Want to read something funny?

Discussions on all aspects of the USSR, from the Russian Civil War till the end of the Great Patriotic War and the war against Japan. Hosted by Art.
Logan Hartke
Member
Posts: 1226
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 18:30
Location: Illinois, USA

Want to read something funny?

Post by Logan Hartke » 15 Apr 2002 19:02

Read this, the part about the transmission and air filter are funny.
http://www.battlefield.ru/library/archives/stat/stat7.html

Logan Hartke

Ovidius
Member
Posts: 1414
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 19:04
Location: Romania

Funny

Post by Ovidius » 16 Apr 2002 17:14

Mr. Hartke,

I remeber to have quoted at least twice, on the old forum, from the article. Most people did not care to answer, except for Oleg, who posted immediately an article quoting how hard was the T-34 to be knocked out by German guns.

~Regards,

Ovidius

Logan Hartke
Member
Posts: 1226
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 18:30
Location: Illinois, USA

Post by Logan Hartke » 16 Apr 2002 17:32

Haha, that sounds like oleg. I found it hilarious how the KV-1 was using an American transmission that was rejected in the mid 20's. So much for Soviet innovation.
Without a doubt, poor. An interesting thing happened. Those working on the transmission of the KV were struck that it was very much like those transmissions on which they had worked 12-15 years ago. The firm was questioned. The firm sent the blueprints of their transmission type A-23. To everyone's surprise, the blueprints of our transmission turned out to be a copy of those sent. The Americans were surprised not that we were copying their design, but that we were copying a design that they had rejected 15-20 years ago. The Americans consider that, from the point of view of the designer, installing such a transmission in the tank would create an inhuman harshness for the driver (hard to work). On the T-34 the transmission is also very poor. When it was being operated, the cogs completely fell to pieces (on all the cogwheels). A chemical analysis of the cogs on the cogwheels showed that their thermal treatment is very poor and does not in any way meet American standards for such mechanisms.

Also, the air filter was so bad that the Americans said that an enemy saboteur must've designed it. Another quote that I found funny...
The T-34 medium tank after driving 343 km, became completely disabled and that could not be fixed. The reason: owing to the extremely poor air filter system on the diesel, a large quantity of dirt got into the engine and a breakdown occurred, as a result of which the pistons and cylinders were damaged to such a degree that they were impossible to fix.

That's not too far before the tank became an immobile pillbox. No wonder early Soviet tanks were always on the defensive in 1941, they didn't have a choice.
The end conclusions do a very good job of summing up the T-34.

Logan Hartke

User avatar
Oleg Grigoryev
Member
Posts: 5051
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:06
Location: Russia

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 16 Apr 2002 19:45

Mr. Ovidious does not tell the whole story. His thesis was that T-34 was a bad tank in general. To that I replied by posting a "Instructions to units on the Eastern Front for Combating the Russian T-34 Tank with our Panzers" by the General der Schnellen Truppen beim Oberkommando des Heeres from, please note the date 26 May 1942.

The T-34 is faster, more maneuverable, has better cross-country mobility than our Pz.Kpfw.lll and IV. Its armor is stronger. The penetrating ability of its 7.62 cm cannon is superior to our 5 cm KwK. and the 7.5 cm KwK40. The favorable form of sloping all of the armor plates aids in causing the shells to skid off.;… In defense and covering a retreat, the T-34 with the turret at six o'clock is often dug in on a commanding height along a road or on the edge of woods or villages. Then after surprisingly opening fire from ambush, the T-34 can be driven out of the concealed position still under cover.

In correctly recognizing his technical superiority in weapons, the T-34 already opens fire on German Panzers at ranges from 1200 to 1800 meters. Because the T-34 is faster than the German Panzers, he can choose the range for a firefight.
It seemed that pluses of T-34 sides overweighed its negatives since Germans pressed as much in service as they could
Panzer Division's 1st Panzer Regiment had some 6 T-34/76 Model 1940 and 1941 tanks. Along with 1st Panzer Division, T-34/76 tanks were in service with 2nd Panzer Division, 9th Panzer Division (33rd Panzer Regiment), 10th Panzer Division (7th Panzer Regiment), 11th Panzer Division, 20th Panzer Division (21st Panzer Regiment) and 23rd Panzer Division. Number of T-34/76 tanks was still in service in 1945, for example with 23rd Panzer Division in Slovakia and East Prussia. Along with Panzer Divisions, number was used by 18th Panzergrenadier Division and 98th Infantry Division. …. Waffen-SS units also did not hesitate to use captured T-34/76 tanks and 2nd SS Panzer Division "Das Reich" and 3rd SS Panzer Division "Totenkopf" pressed significant number into service.
In regards to armor quality it seems that US got one from a bad batch.
Both the Americans and British exchanged tanks with the Soviets during WWII, those vehicles going to the Soviets were included in various Lend Lease programs and those few coming over to the Americans and British were for study and evaluation. These evaluations were then given to the Soviets in order to help them improve their designs, but the experience also helped the west improve their vehicles. The only proviso from the Soviets concerning these few study tanks was that the armor would not be cut for evaluation. The Americans ignored (or "forgot") that agreement, which led to some embarrassing moments when a Soviet official later visiting the American tank proving grounds discovered large armor plates completely missing from their 'loaned' vehicles. By the way, the armor on this particular tank was found to be of very poor quality, hardened only slightly on the surface, and the US strongly advised improving the quality of steel, as the thickness of the armor could then be reduced with a resulting improvement in mobility/speed. The British School of Tank Technology found their T-34/76 Model 1942 tank's armor to be of "excellent" quality, which begs the question, why such different results between the British and Americans?



