Talk:T-34

Nonsense

"At least half the first summer's total tank losses were due to breakdowns rather than German fire, although this also included old tanks in disrepair"

Read the second part again. The tank is new, it just started to be produced in 1940. How on Earth they could be "old" in 1941? Disrepair is a bit more plausible; but all in all, it sounds more like old Soviet song "we weren't ready for the war" rather than solid facts. I would like to remove that part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.176.40.79 (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The source probably refers to all tanks. The nature of the warfare at the start from the Soviet perspective was fighting on a rapidly disintegrating front. So if an armoured vehicle broke down, it was a loss because it would be in German hands sometimes in mere minutes. This seems fairly obvious to me. T-34's and KV-1's were breaking down because they weren't thoroughly tested before seeing combat while the older tanks were breaking down because they weren't being maintained well enough.--Senor Freebie (talk) 07:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Citation style and consistency "References and Notes"

I understand that sometimes in Wikipedia "it's damned if you do and damned if you don't" but in looking over the article it seems that the use of Harvard style referencing and the use of separate Notes and References sections really effects the readability of the article and some are using it and some aren't. It's not just readability that suffers but using Harvard referencing negates much of the advantage that a wiki has over paper, namely the flexibility of an inline citation that combines reference citation information and an expository note that are grouped together rather than having one be separate from the other and that is linked right back to the sentence you were reading. The <ref></ref> system may seem cumbersome if you are repeating a reference that has different page numbers but I have found that happens less than you might think and there's much more to be gained by combining the two, namely because you can assign names to references that don't change and it's much easier to read a combined notes and references section that uses lots of written references and reliable web citations. I did some work on T-55 that I hope shows better what I mean. Still working on a good combination of Notes, References and Bibliography that is functional yet easy to read using the wikicite template that's already here. Awotter (talk) 06:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I started to expand the article using Harvard citations exclusively, to minimize clutter for editors and link-jumping for readers, but a mix has developed since. I suppose it should all be converted to <ref> tags, since that's how all the cool kids are citing these days, or perhaps we can keep using Harvard for plain citations, and the tags only for actual notes. —Michael Z. 2008-04-27 23:58 Z

Guilty as charged, I did most of the tagged references as I found the Harvard style rather jarring and I was having to add a heck of a lot of citations to keep a fact bomber happy. Tirronan (talk) 00:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, and much appreciated. Neither is perfect, and Harvard is rather more obtrusive now that the article is well referenced. One of these days I'll clean it up, if no one's beaten me to it first. —Michael Z. 2008-04-29 03:57 Z

Double Armor T-34?!

It's really weird that the article says the T-34 doubled its armor protection during the war. Indeed my references state that the glacis armor plate thickness had never increased. Some thickening the turret armor took place, but double? Unlikely. -Chin, Cheng-chuan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.225.70.94 (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Pretty close. The early narrow 76mm gun turrets had 45mm of armor in the welded version and 52mm in the cast version. I don't recall the exact thickness of the front of an 85mm gun turret but it was in the neighborhood of 90 to 110mm. Of course the sentence should not imply that *all* the armor was doubled because, as you correctly note, the hull was unchanged throughout production. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Only the turret had 90mm of armor but the hull still had 45mm in the front, so we can't say it has double the protection. It's true that the turret double the protection, but only the turret. The ZiS-S-53 doen't double the F-34 power too. -ACB, el Mutie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.145.254.162 (talk) 13:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

No turret basket

Hello.

Could someone please direct me to schematic drawings showing the layout in the T-34 turret, or try to explain the layout to me? I just can't see how a layout with no turret basket is practical

- How did the gunner stay in the sights? If he isn't in some way attached to the turret, he'd be sitting in the hull, and would have to move around along with the turret. Did the gunner have a seat hooked up in the turret roof?

- If the loader had to stand on the munitions on the turret floor, did that mean that he had to move around to keep up with the turret as it traversed? I can't see it happening in any other ways? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.109.86.72 (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

In the 76mm armed versions, both the gunner (who doubled as commander) and the loader had seats attached to the turret ring; these seats moved with the turret. But there was no turret basket and they indeed did need to move around as the turret traversed. There were nine ready rounds in racks on the hull sides, so there was no need in a short firefight to open up any of the ammo boxes in the floor, but if more than nine rounds were immediately needed or the mix of ammo types needed required getting into the stowed ammo in the floor, the loader had to maneuver around all that.

You're right that it is a poor design from an ergonomic standpoint, but lots of tanks in 1941 didn't have turret baskets. I should add that 76mm-armed T-34s were known for having a low rate of fire and poor visibility, both factors related to the poor ergonomics of the turret and especially the two-man crew. Generally, tanks without turret baskets *were* harder to crew than those with baskets. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, that made things a lot clearer 83.109.86.72 (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

T-34 operators

Many of those countries, listed as operators, have scrapped/retired their T-34s. I cannot provide reliable sources for all of them, but here are some:

• Ministry of defence of Bulgaria, the equipment page lists only T-55 and T-72 tanks in the inventory;
• Ministry of defence of Romania, only the TR-85 tank is present.
• Afghan national army official website, T-55 and T-62 displayed as MBTs, no T-34.

Those I can provide as sources for the moment. I will try to find more and for now remove the stars from those states at the operators list.

