out on a wide scale, yielding the AKm (the actual AK that everyone knows and loves). The point, though, is that Germany went into the war with the capability to stamp parts, whereas the Soviets did most of their fighting with M91/30’s, despite having accepted an auto-loading rifle before the war. The Soviet Union may have been on the cutting edge of inventing things, but they didn’t have the establishment to produce it.

for what it’s worth, I think the T34 was the best tank of the war.

 

[Sunforged General]

I'll have to add to the T-34 discussion but I'll also throw in the KV-1 here.

But first let us focus on the T-34, Heinz Guderian may have said the T-34 to have been superior. However we must consider that like many German soldiers, he was biased in what appeared to be an impenetrable super tank compared to "obsolete" German tanks. As such closer inspection is required.

The T-34 suffers from poor Fire Control Effect or FCE. FCE is everything from identifying the target, acquiring the target, and shoot the target. This is not just due to poor optics on the gunner sights, this also includes the ability of the driver, commander, etc, the entire tank as a whole because everyone should be able to identify targets for the gunner and call them out. Because of this poor FCE many T-34s were destroyed by so called "obsolete tanks" even after the major operational losses of 1941 and we start getting into majority combat losses in 1942. The Soviets gambled on a superior gun and superior armor. However, the Germans had the correct idea in emphasizing FCE over armor. After all if you hit the enemy first, you don't have to worry about the enemy. But also if you get hit first, you ensure that the enemy is hit more often.

Given the increasing firepower of ATGs and tank cannons increasing armor was a futile effort. This is vindicated by post war tank design with a large amount of the tank dedicated to FCE. Hence it is strange to tout the KV-1 as being superior on armor alone. After all, armor means nothing if the tank is destroyed in ambush by ATGs, close in infantry assaults etc. In fact these are responsible for the majority of tank losses, not tank on tank engagements.

Getting back to the T-34, this poor FCE remained even on the upgraded T-34-85. The result was that no matter how good the soviet crews were in relation to their german counterparts, they could not overcome this fatal design flaw that the T-34 had right up to the end of the war. Also who would call a weapon system that can not achieve better then a 3:1 loss to kill ratio a good weapon system. No one would say this of any German or Western Allied weapon system and the T-34 does not deserve special treatment.

That being said, at the strategic level it was successful. But only because other German armored fighting vehicles were having to be directed against the Western Allies. Remove the Allies and the kill to loss ratio for German AFVs to Soviet AFVs, that is TDs, SPGs, MBTs, etc, is still in the German favor and not only wipes out the entire Soviet AFV production in the war, but also the entire soviet AFV force in operation barbaossa. This is without correcting for no strategic bombing, luftwaffe air superiorty because they are not defending the Reich from bombing, and 10,000 heavy ATGS with full complement of supply.

In short, the superior armor and firepower and cheap mass production abilty of the T-34 is not enough by itself and could not save the Soviets with swarms of T-34s. The T-34 needs help at the strategic level in order to succeed and luckily for the soviets, they had that strategic help.

In a strategic sense, perhaps, on a tactical level 1vs1 I dont think any amount of FCE will save a Panzer III that simply cannot penetrate a T-34s armor from any side at any range. A hard stat tank isn't necessarily worse than a soft stat focused tank.

Also, since you are bringing up Strategic bombing of Germany, we also have to consider how much production the Soviets lost while having to move most of their factories to the Ural mountains. Sure, maybe without allied bombing Germany gets more production, and maybe without Finland in the war, the Soviet submarine force can stop German imports of iron ore from Sweden, causing German war production to collapse due to no steel.

"Grand Admiral Raeder, head of the German navy, declared that it would be "utterly impossible to make war should the navy not be able to secure the supplies of iron-ore from Sweden".