T-34

During the Last Israel - Hezbollah war I saw a lot of Israeli Armor on what looked like T55 chassis. It seems Jews during the 60’s and 70’s had collected a lot of Egyptian tanks made in USSR. They put them in storage and are assembling all types of Tracked Armored Vehicles on poorly made Soviet Chassis with very sloppy tolerances.

 

But let's not forget that they most likely replaced the engines with their own designs. The hulls of M4 Shermans were used as well, well into the seventies, but the only thing those tanks had in common with the M4 was probably the hulls.

 

Yes, V-2-34 diesel, 500 "horses".

In the end of war Soviet tank troops changed their tactics. They were trying to avoid tank duels (guess, why ), Tigers and Panthers were left to assault guns. So, some tanks lived longer lives.

There is a report of the headquarters of the 1st elite tank army (January, 1945). It's written there that engine resource sometimes exceeds 350 hours.
I could give a source book, but it's in Russian language. You may trust me, I have no reason for lies

This resource is a very obscure matter. It's not like in Germany or USA, if it's written, it exists.
In 1941 practical resource sometimes was as low as 50 hours, because technology was new and thus unmastered. In June 1941 40% of tank losses was due to engine failures. But during the whole war technology had been improving continuously.

 

Let we "westerners" not ignore the fact that in some cases we also put out less than "perfect" engines because their expected lifetime didn't warrant the effort. As an example, the engine in the Ford GP(W) "jeep" didn't have a balanced crankshaft when it was delivered to the Army for use. This was because the expected life of a "new" jeep when it was on the combat line was less than 100 hours. Perfecting the crankshalft with time consuming balancing was considered counter productive.

It was much less complicated, time consuming, and economically expedient to just ship replacement engines WITH balanced crankshafts to the front, so the entire unit could be replaced quickly if the jeep didn't get blown up, lost in a lake or stream, fall off a cliff, or sink into a swamp. If the engine gave out, and the "jeep" was still good in every other sense, the engine was swapped out and sent on its way.

 

So the tank failed beyond repair after 300 combat hours. It doesn´t seem so much. What about the others?

 

I think it's reasonable to assume that the quality of T-34 engines would have increased as the war continued. In 1941/42 these machines were being rushed out at panic speed, from factories largely staffed by inexperienced workers straight from the fields or the secretarial pool. Quality was not a high priority, and the freshly recruited workers would have made many mistakes.

As the war situation became less desperate, minor improvements in design and a slightly better attitude to quality control might have added to reliability. But importantly, in 1944/45 the factory workers had three or four years of experience at running their machines, with all that implies for the quality of their products.

 

Russain tanks are know for thier reliability and cheap and easy to make.But because of that they are small very cramped and hot you notice on ww2 videos how the driver always enter the tank feet first? Good armament but not known for at capabilities russain weaponry tend to do more damage than penetration. Not about t34 but that's what the bases for all soviet armor like t34.

 

Roger Ford's The Sherman Tank has a snippet on the performance of Sherman tanks in Korea, unfortunately the book is no longer in my possession. Basically US tank crews slaughtered the NK armor after Sherman 76 & Pershings arrived. There was some information on the kill:loss ratio for Sherman v. T-34 actions and it was pretty impressive. This might not be due to any significant intrinsic superiority of the Sherman tank, though. The M4 76 and T-34-85 seem well matched.