- Tourbillon ^A ? 12:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The asterisks indicate countries where the tank was used in 1996, according to the cited source. There's a sentence indicating what the table represents, and by removing asterisks you have rendered it false. —Michael Z. 2008-04-30 14:46 Z

Why not showing the countries, where the tank is used in 2008, for example, when such sources are available ? - Tourbillon ^A ? 15:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. —Michael Z. 2008-05-28 15:20 z

UNINTERRUPTED PRODUCTION RUN?

Under the “Importance” subheading is the text: “The improved T-34-85 remained the standard Soviet medium tank with an uninterrupted production run until the end of the war.”

I have just read ‘THE T-34 RUSSIAN BATTLE TANK’ by Matthew Hughes & Chris Mann. ISBN 0760307016. In addition to tabulating T-34 production by year and type, they state categorically that there were no T-34s produced in 1945. So who is right? 192.190.108.28 (talk) 04:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the authors mean that the original T-34 had stopped production, and only T-34-85 tanks were produced in its place, in 1945. —Michael Z. 2008-07-12 07:16 z

Bay of Pigs Invasion

I've been hacking away at the BoPI page, trying to put some order and sense into it, though I'm just an aircraft historian, specialising in post-USAF B-26 Invaders. There's various accounts of the events, and accuracy of much BoPI data is suspect:- Cuban tanks are variously referred to as T-34s or Stalins. The shipping data also needs clarifying:- three LCUs or LCIs (Blagar, Barbara J, ANOther?), four LCVPs?(coded P-3, P-7 etc), four freighters, one LSD (USS San Marcos), but what sort of vessel was the Marsopa? Perhaps tank/ship nuts might like to investigate? PeterWD (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible Misquote

The following quote appears just under the section heading "Establishing and Maintaining Production":

"Quantity has a quality all its own" —attributed to Joseph Stalin

On the History Channel I have heard this precise quote attributed to Lenin, and there are several websites that also credit Lenin, including:

http://www.notable-quotes.com/l/lenin_vladimir.html

(Badlermd (talk) 13:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC))

This has been attributed to both, and it may be apocryphal, but it has been repeated so much that it is part of the mythology. In my experience it is more commonly associated with Stalin, which is convenient for this article about a Stalin-era tank. —Michael Z. 2008-08-29 15:27 z

See q:Joseph Stalin for a brief discussion. —Michael Z. 2008-08-29 15:30 z

John Mosier on the T-34

Here are some more quotations which may be useful. I don't know whether they should be introduced into the article, because the thesis of Mosier's book is controversial, and he is not specifically a tank expert. The book is mostly about the Western Allies and the Germans, but he felt it necessary to mention the Eastern Front and specifically the T-34 a few times. From John Mosier (2003) The Blitzkrieg Myth: How Hitler and the Allies Misread the Strategic Realities of World War II, HarperCollins [Perennial 2004], ISBN 0-06-000977-2.

. . . Soviet tank design was considerably more advanced than in the West. But the T34 was a major step forward even for the Russians. In 1941 (and in 1942) no one had anything even remotely comparable. —pp 176–77

In June 1941 the Germans had no tank capable of defeating the T34, or even surviving an engagement with it, as one hit from its 76-millimeter gun would destroy any German tank outright, while its own angled armor rendered it well nigh invulnerable to the low-velocity German tank guns—most of which were still 50 millimeters or worse. Only the 88 could stop a T34, and only at ranges n which gunners were loathe to operate. All the more so as the crews were composed of Luftwaffe personnel who had been trained to shoot at airplanes. Belatedly, and with a sense of panic virtually unique in the history of the German army, a whole series of crash programs were begun. —p 177

As we have seen, the entire German tank force was an overlapping series of failed designs. The truth is the only competent tank design to see any real use in the war was the Soviet T34. —p 181 [Mosier also counts the Centurion and Pershing as competent tanks, which “arrived on the battlefield too late to have any impact . . .”]

Perhaps more important than the superlatives is Mosier's discussion of the German response to the T-34, including some subjects not adequately covered in our article. He mentions upgunning Panzer III and IV tanks and Sturmgeschütz, building Tigers and Panthers, development of a low-profile antitank carriage for the 88, and especially the deployment of captured and domestic antitank guns mounted on towed carriages as well as in self-propelled Marders and Hetzers. —Michael Z. 2008-09-20 22:23 z

IMO we should leave Mosier out of this. He's a professor of English and should stick to the subjects for which he is trained. ;) DMorpheus (talk) 13:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Only to ilustrate: (1) the luftwafe 88 argument is voide, because the 88 was pressed in ATG job in France, since the Matilda II / French BIS tanks where stronger that the german tanks. An 88 could frontal open a T-34 over a 1000m away. So, i believe mr. Monsier forgets that germans already faced superior armor against them before the T-34, at 1941 there were already 88 ATG. (2) the "tank-tank" myth arises again. Basically, german tanks weren't meant to kill another tanks,

