T-34

I would say that all in all, the T-34 was a good tank. It was cost-effective enough to be used well both against enemy infantry and armor. And by the time the 76mm models had become obsolete, the 85mm model replaced them. Granted, it wasn't as good as a Panther or Tiger, but it was not as if the Germans had their heavy tanks everywhere (though the Panther, actually a medium tank, was very common in 1944-1945).

However, I'd say that both the Shermans and Panzer IVs were better than the T-34s. The late war Panzer IVs were excellent, with sideskirts to protect against HEAT projectiles, great optics and being suitable for being produced in quantities; though, like Black6 pointed out, the Germans wouldn't have been able to sustain too many tanks, given their fuel shortages, and besides that one should keep in mind that it was only in 1943 the total war production started.

As for the Sherman, it was --like the T-34-- not as good as German tanks, but it was not that far behind. Shermans were also continuously improved, esp. with the 76W models that started being used towards the end of the war. The Shermans had decent optics and ammunition, while the Russian 76mm shells were often of low quality, and not to mention the poor optics and lack of radios most of the Russian tanks had.

 

The side skirts were actually for protection from AT rifles from what I've read. In some circumstances they may actualy have inhanced the penetration of HEAT rounds.

A pretty strong case can be made for the Sherman being at least the equal of the PzIV and indeed superior. Much the same can be said for the T-34. In reality it gets down to what you consider important and comparing variants.

 

Personally I look at the T34 as a weapon system within the context of the army that fielded it. The weapon system is to me an all encompassing expression of an army's doctrinal thought process that takes into account the vehicles(T34) servicability, how it is fielded and supplied (quality of the logistical functions that serve it) and how the crews are selected and trained. The crudeness of the T34 is consistent with its tactical application (blunt force), training of its crews (minimal, just keep sending them), field maintenance and ultimate survivability (not built to last long).

 

The T-34, like most Soviet weapons, followed the design philosophy of rough, cheap, and a bajillion of them.

 

Rough, simple to make, capable of achieving the minimum performance parameters required, easy to maintain and reliable enough to be functional for the duration of its average life spam on the battlefield, that is...

 

Tank v. tank is probably the biggest weakness of the T 34. In the 76mm version the two man turret is a huge negative. The lack of vision devices (the commander / gunner has just one periscope and the gunsight, the loader has a periscope but likely isn't using it, the driver can only see straight ahead and, the hull gunner is essentially blind) means the crew is unlikely to spot any target unless it is directly in front of the tank. The ammunition arrangement gives it a slow reload time. The lack of an intercom system means the crew cannot efficently, if at all given the noise levels etcetra in the tank, communicate with one and other. For example, the commander / gunner would have had to visually signal the loader on which ammunition to select and load taking him away from the gunsight to visually ensure the loader saw his hand signal...
The turret rotation is balky and relatively slow. Hand traverse is the norm in many cases. Compounding this is when the turret is traversed the commander can no longer give foot signals (the normal way to communicate intent to the driver in a T34 without an intercom is to tap the driver's shoulder with your foot) to the driver as he is now likely out of reach of him. This single item means the T34 is often realistically reduced to a turreted assault gun rather than a functional tank.

Most T34 lack a radio until 1944. This too is a huge problem. This means that crews have to be briefed on their mission and then blindly carry it out almost completely oblivious of the larger picture as the operation unfolds. Tanks cannot pass target information to each other because of it. So, it is not only possible but historically accurate to find a few German antitank guns slaughtering whole companies of T34 mid-war simply because the Soviet crews are advancing blind and confused into battle.

Up through mid 1943 the T34 also does not represent the majority tank in Soviet service. In most tank brigades it makes up about a third of the vehicles (eg., 10 out of 30). The rest are the much worse T60 or T70 light tanks that are no match whatsoever for German panzers. If anything, German tank crews overstated the effects of the T34 in much the same way British and American crews overstated the effectiveness of Panther and Tiger tanks.

For the above reasons one can see clearly that German panzer crews descriptions of battles with the T34 jibe with the Soviet's heavy losses in these actions and would give real reason for why German crews could rack up impressive kill - loss ratios on the Russians.

 

That's a good point to consider in this type of thread and one I've brought up before myself. While I consider the Sherman a "better" tank than the T34. The T34 was probably the best tank for the Soviets to build at least amoung those produced in WWII. It would not have been the best fof the US but that's another matter.

 

Not built to last long and built to be expendable are two different things. I believe T34 to be as reliable as any tank of WW2 or better. The first 2 prototypes were driven 700km from Kharkov to Moscow, to be presented to Stalin. After show and tell to Stalin both tanks were driven back to the factory via Smolensk and Kiev for a total of 2900km (1802miles).

Many problems were found during the long road test. At the end steering and transmission clutches were shot. Diesel engine proved very reliable, but had a tendency to overheat. As with any Tank of WW2, T34 had its technical problems.

So when it is said:” T34 was not built to last long”. I would like to ask which Tanks of WW2 were build to last longer and by how much?

 

The material, workmanship and overall quality of the pre-war prototypes happens to be the exception in the T34 world, not the norm. The war time produced 76.2mm T34's were not built to last, the strategic situation saw to it that they couldn't be.