 

Yes, the Israelis have made some use of the T55 and T62 as both tanks and as conversions. But, they also have made extensive modifications to those vehicles for their use. The conversions and other changes include:

Replacing the torsion bars and shock asorpbers with ones manufactured either in Israel, Britain or the US.
Replacing the engine with a US manufactured one like a Cummings diesel, Garrett Air gas turbine, or Continential diesel. Typically, this has been the GM 8V-71T diesel with hydromatic torque converter transmission. This gives 609 hp versus 580 for the Soviet engine and roughly halves the transmission and parasitic horsepower loss.
Replacing the transmission with a US manufactured automatic crossdrive one like in the M60
Replacing the main gun with the NATO L7 105mm.
Replacing the secondary armament with Browing .30 or .50 machineguns
Replacing the tracks with live rubber bushed ones rather than the Soviet steel dead single end pin tracks.
Fitting a low profile commander's cupola to improve the commander's view and allow for better open hatch operations in combat.
Installing a new fire control system of local manufacture, the EI-Op Matador.
Fitting a full turret basket
Fitting a fire supression system.
Going over the vehicle and eliminating alot of the rough interior to help prevent spalling.

Its almost the only thing left are the hull and turret.

The same sort of thing is done with their APC conversions.

 

You are neglecting the fact that tanks spend a lot of time ideling. Also I doubt many Panthers are going far at 47mph.

 

No Sir, I said 47 kmph. And you are right about ideling.

 

So far I haven't seen citable facts posted that counter the information that the T34 engine had a very short life (in the T34/76 during the decisive part of the war). The quality of the engine may have improved during the war, maybe not (no citable facts posted). At this point I am still inclined to believe that the T34 was an automotively and ergonomically crude and simple vehicle. The aspect of the vehicle that made its reputation is sheer numbers, otherwise it was a deathtrap. If the T34 was fielded in the same numbers as German tanks it would be a mere footnote in history, not the symbol we see it as today. As a weapon system compared one on one with its contemporaries it is subpar, its only when you add the production aspect that it becomes attractive. That being said I personally don't consider it the best tank of all time or even WWII for that matter.

 

OK,
I'will try to defend a little bit T-34:

In mobility it was the superior war design up to the end of the war. No one else has the optimum ground pressure and reliable engine.
The armor was the best at the beginning of the war and very well placed (sloped front side and sides). Later it became upgraded but not sufficient to stay the best one.
Easy technology for production for all the war time - one of the best parameters of any machine existing.
Best tank canon at the beginning of the war - relatively good (and capable to penetrate Panthers and Tigers at up to 500m) at the end of it.
The right diesel engine.
Turret not well suited at the beginning of the war, but from 1943 - more ergonomic 3 man turret with well placed radio for EVERY tank.
Suspensions - easy to produce and to repair in fighting conditions.
Easy interaction with infantry - soldiers simply mount it and ride it toward the next battle.
The most battle winning tank in history - we can't even count the number of battles won by it.
It is still in use! - best longevity.
In: Mali, Afghanistan, Somalia, Mozambique, Ethiopia and 3-4 other coutries
And very amazing - at the same time cold and warm resisting device - from the rough Russian winter to the african temperatures, see the list of the latest operators!

So it it was the best at the critical time of the larger human conflict in history - it deserves No1 place.
It is not question if you like Russians or not - it's already the history.

 

if it ...

 

I'm joining this convwersqation a little late so excuse me if I am repeating what others might have said. I've read some on the T-34 but not a lot. What I think is that the T-34 has a reputation that far exceeds the tank itself. I think the Germans did not prepare their men in the field for the T-34 and KV-1 so we hear tons about these mighty tanks and how unstoppable they were. Reality, the Germans weren't fielding powerful AT guns in 1941 so these tanks gave them headaches.

In mobility
It had wide tracks and low ground pressure, no getting around that. It was also a comparitively light tank so the ground pressure would be low. This is not a technological marvel but it helps the tank's performance, no doubt.

The armor
What I've read is that the turret armor was not all that great. Try to imagine the quality of Russian armor in 1941...do you thik it would be that great. Yes, the sloping helped stop AT fire in '41 but when the Germans wheeled out the dual purpose 88 the armor was done. By '42 the German AT guns were defeating the T-34 with no problem.

Easy technology for production for all the war time - one of the best parameters of any machine existing.

I can't disagree at all here. Mass production wins wars, plain and simple. It was a bit too simple though.