...which does not make it non-true: Germans in 1941 had practically nothing to stop attacking T-34s with, apart from 88mm AAA guns. So the only viable way to prevent massed T-34s attacks was to disrupt Russian defense in general, keeping them off-balance and on the run. Which Germans did masterfully. .... 90.176.40.79 (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

but as fast hitting units against medium-light units and supply lines. As example: Rommel's "luring" strategy in Afrika. The T-34 was faster that the german panzers and stronger, so they needed to readapt, comming up with the Tiger / Panther. The tiger assuming the "heavy striker"place and the Panther the "fast hitter". Stu/Marder/Elefant were mainly meant for infantry support against armor. Not mentioning, a good quantity of especialist believe the Panther design been as good as the t-34. ---PHWeberbauer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.117.185.123 (talk) 04:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Adding movie of recovering T-34 from bog/lake

The recovering of the German captured T-34 that had been dumped in a lake in Estland, has been recorded on film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kKLbKHNquE . I think it should be added to the passage about the recovery which is already in the article, but due to health reasons (momentarily severe add which also affects my writing skills) I can't do it myself. I think the movie is too important not to mention here. Arnoldus (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Several videos can be seen in the reference cited at the end of that paragraph in the article. —Michael Z. 2009-01-11 17:19 z

Tiger

I'm not sure where, but the fact that they rammed tigers should be included.--Krasilschic (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I hesitate to call that a "fact". I've never seen a really credible source make the claim. And, if true, what of it? DMorpheus (talk) 22:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Links

I know an article about T-34 quite large in information, but in spanish. The link is this: http://www.militarwiki.org/wiki/T-34

I think it could be included in the external links. -ACB, el Mutie- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.145.254.162 (talk) 13:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Comparison with contemporary tanks.

Hi, this is IMHO a very good article on a significant tank. What it lacks to make it more complete is:

• a section summarizing how the T-34 compared against other "contemporary" (ie: WW2) tanks; eg: Pz.III, Pz.IV, Panther, Sherman, Pershing.
• a section ("See also" could be the one) listing related wikiarticles, eg for similar vehicles.

I've seen these sections in other articles (about tanks and military aviation), and really do add to the information provided.
Does anybody else concurs? Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 03:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Fighting infantry?

The BT tanks were cavalry tanks, very fast-moving light tanks, designed to fight other tanks but not infantry.

As I understand the relationship of tanks and infantry, tanks do not fight infantry, rather infantry is used to support and defend tanks from other infantry (sappers, anti-tank weapon crews, etc.) and tanks are used to attack hardened defenses in support of infantry advances.

Shouldn't this be written "The BT tanks were cavalry tanks, very fast-moving light tanks, designed to fight other tanks without infantry"? (Fighting without infantry support and not supporting infantry in its task.)

- Leonard G. (talk) 02:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Tanks do indeed fight Infantry and vice/versa. There's nothing like a 120mm HEAT round to ruin your bunker ;) Sappers are Engineers, not Infantry. They may be mounted or dismounted.

In general during WW2, successful armies used combined-arms tactics with all arms supporting each other with teamwork even at very low levels (company and below).

The BT was designed in the 1930s to the cavalry tank or 'cruiser tank' requirement, which was found in WW2 to be unsound (to put it politely). Strictly speaking you are correct that it was designed to fight without strong infantry support. DMorpheus (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

T-34 in Afghanistan

See here at 3:40. Was watching this vid at CNN and suddenly, lo and behold, isn't that a T34!? I'm pretty positive that it is one although I'm not knowledgeable enough to tell exactly which model. Seems it's not unknown that they did use T34s there, only I didn't know that. Anyhow, if it's useful, here's a video showing one that works at least insofar that it swings its turret. 85.229.85.49 (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a T-34 85. But that seems to be a clip from the 1980's. So it likely was tank of the Soviet-backed, Afghan government, obtained by the Mujahideen after it was abandoned or captured.Catsmeat (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Present Usage

Why does it say that it is still in service? And if it is which countries are using it?--Coffeekid (talk) 23:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The T-34-85 is still being used by some African nations (Angola, for example) and I believe Egypt and Syria still use it as a self-propelled gun platform. Of course, this could have changed by now. My reference is pretty old. Cwjian (talk) 06:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)\

This year, 9 T-34s were used on the victory parade in the red square. Duiring conflicts in Armenia (1992) some of these tanks, standing as memorials also were used. George-yuschenko (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The T-34 as Myth

Recently have been reading through Robert Michulec's T-34 - Mythical Weapon and the points made in this large and very detailed book on the T-34 deserve inclusion, IMHO, in this article. Because so much of this book contradicts the conventional wisdom about the T-34, I think the best way to do so would be to discuss the issues this book raises as a separate section within this article. To attempt to integrate this book into the current article would require extensively re-writing this article, and discarding much of what others have written about the T-34. I personally think that is what should eventually be done, but don't think that it will be possible to do so without a massive fight, so I think a separate section would be the way to go for now.

The book unfortunately has gone out of print, and is now very difficult to find for sale. I seem to have gotten one of the last few copies.

Commments? Thoughts?

DarthRad (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

For anyone looking for it: Hard Cover, 2007 edition with translations of the data tables:

(Michulec, Robert (2007). T-34 Mythical Weapon. Air Connection. ISBN 9780978109103.)