In regard to 4-speed transmission it was indeed based on the earlier American design but not form trucks – it was from Christy tanks. But as even the article you gave the link to says that these were earlier models the most common transmission was 5-speed – the fact that mr.Hartke overlooked. Also it is 1942. Tanks are made mostly in Stalingrad and Leningrad. Ural just began to produce so lower quality of machines is actually understandable.

Ovidius
Member
Posts: 1414
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 19:04
Location: Romania

Post by Ovidius » 16 Apr 2002 20:51

The T-34 had some strong points and some weak points, like any tank.

What are generally claimed to have been its best features were the top speed and sloped armor. However, the armor, even sloped, was too thin(maximum armor: 40mm early versions, up to 50-60 mm later versions, 65 mm the post WWII T-34/85 II) for a Main Battle Tank, and the excellent Diesel engine was plagued by the crappy gearbox. A dead gearbox gives exactly 0(zero) mph, and it's not exactly very easy to change it in the field. Plus, the brake levers were so hard to operate that sometimes the drivers had to unstick them with the hammer. :oops:

The fact that it resisted well to German guns is not pretty much relevant. The French Char de Bataille B1bis had thicker armor, and was immune to any German gun, except the 88mm FlaK. And it was of no use: the huge complexity of the design made it so hard to manufacture(even worse than a King Tiger) that less than 400 ever touched the ground outside the factory. While the T-34 was a much simpler design: mechanical non-synchromesh gearbox, mechanical steering, Christie suspension(unlike the Char B1 suspension, which assured unbeatable passability but had three different types of springs, 12 wheels each side and was a nightmare to grease). The simplicity of the deisgn made it so easy to manufacture than the Soviets, despite lower industrial base, built over 35,000 T-34s, compared to about 50,000 Shermans. :D

While other countries concentrated on sophisticated designs thought to improve both the vehicle's performance and the crew's work, the Soviets had mated a simple and cheap chassis with a very good gun - and the T-34 was ready. The commanders had no scruples in massing a lot of them in attacks: there were plenty of them; men were expendable, tanks were expendable, shells were expendable, nothing was too expensive. The victory was the only thing that mattered. After August 23, 1944, they imposed also to us this slogan "Everything for the front, everything for victory!" :x The same idea stood behind the Sherman, which was widely regarded as crap; but there was a lot of crap. There were much more than the Germans ould ever knock out. Unlike the Sherman, the T-34 was good enough to fight with a Panther. :)

My comments about the idea that stood behind both the T-34 and the Sturmovik, from the old forum:

http://pub3.ezboard.com/fskalmanforumfrm19.showMessage?topicID=367.topic

~Regards,

Ovidius

User avatar
Oleg Grigoryev
Member
Posts: 5051
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:06
Location: Russia

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 16 Apr 2002 21:38

Ovidius wrote:The T-34 had some strong points and some weak points, like any tank.

What are generally claimed to have been its best features were the top speed and sloped armor. However, the armor, even sloped, was too thin(maximum armor: 40mm early versions, up to 50-60 mm later versions, 65 mm the post WWII T-34/85 II) for a Main Battle Tank, and the excellent Diesel engine was plagued by the crappy gearbox. A dead gearbox gives exactly 0(zero) mph, and it's not exactly very easy to change it in the field. Plus, the brake levers were so hard to operate that sometimes the drivers had to unstick them with the hammer. :oops:

The fact that it resisted well to German guns is not pretty much relevant. The French Char de Bataille B1bis had thicker armor, and was immune to any German gun, except the 88mm FlaK. And it was of no use: the huge complexity of the design made it so hard to manufacture(even worse than a King Tiger) that less than 400 ever touched the ground outside the factory. While the T-34 was a much simpler design: mechanical non-synchromesh gearbox, mechanical steering, Christie suspension(unlike the Char B1 suspension, which assured unbeatable passability but had three different types of springs, 12 wheels each side and was a nightmare to grease). The simplicity of the deisgn made it so easy to manufacture than the Soviets, despite lower industrial base, built over 35,000 T-34s, compared to about 50,000 Shermans. :D

While other countries concentrated on sophisticated designs thought to improve both the vehicle's performance and the crew's work, the Soviets had mated a simple and cheap chassis with a very good gun - and the T-34 was ready. The commanders had no scruples in massing a lot of them in attacks: there were plenty of them; men were expendable, tanks were expendable, shells were expendable, nothing was too expensive. The victory was the only thing that mattered. After August 23, 1944, they imposed also to us this slogan "Everything for the front, everything for victory!" :x The same idea stood behind the Sherman, which was widely regarded as crap; but there was a lot of crap. There were much more than the Germans ould ever knock out. Unlike the Sherman, the T-34 was good enough to fight with a Panther. :)

My comments about the idea that stood behind both the T-34 and the Sturmovik, from the old forum:

http://pub3.ezboard.com/fskalmanforumfrm19.showMessage?topicID=367.topic

~Regards,

Ovidius


when 88L71 APCBC hits high hardness T34/85 glacis the resistance is multiplied by 0.73 due to brittle effects, so 45mm hit at 60 degrees and 30 degrees resists like 45mm x 3.1 x 0.73, or 102mm vertical plate.
so there you go does not seem tooo thin now - does it?

Ovidius
Member
Posts: 1414
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 19:04
Location: Romania

Post by Ovidius » 16 Apr 2002 22:15

Interesting, but:

1. I think the 102mm figure was highly exaggerated; other tanks with sloped armor did not perform as such;

2. It was not necessary to quote my entire message.

~Ovidius

User avatar
Oleg Grigoryev
Member
Posts: 5051
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:06
Location: Russia

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 16 Apr 2002 22:33

Ovidius wrote:Interesting, but:

1. I think the 102mm figure was highly exaggerated; other tanks with sloped armor did not perform as such;

2. It was not necessary to quote my entire message.

~Ovidius
The figure above is based on German test data. You can see the whole discussion herehttp://www.network54.com/Hide/Forum ... 1015968499

Logan Hartke
Member
Posts: 1226
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 18:30
Location: Illinois, USA

Post by Logan Hartke » 16 Apr 2002 23:41

I'll agree that the T-34 was a very good tanks, but it cannot be said that the Sherman was junk or nowhere near the level of the T-34, that is my only argument. The Mk IV, the T-34, and the Sherman were equal to the point that it reall mattered more on the crew than it did the tank. Taht is my only argument. I don't find the T-34 bad at all, I just don't think that it was truly the superweapon that is sometimes claimed. In the end, it was a good tank.

Logan Hartke

User avatar
mike262752
Member
Posts: 174
Joined: 13 Mar 2002 10:35
Location: California, USA

Post by mike262752 » 17 Apr 2002 03:22

Logan Hartke wrote:I'll agree that the T-34 was a very good tanks, but it cannot be said that the Sherman was junk or nowhere near the level of the T-34, that is my only argument. The Mk IV, the T-34, and the Sherman were equal to the point that it reall mattered more on the crew than it did the tank. Taht is my only argument. I don't find the T-34 bad at all, I just don't think that it was truly the superweapon that is sometimes claimed. In the end, it was a good tank.

Logan Hartke


Its huge numbers really give it points.

User avatar
Oleg Grigoryev
Member
Posts: 5051
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:06
Location: Russia

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 17 Apr 2002 07:10

mike262752 wrote:
Logan Hartke wrote:I'll agree that the T-34 was a very good tanks, but it cannot be said that the Sherman was junk or nowhere near the level of the T-34, that is my only argument. The Mk IV, the T-34, and the Sherman were equal to the point that it reall mattered more on the crew than it did the tank. Taht is my only argument. I don't find the T-34 bad at all, I just don't think that it was truly the superweapon that is sometimes claimed. In the end, it was a good tank.

Logan Hartke


Its huge numbers really give it points.
T-34 got it fame befor it was produced in large numbers.

Very worrying", Colonel-General Heinz Guderian, Commander of Second Panzer Army.

"We had nothing comparable", Major-General F.W. Mellenthin, Chief of Staff of XLVIII Panzer Corps.

"The finest tank in the world", Field-Marshal Ewald von Kleist, First Panzer Army.

"This tank (T-34) adversely affected the morale of the German infantry", General G. Blumentritt.
- all this about 1941.

Return to “The Soviet Union at War 1917-1945”