Best tank canon

The gun worked but "best"?? Comparable to the Sherman's guns.

The right diesel engine.

Diesel helped them, yes. I've read some bad stuff about the engine though (T-34 In Action.)

Turret

It is very important to remember that that first turret placed the commander in the dual role as gunner. This is a huge handicap and the number of T-34/85's is not that great...you may have that starting time wrong.

Suspensions - easy to produce and to repair in fighting conditions.

Good points.

Easy interaction with infantry - soldiers simply mount it and ride it toward the next battle.

I'm pretty sure that any tank has this attribute.

The most battle winning tank in history - we can't even count the number of battles won by it.

Interesting way to put it. If you factor in the number of tanks lost in these battles you come away with some bad numbers.

It is still in use! - best longevity.
In: Mali, Afghanistan, Somalia, Mozambique, Ethiopia and 3-4 other coutries

The fact that some dirt poor countries still have these does not mean alot. Engines and trannies are replaced as well as numerous other parts. The only thing on these tanks that may be original might be a hull painted many, many times.

I've read that the driver of a T-34 had a tremendous job driving this tank, often needing help to shift. The loader might pass out from the fumes from the gun as the ventilation was so poor. The size of the tank was helpful in presenting a low profile but this traded off to a cramped fighting compartment. I seem to remember that visibility might have been poor and optics were definitely poor.

Referencing the show that named this the No#1 tank of all time I would like to know who wrote/produced that show and at the same time remind all that anyone can get a show on TV saying anything. Credibility zero.

 

Black6,

Osprey's standard reference book on the T-34 discussed a sample sent to the Americans for examination, which contained a faulty filter, result of sub-par workmanship, that severely reduced the engine's function and dependability. I don't have the book with me at the moment and don't expect to be able to use it any time soon, but feel free to hunt down the reference.

The T-34's design was excellent for Russian needs. I think that explanation is accurate enough. It's simple, fast, well-armed, heavily-armored for the time it was introduced and served the Red Army adequately to the end of the war.

JBark,

Good post on the strengths and weaknesses of the T-34. However, don't you think it's an overstatement that by 42 German AT weaponry was regularly knocking out T-34 tanks? The long 50mm was not very effective against the T-34, frontal engagement was probably still a nasty job left for the 88s and long 75s.

 

Only to a degree. While the low ground pressure allowed it to operate on soft ground this was hardly some magic bullet thing. At speed, turning the tank hard meant an almost certain loss of a track. The drive train is hardly highly reliable. Soviet engines of this period burned a quart or more of oil in under an hour of operation. The dry plate clutch was notoriously unreliable and difficult to operate. A small sledge hammer is a recommended "aid" for shifting gears. The use of a simple clutch and brake steering system means that this is not only unreliable but very tiring for the driver to operate.
Compared to German tanks the Soviet ones are unreliable. Compared to US tanks they are mechanically junk.

The T 34 had decent armor but it was hardly "the best." The glacis is just 47mm thick on early models. This gives with the slope about 80 to 90mm of protection. But, it is still vulnerable to larger field guns, and even the 50/60 will penetrate it at 500 meters or more. Overall, the T34 is no better protected than a Sherman or Cromwell and in many aspects, less well protected. When the Germans up armor their AFV they chose 80mm actual plate thickness whenever possible from late 42 to 44. This thickness was not accidential. It represents a plate thick enough to stop a Russian 76mm APC or APHE round at virtually anything other than point blank range.

The simplicity represents a trade off. That is it comes at a price. The price is inefficency and unreliability. The T 34/76 and KV 1 are not well engineered ergonomically. They are excrutiatingly hard on the crew. Their lack of basic refinements makes them poor tactically. This is why the German panzers run circles around them and accounts in very large part for the big disparity between German tank losses and Russian ones in tank on tank battles.