I note that in your own Amazon review of the book, you say it's biased ;)

If the book is accepted as a more reliable source than those in the article, then the article should be rewritten, since articles are supposed to be accurate, and use the best references possible. However, if it's difficult to prove that the book has more reliability than others (especially Zaloga, Perrett etc.), then including its contrary opinions in a balanced way would seem appropriate, either point-by-point throughout the article, or in a separate section - although the latter may give it undue weight. Hohum (talk) 16:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The book is biased because Michulec states his intent to demythologize the T-34 in the preface, and his contempt for anything to do with the Soviets (versus German, American, or British) runs throughout the book, and is quite noticeable. This contempt is almost certainly related to the Polish POV of this author.

I did catch a couple of not quite kosher comparisons in the book, which I pointed out in the Amazon review. But otherwise, MIchulec has his facts correct in this book, and the book is quite good. They do match what has been said in a lot of other books about the T-34.

It's the conclusions that Michulec draws from his facts that are most likely to draw fire from T-34 fans. Some of the basic hard facts that point out the limitations of the T-34 are already in this Wiki article. However, several claims are still sprinkled in the article which Michulec proves to be false.

The "technological pacesetter" quote from Zaloga is almost certainly overblown if not completely false. Michulec points out the earlier French FCM 36 as its probable predecessor and you only have to click on the Wikipedia link to see the strong family resemblance (yes, the T-34 was probably a stolen bastard child of the French, ooh la la! - how about that for a quote in the Wiki article?).

The claims about the reliability of the T-34 are also demonstrably false, another contradiction of Zaloga's writing. The M4 was by far more reliable, which is backed up in one sentence in Dmitryi Loza's "Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks." Michulec's book is literally filled with photographs of just how shoddily the T-34 was put together, including a number (I lost count) of T-34s that were completely blown apart due to the shoddy welding of the hull armor. I have never, ever seen a photo of a German, American, or British tank where the hull completely came apart as a result of an internal explosion. There are many photos of such shattered T-34s in Michulec's book.

Although Zaloga is certainly one of the major tank historians of our time, I am quite suspicious now about his earlier works. In his most recent books, he has revised a number of key statements from some of his earlier works already.

I think Zaloga's earliest works on the Soviet tanks have to be considered the most suspicious, especially since most of them were written with information obtained prior to the fall of the Soviet Union. Soviet propaganda about the T-34 still had a very strong effect. [Note, a controversial claim about the Soviet 122mm gun being able to penetrate a Panther tank from front to back is attributed to Zaloga's 1984 book, and is almost certainly Soviet propaganda, IMHO - this is still in the Wiki articles about the Panther tank and the IS-2 tank].

Finally, Michulec gives the figure of 45,000 destroyed T-34s, which would make it not "the finest tank in the world", which is what is currently stated in this T-34 article, but "THE MOST DESTROYED TANK IN THE WORLD". I'm all for substituting the latter quote in place of the first one, since the hard numbers are there to prove it, but, still this would be a controversial thing to do.

The combined sum of Michulec's views of the T-34 show that this was not a great tank at all, possibly not even a great tank in 1941, but that it was merely a tank that was produced in massive numbers and overwhelmed the Germans by sheer numbers.

You simply twist the facts far too much in the other direction. Yes, T-34 wasn't very ergonomic. Back in 1940, nobody even knew such a word; and Soviets never cared about their people that much. Yes, T-34 was optimized for mass production, and Soviets consciosly chose to not upgrade the design if it meant stopping assembly line. You think other contemporary tanks were better, or at least on par with T-34? Like what? T-34 was head and shoulders above anything anyone else had in 1941, AND it was twice as numerous as the most powerful tank Germans had, Pz-IV. 90.176.40.79 (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That happens to be a commonly expressed opinion about the M4 Sherman, unjustly so, and in fact would appear to be more appropriate for the T-34.

It's mainly having to fight against the weight of all the quotes from authors like Zaloga and Lidell Hart that makes integrating Michulec's book into this article difficult. A lot of that stuff I think is just outdated, and the truth will come out with further works, as more authors, hopefully Zaloga himself, go to Russia to find out the real facts. The window of opportunity may be closing, as Russia seems to be developing a strong pro-Soviet nationalism again.

DarthRad (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

How do you know Michulec is giving facts? You have other sources to confirm? Why not use them instead of a book from someone who you openly admit has an axe to grind and is biased? While you seem deeply impressed by this book, I'm struggling to see why.

One way to sell a book after so many have been written on the same subject, with not insignificant research to make them, by very well respected authors, is to come up with a new twist. "Demystifying, shattering illusions and preconceptions" etc. usually rings alarm bells with me, and makes me check the work very carefully. I see that Michulec has written several other WWII related books, and their titles, at least, don't seem as provocative.

Also, Zaloga, and others, have been able to inspect many T-34's outside Russia, since the tank was so prevalent throughout the world, and for a long period of time.

Even jokingly suggesting that "the most destroyed tank in the world" is appropriate for an encyclopaedia article gives me pause.

I have seen pictures of several Allied and German tanks literally blown to bits, but I don't think any are on wikipedia or commons; they were probably victims of large mines, or (un)lucky bomb hits. Images of Russian tanks blown to bits may from the same causes, and I'm usually dubious of the stated reasons in picture captions. Hohum (talk) 03:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

2 minutes of google searching, here's an obliterated StuG IV [1] Elefant [2], Sherman [3] Panzer IV [4] Hohum (talk) 03:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you got me there. There are photos of other tanks that have come apart. But look at that photo of the T-34 I posted. The degree to which this tank came apart is much worse than your photos. It is not even the worst of the blown up T-34s from this book. I could have posted a couple others that were not even recognizable as tanks anymore - they were scattered in such pieces. It's really the sheer number of photos of completely disintegrated T-34s in Michulec's book that is impressive.