 

Indeed my understanding is that the life expectancy of an item had significant impact on it's desing in the USSR. If a plane was only likely to survive for say 100 hours then the engined was speced for overhaul at 200. If a tank on average only lasted long enough to fire 100 rounds then the spec'd life of the barrel was set to 200, etc. The idea was to be as efficient as possible in production. It did lead to some post war problems as training became very expenisve.

 

Lenin said: “Quantity has a quality of its own”.

But again I would like to ask, which tanks during WW2 had a longer and more effective range and operational cycle before needing an overhaul? I believe that T34 was on par for life index with any tank of WW2.

 

Anything the US built for one. Typical German track life was about 700 miles between changes. Soviet was as little as 300. The British might get 1000 miles out of a set, maybe a bit more. US tracks lasted between 3000 and 5000 miles.
US tanks were designed to allow a maintenance crew of just 2 or 3 men to change an engine in a few hours to a day at most. The same went for transmissions.
The US ordinance department wanted guns fitted that could last through more than 1000 firings without sufficently wearing the barrel out that a change was necessary. That vaulted German antitank performance comes at a cost: Their gun barrel life was as little as a couple hundred rounds.

The difference this makes is not in combat. It is in training. A German or Soviet tank crew had to be very careful with their equipment in training. They just couldn't go out firing lots of ammunition and driving their tanks all over the place. If they did the tanks would be worn out before the unit saw combat.
The US also saw using their tanks as self-propelled artillery. This is a role that was not infrequently assigned. Again, in such a role a tank may fire hundreds of HE rounds in just a few days. This is hardly practical with a very high velocity gun that will wear out after just a few fire missions.


The difference shows since WW II too. Post war Soviet tanks were notorious for their poor workmanship and sloppy tolerances. These taxed the crew physically in use, made maintenance a nightmare and, lowered reliability so badly that many times losses to mechanical problems exceeded combat ones.
In the T-54/55/62 series it wasn't uncommon for the engine to accumulate as much as several ounces of metal shavings after being run just a few hours! The Czechs found Soviet tanks they were issued so crude they took theirs apart and re-machined everything before even trying to use them!

Look at the difference it makes. In 1939 several panzer divisions were issued the Pz 38t. The German crews were amazed that these Czech tanks could drive on their own tracks hundreds of miles and not a one would breakdown. Their own Pz II and III tanks in such a march were expected to liter the march route with broken down vehicles. The British crews were amazed at the reliability of the M3 Stuarts they got in North Africa. Hence the nickname "Honey." Reliable tanks make a huge difference. If you have 50 tanks but only 10 are actually running the other 40 don't do much for you. Better to have 50 reliable ones of a poorer combat quality than a handful of vicious ones that rarely can even fight due to their poor reliablity.

 

T34 tank engine averaged 100 hours of use before major overhaul.
MkIV 1200 km's
Panther 1000 km's
Sherman 1000 miles

I'm not sure how that translates from hours to km's or miles, but one thing I remember running across is that T34's often had engines replaced rather than repaired. Crude parts made of inferior materials by poor workmanship don't go back together quite as easily as they come apart.

 

I understand that Soviets built crude and simple machines. Yes the crew comfort and protection were never their top priority. Yes American made tanks had the best designed engines of WW2. However when compare Sherman to T34 it is irrelevant, because these 2 tanks never faced each other.

Panther tank Engine Life is 1000km, and T34 is 100hrs. Thus going 10kmph T34 engine is just is good as Panthers. 10kmph is very slow (6.2mph). Average speed of Panther is 47kmph, T34 is 53kmph. Going cross country we are not going to drive at full speed, but let’s say we are going 20kmph (12.4mph), still a little slow. T34 has a range of 2000km before the engine has to be rebuilt. Panther at 20kmph has a range of 500km before an engine overhaul.

 

Yes they did. There was that little thing in Korea. M4A3E8 Shermans took on T34/85's and the the Soviet tank lost every time.... Lost badly.

 

Korean Armor battles are very minor in the scope of T34 operations during WW2.

Russians ended the main production of T34 in 1946. I do not know what tanks they shipped to Korea. New Polish/ Czechoslovakian or old refurbished Red Army vehicles?
Was the Sherman better than T34 in Korea or the crew training, tactics and battle field support was better?

Sherman won every time? That’s like 100%. New Pershing tanks had a better kill ratio than Sherman; I guess that’s like 110%+.

I believe in 1950 T34 was outdated and Russians started on T54 production in 1946.

Poor tactics, Soviet Tank Crews considered expendable by Soviet Government and ugly welds on the Tank body, should not be confused with (NOT BUILT TO LAST LONG). T34 followed a typical Russian engineering philosophy of:” Good Enough”.

 

Great Discussion everybody.Panther Vs T-34: Ukraine 1943 - Google Books

 

Its guality improved significantly during the war and was about 300 hours in the beginning of 1945.
Also comparing hours to kilometers is not proper.

 

By my information, this may be said about Pershing, not Sherman. Could you give some evidence, please.

 

Was the engine in 1945 the same one as designed in 1940? Its my understanding that it was and that particular engine had a designed service life of 150 hours but never lived up to that for the reasons previously stated in this thread. 300 hours you say? The Soviets managed to get twice the service that the V-2-34, 12-cylinder diesel engine was designed for?

This source says 100 hours, what does yours say?

T-34-76 Medium Tank - Introduction and Overview