What?!! The Soviet 76/34 is no better than the British 6 pdr or US 75mm M3 in penetration. In fact, the 6 pdr out performs it. The Soviet 85/52 is no better. Its armor penetrating performance is no better than the US 76/52 M1. The US 90mm and German 88/56 are almost identical in performance while the British 17 pdr is considerably better in anti-armor performance. The German 75/L70 is much better also.
Against a Tiger I the Soviet 76 has little chance of penetrating the tank anywhere at over 100 meters. Even at 100 meters penetration is not guarenteed. The Soviet T34 with a 76 or 85mm gun has no better chance against a Panther or Tiger than a Sherman with a 75 or 76 mm gun does. Give the Sherman HVAP ammunition and it outperforms the Soviet 85 considerably.

A diesel doesn't make that much difference. It isn' t really any more reliable than a gasoline engine and also, due to its poor tolerances, smokes badly.

It only took the Soviets what?... Three years to figure out what everyone else figured out by late 1940... That the three man turret is the best layout. Even then the Soviets still normally put the radio in the assistant driver's position, used AM frequencies and, had only one set in every tank. The US was putting two FM sets in theirs (platoon and company). Every British, German and , US tank had an intercom system from 1939 on. The Soviets only started putting these in the T34/85 and other tanks from early 1944.

This is not completely true. A broken spring required not only removal of several road wheels but partial disassembly of the hull to get at it as the springs for the suspension were mounted inside the hull between two plates. The use of a single end pin steel track made these both ungodly noisy but also prone to breakage. Repair of a track is never an easy job just due to the weight.

Tankii desant were an improvisation and proved to be a cause of higher casualties. All nations frequently let troops ride tanks out of immediate battle areas to improve their mobility. This is hardly something the Soviets alone did.

Since WW 2 Soviet armor has failed to win a single major battle anywhere in the world against Western armor. Something to think about.

Brazil still operates M 8 armored cars and M5 light tanks. Mexico has some M5's in service. Chile still runs ex-Israeli M51 and 52 Shermans. Pakistan, Spain and, Italy still have some M47's in service.

As Procipius stated milinia ago: It is not by the numbers of the combatants but by their orderly array and their bravery that prowess in war is wont to be measured... Or,
Sun Tzu: In war, numbers alone confer no advantage....

Soviet armor is judged on that basis and found wanting.

 

Aren't you being a little rough Terry? Soviet 76 and 85 were not intrinsically superior, if not inferior, to US 75 and 76, German 75 and 88, or GB 17 pdr., but the Red Army proved more diligent and showed more urgency in improving anti-armor capability of their tanks, by putting tungsten core ammunition into the hands of their tank crews far earlier than, say, the Americans. T-34-76 tanks eventually carried six HVAP rounds on average, and that should to a limited extend close the firepower gap between Soviet 76 and US 75. US APBC was still markedly superior to the Russian counterpart and almost as good as the Ivan HVAP, though.

I agree the Achilles heel of Soviet armor was poor ergonomics. Once battle was joined, situational awareness in a T-34-76 was non-extant, and it was physically exhausting to drive. Pz. III and Pz. IV routinely defeated T-34s by concentrating on Russian flank or rear. The utility of T-34-76 seem to come from its devastating power against German infantrymen who were poorly equipped to fight tanks from 1941-1944, and was rarely successful in tackling with the panzers unless German armor had been worn down or distracted by fighting elsewhere.

Kill-Loss ratio isn't the end-all, be-all of military effectiveness--the Red Army expended men and machines because they knew they could afford to--but we shouldn't give T-34 mythical attributes it did not have.

It was a simple tank, designed to be manufactured under primitive conditions, operable by ill-trained crews, and make optimal use of its modestly thick armor by sacrificing fightability. IMHO, Terry is on target when he brought up T-34's dependability. Soviet tanks and other war machines didn't need to be durable, since they were more likely destroyed by the enemy before its mechanical life expired.