The photos of the tanks that you found do look more like they could have been bomb hits - the center of the tanks and tracked wheels look like they are collapsed down from a gigantic hammer blow from above, rather than an internal explosion making everything, including the side panels, come apart. That photo of the Sherman looks like a gigantic mine hit from below - most of the rest of the tank is still in one piece.

And so I think Michulec's explanation for the multiple photos of T-34s that are literally just completely blown apart has to be accepted for what it is. It might not be the reason for all of the tanks, but to see so many of them with their hull armor plate completely separated and blown apart, one has to come to the conclusion that yeah, something was seriously deficient in the construction of the T-34.

Some of the specifics of Michulec's other information are hard to back up with other sources, such as the his data on the low wear rates of the T-34's engine and main gun. There basically are no other sources that come close to being this specific with this information. Other sources deal only with generalities - Zaloga's statement that the T-34 was a durable tank, Dmitryi Loza's statement that it was no where near as durable as the M4 Sherman (he fought in both tanks, and clearly loved the M4 lots more).

Much of Michulec's information is so specific that it sounds very credible. The 45,000 destroyed T-34s number makes sense if you consider how many T-34s were produced and how many must have been left at the end of the war. If the Russians produced over 58,000 T-34s, surely it was to replace their losses, and not because they had 30,000 or 40,000 tanks at war's end.

The T-34 thus gets the title of "most destroyed tank of all time" over the M4 Sherman - fewer Shermans were produced and there were a lot of them still left over at war's end. But again, I don't know of any hard data as to how many M4 Shermans were actually destroyed during WWII, so this is just a guess. This is something that one should be able to find out, somewhere. One of these two tanks surely owns that title.

Anyway, this is why I am hesitant to insert information from this book into this article, except as a separate item so that people know that there is another viewpoint that may become the predominant one if or when more research comes out from post-Soviet Russia. Zaloga's books on Soviet tanks are mostly from Soviet era information.

You should get this book! I would love to get your opinion of this book.

DarthRad (talk) 08:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

One additional point - Michulec does make very clear that there was a huge difference in the quality of the T-34s produced during the worst of the wartime emergency of WWII and the later T-34s produced after the war. Some T-34s were produced in Poland even. The differences are quite striking in the many photographs of the T-34s from wartime vs. those produced later. The armor of the wartime T-34s was poorly cast, turrets did not fit smoothly into the hull, etc. Photos of the very early T-34s and the late T-34s show very nice looking armor. He says the early T-34s had mechanical teething problems, and the mechanical reliability suffered also during the wartime, but improved considerably in the late model T-34s. All of this makes a great deal of sense, especially combined with his descriptions of how late and how hard it was for the Soviets to move their factories eastward with the Germans attacking (the main Factory 183 was re-built almost anew - Michulec says only about 10% of the parts and personnel were transferred successfully to the Urals, due to the late start of the transfer). Western sources generally seem to assume that the Soviets miraculously moved all of their industry to the Urals well in advance of the German invasion without any problems, but Michulec documents otherwise. All in all, despite Michulec's obvious anti-Soviet tone, he paints a fairly complete and consistent picture of what was happening during that time.

And so if Zaloga and others have examined T-34s, they most likely examined the nice shiny ones produced later. Michulec's book on the other hand thoroughly documents with photographs all the warts of the wartime T-34s.

DarthRad (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

T-34 Mythical Weapon is an awful book and should not be one of the main sources for this article. The text is very nearly useless. The photos and drawings are great. Anyone who takes this book seriously needs to go back to school; sorry, I don't mean to be rude but the text is simply awful. Regards and apologies ;) DMorpheus (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

"You should get this book! I would love to get your opinion of this book."

I'm not spending the amount of money that this book currently goes for. (US$168) (crossarticle reference - Sledgehammers is interesting though)

I also can't give much credence to your offhand dismissal of Zaloga based on unproven accusation, when it's apparent he's been inspecting tanks for decades and is one of the seminal authors on the subject.

I'm sure I can find pictures of what is claimed to be even more blasted allied and German tanks, but they become a scatter of unidentifiable fragments. Pictures of wrecks don't prove how badly constructed a tank is unless the size of the explosion is known. You can turn a modern tank to splinters if you put a big enough charge under it, or guide a 2,000 lb bomb onto it.

However, I'm not a bomb damage assessment professional, so I just go by the reputation of the author. Michulec isn't looking good currently. Hohum (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

To follow up one of your points about the comparative number of Sherman and T-34 tanks left at the end of the war - The Russians were usually fighting three quarters of Germany's strength while the allies fought the rest - it's no wonder they took a lot of tank casualties. Also the very aggressive way that the Russians used poorly trained crews without enough radio control, compared to the rather cautious, coordinated Western approach. Hohum (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: "The T-34 thus gets the title of "most destroyed tank of all time" over the M4 Sherman" Because Western front's battles were just a pale shadow of what took place on the East. T-34s fought more - many times more - that Shermans did, and, as a result, they were being destroyed much more frequently.

Re: "The photos of the tanks that you found do look more like they could have been bomb hits" Why not? Ju-87 dive bombers were used widely against Soviet tanks.

Re: "The claims about the reliability of the T-34 are also demonstrably false" Early T-34 was very unreliable, poorly controllable and blind machine, but during 1943-45 its quality was considerably (I would say, dramatically) improved. Therefore the statement is too general to argue.

Re: "French FCM 36" Maybe, my imagination is poor, but I see no common features. In addition, you forgot that Germans called old T-34 "Christie" (for obvious reasons).

And, finally, comparison of T-34 with German tanks is simply incorrect because T-34 was a type of weapon Germany simply didn't have: a light (in German classification it was a "light" tank, because their "medium" Panther had about the same weight Soviet heavy IS-2 did) mass tank that was widely and extensively used for various purposes. Note, the Germans had a very limited amount of tanks, they tried to save them and took every effort to repair even heavily damaged machines, whereas for Russians it was a standard common kind of weapon.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Also the very aggressive way that the Russians used poorly trained crews without enough radio control" Too general. In 1941 T-34 was almost blind and devoid of any communication means. It had a terrible transmission, both poorly controllable and unreliable. However, it had no opponents (except Ju-87 and stationary artillery). In the second part of the war most mechanical problems were resolved (no appreciable losses during 500km marches in 1944), every tank had been equipped with radio, commander got a cupola, etc., however, German anti-tank armament (a direct response on T-34) also improved dramatically.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

____

Well all right, at least we are getting some debate on the subject.

Paul Siebert - The main contribution of the FCM 36 was the sloped armor on all sides, with the slope of the hull continuous with the turret, so that the tank ended up with a pyramidal shape and a very small turret. This was exactly the same shape of the T-34 which appeared some 3-4 years later than the FCM 36 and yet the T-34 gets all the credit and accolades as a "revolutionary design" for its sloped armor. Well, the French came up with that idea first (p. 247-248 in T-34 Mythical Weapon). Michulec goes further and points out that the pyramidal shape was highly impractical as it resulted in a tiny turret that was all but nonfunctional as the two crewmen could barely aim, load, and fire the gun. This was why the initial "flat turret" with the steeply sloped sides was replaced by the slightly larger, and less steeply sloped "hexagonal turret" (p. 245). The later T-34-85 turret was hardly sloped at all in order to maximize space to fit the larger gun and three crewmen.

As for your point about the dysfunctionality of the T-34-76, the early T-34-76 models were the most dysfunctional because of their tiny, steeply sloped turrets and the weak L-11 gun. The larger hexagonal turret (appearing in the summer of 1942), which was designed to allow for installation of the more powerful F-34 gun was much more functional, but it was still a two man turret lacking a commander. That problem was not fixed until early 1944 when the T-34-85 finally rolled off the production lines with a three man turret. The T-34-76 models thus ALL shared this problem of having nearly blind crewmen trying to fight on the battlefield. The Germans found it very easy to pick them off like ducks because the tank crews had a very limited field of vision, and no way to communicate with other tanks. There is a description in Healy's Zitadelle of an episode at the Battle of Kursk where the Soviet T-34s were charging in and the Germans would just leisurely pick off the T-34s one by one, with all the surviving T-34s completely oblivious to the mass destruction around them. That was in July 1943. Michulec's book does show that the Soviets started installing a commanders cupola on the hexagonal turret in the summer of 1943 (p. 123). Probably finally learned from the heavy losses of the Battle of Kursk that the tank crews needed to be able to see what was going on around them.

Michulec points out that the tank that the Germans most likely did fear and have a lot of trouble with was the KV-1. The KV-1 had the really tough armor that was resistant to the early German guns (the T-34's thin side armor could be penetrated by the weak guns of the German tanks of 1941) and it had the three man turret that made it a formidable fighting machine on the battlefield. The T-34-76 crews could simply not see well enough and function inside that tiny turret well enough to be a serious threat to German tanks. The problem with the KV-1 of course was twofold - it was very slow and sluggish and did not travel through bad terrain very well, unlike the T-34. And it carried the name of the later disgraced Kliment Voroshilov. Which is probably why in the Soviet retelling of history, the KV-1 gets only a very brief mention. All the glory gets heaped on the T-34s, which the Germans had no reason to fear because it was not much of a threat to them on the battlefield, due to its dysfunctional tiny two man turret and much weaker armor. Michulec points out that the German generals, especially Guderian, in all probability confused the KV-1 and T-34 in their memoirs, thus adding to the myth of the T-34 while continuing to bury the KV-1's true contributions.

DarthRad (talk) 09:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

____

DMorpheus - I think you are being a bit harsh with Michulec's book. But at least you recognize the huge amount of work that he put into this thing. Yes, the photos and drawings are INCREDIBLE. I think rather than calling the text "awful", it would be more accurate to describe its two major flaws:

1. The book was translated by somebody for whom English was a second language. Not quite as bad as the translation for the movie "Alexander Nevsky", but a bit difficult to understand sometimes.

2. Michulec goes overboard with his obvious anti-Soviet ranting. Somebody should have just edited all this out, and it would have made the book more professional.

But, if you are able to slug through the difficult translation and filter out the anti-Soviet bias, what you find is that Michulec has packed his book chock full of facts, and he does reference most of his major facts. Unfortunately those references all seem to be in Russian or Polish or German. But I think that is where this book shines over books by Zaloga.

Here's an excerpt (p. 161):

The relocation of the production, the starting of new assembly lines, usually in great haste, and the loss of many sources of raw materials, had a pronounced effect on the quality of the produced T-34s. If in mid-1941 the failure rate of the vehicles can be described as moderate, after 1941 it was closer to being catastrophic....

As late as the second half of 1944, Red Army tank units tried to replace all tank engines with more than 30 hours of operation. This was done to try to guarantee that the engines would be able to function for 75-100 hours during the coming attack. This seems logical since the factory's peacetime guarantee in the first half of 1941 was only 150 hours, and, therefore, expecting only 100 hours of operation at the front appears reasonable. It could not be otherwise, since during the period 1942-1943 the Soviet industry reached its technological bottom. As a example, at the beginning of 1942 almost every tank had faulty side clutches. The total service life of the tank also declined steeply. Tanks that were repaired by field workshops and returned to duty broke down very frequently, reducing the combat strengths of the tank corps by up to 50%....

Of course, with time, the quality factors of the T-34 started to change for the better, but it is doubtful that the Soviets were able to reach a satisfactory level of production before the end of the war....

DarthRad (talk) 09:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

_____

Finally, there is Michulec's figure of 45,000 destroyed T-34s. Does anybody dispute that number or think that it is an exaggeration? I believe that the weight of the evidence is that the number must be right, or very close. The Soviets rushed to produce 58,000+ T-34s for a very good reason. In most of the major battles of the Eastern Front, the Soviets lost huge numbers of tanks to the Germans, even when the battle was a win for the Soviets. The Germans got to be the best in the world at knocking out tanks.

So, unless you think that the Soviets finished the war with more than 13,000 T-34s (enough tanks to equip more than 30 tank divisions) then that number sounds about right, and so for whatever the reasons were, (and lots of good reasons have been given as to why this happened) the T-34 wins the title of "the most destroyed tank of all time". And that is not a joke, I'm being serious here. It's the logical conclusion if you accept that 45,000 number, just as the 45,000 number is the logical conclusion if you understand why 58,000 tanks were produced.

Q.E.D.

DarthRad (talk) 09:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I stand by my opinion, it is a horrible, horrible book. And poor translation is not the problem, silly bias and baseless opinions are the problems. I have the book and use it frequently for the photos and plans; I ignore the text because it reeks of comic books.

Your yourself are guilty of original research. To take one small example, the Red Army wanted a commander's cupola on the T-34 in 1940-41 - take a look at the T-34M design (or the T-50 and KV-1S that actually entered production with cupolas, or the KV-220 design). They didn't lack the knowledge that such a cupola would be useful, but they decided to concentrate on producing as many T-34s as possible so they 'froze' the main design features and approved changes only if they sped production. You can argue whether that was a wise decision but that's what they were up to.

The FCM 36 was a very interesting design, with a diesel engine in addition to its steeply-sloped armor. It was also grossly under-armed. The obvious forerunner to the T-34 is not the FCM 36 but the BT series and the technical lessons of the Spanish Civil War.

I'd suggest you read some other authors before latching too firmly on anything Michulec writes.

regardsDMorpheus (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Darthrad wrote, "The KV-1 had.... the three man turret that made it a formidable fighting machine on the battlefield."

This is a great example of Michulec getting it completely and utterly wrong. The KV-1 did have a three-man turret - loader, gunner/commander, and rear MG gunner. A KV commander had no different workload or better tools than a T-34 commander. The third turret crewman was an under-employed rear MG gunner of very limited tactical value.

The KV-1's three-man turret crew did NOT include a dedicated commander. That blows away the entire argument. There was no tactical advantage to the KV-1's turret crew.

If the KV was so terrific, why did the RKKA advocate stopping production? Why did they stop making them in 1943? Why did they concentrate almost all their tank production on the T-34?

Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Darthrad wrote " ...the early T-34-76 models were the most dysfunctional because of their tiny, steeply sloped turrets and the weak L-11 gun. The larger hexagonal turret (appearing in the summer of 1942), which was designed to allow for installation of the more powerful F-34 gun.. "

Incorrect again. Only a few hundred T-34s were built with the L-11 gun. Almost all T-34s with narrow turrets mounted the F-34 gun. The hex turret was an improvement, to provide more room and to ease manufacture, but carried the same F-34 gun as most of the preceeding narrow-turret tanks. It was not designed to carry a more powerful gun.

regards, DMorpheus (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I find myself in agreement with Dmorpheus and Paul Siebert.

Also, "the most destroyed tank of all time" is sensationalism that might belong in a tabloid newspaper, but not an encyclopedia article. Hohum (talk) 20:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

With regard to the T-34 being a 'revolutionary design' , the reason for that isn't merely sloped armor. Sloped armor had appeared on other AFVs before the T-34, and any battleship designer would have told the tank designers that sloping the armor envelope was very old news. Shell-proof armor was a feature of many French tanks. Diesel engines had been used on a few tanks before (Type 95 Ha-Go light tank, a 1935 example). Very high-powered engines had been used on all Christie-based tanks. Big guns had been mounted on other tanks before the T-34.

What made the T-34 revolutionary was that it *combined* all these features into one package that could be mass-produced. It didn't have the best armor or the biggest gun. But it combined the big three - armor, firepower, mobility - in a better, more capable way than any other tank on the battlefield at the time it was first fielded. Sure it had weaknesses - every weapon does - but in the essentials the T-34 was the best tank around in 1941. That's no myth.

regards, DMorpheus (talk) 02:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

______

DMorpheus - OK, my bad, I didn't do my reading about the KV-1 and I misread Michulec's book. That comment about the three man turret of the KV-1 was NOT from Michulec's book. That was my own "original source" contribution. You are absolutely right. The third man in the KV-1 manned a rear facing machine gun and was pretty useless. The KV-1 had the same deal as the two man T-34 turret with the commander having to be the gunner. You are also correct about the narrow pyramidal turret of the T-34 mostly mounting the F-34 gun, and the hexagonal turret being installed later (summer of 1942). [The hexagonal turret was put in to make the turret more functional as the narrow pyramidal turret was a tight squeeze]. Let me emphasize that these were MY MISTAKES not Michulec's because in re-checking the facts in his book, he has them correct. I got them wrong.

Michulec's point about the KV-1 is still valid. Its heavy armor was what stymied the Germans in 1941. The T-34's thinner side and rear armor made it much more vulnerable, even in 1941. As a defensive weapon, which is pretty much what the Soviets were doing in 1941, the KV-1 was much tougher for the Germans to handle. The reason that the KV-1 was phased out in 1943 was that by then, the Soviets were mounting increasing numbers of offensive tank assaults, and the KV-1 was way too slow and sluggish to do those Soviet style tank-infantry banzai charges (or "Hoorah!" charges). More importantly, by then, the Germans had also upgraded all of their AFVs to at least the 7.5 cm KwK 40 and their infantry had large numbers of the equivalent Pak 40, which could knock out the KV-1s with ease. And the KV-1's 7.62 cannon was exactly the same as the T-34. And it was lots more expensive than the T-34. So of course the KV-1 was dropped. There was no reason for its existence anymore by 1943. The Soviets did try the KV-85 "upgrade" for about 130 tanks. The IS-2 of course was the ultimate upgrade.

Darthrad wrote "DMorpheus, your last point about the T-34 having the best balance of firepower, armor, and mobility in 1941 is absolutely true. BUT, the clear cut missing flaw that you continue to fail to mention is the extremely poor ergonomics of the T-34,"

Check the article history - *I* added the poor ergonomics bits years ago.

It is very well known that the T-34 (and the KV) had very poor ergonomic design. That does not cancel out or change the fact that it was a revolutionary and indeed pace-setting design. Frankly, some people latch onto the ergonomics issue as a sort of baseball bat they use to beat on the T-34, and only the T-34, in the absence of any better-thought-out critcism.

Your points about the KV are flat out wrong, sorry. The Germans still had hundreds of 50mm-armed Pzkw-IIIs in the field in 1943. They even continued to field some Pzkw-IIs. It was only in the winter of 43-44 that the Panther began appearing in large numbers, replacing Pzkw-IIIs for the most part. The trend in armor design since early in WW2 has been precisely to place thick armor in front and thin armor on the sides and rear. The Panther, for example, has sides as thin as a T-34!!!! Earlier designs such as the pzkw-III and KV had a more even armor envelope, and this was correctly seen as a DRAWBACK by designers once some combat experience accumulated. If your belief about armor is correct then the designes of the Panther and even the US M1 Abrams are wrong. Hmm.....

The KV was phased out because it was mechanically unreliable, slow, had no better firepower than the T-34, but was far more expensive to produce. No one began KV production postwar. The T-34 was cheaper, faster, more reliable, same firepower, and indeed was the first tank to go into production postwar in e.g. Poland and Czechoslovakia. In other words, it was not as useful as a T-34.

Again I urge you to read other sources to seewhy Michulec is so frequently wrong. I don't have time to handle it point-by-point....you have a blizzard of bad info here.

Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 12:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Michulec goes into excruciating detail analyzing Guderian's memoir - Panzer Leader. He points out that Guderian constantly refers to difficulties in the 1941 battles against T-34s when in reality he must have meant the KV-1. Michulec breaks down the details of one particular battle (Mcensk) to prove that the "T-34s" that were troubling the Germans had to have been KV-1s. The T-34 had much weaker side and rear armor than the KV-1 and the Germans did not have problems shooting them up at the Battle of Mcensk.

OK, you want corroborating evidence about how ineffective the T-34 was? If you don't believe Michulec, how about Mark Healy? Here's an extended excerpt from Healy's Zitadelle (2008) - page 176:

Although fundamentally sound, there were cumulative limitations in the design of the T-34 and its equipment that permitted the more highly trained, but numerically inferior German tank crews to inflict disprortionately heavy losses on Soviet armoured units at Kursk. Unlike German Panzers, the T-34 was operated by a crew of four with just two members being stationed in the turret. Herein lay the principal weakness of the T-34/76 design, which was not satisfactorily addressed until the emergence of the T-34/85 in late 1943. Not only was it difficult for the crewmembers in the turret to service the gun because of its cramped nature; their task was made more awkward by the the need for the commander to have to double up as the gunner. Having identified his target, this secondary function then required him to take his eye off of it in order to service the gun. Nor was his vital need to see the enemy helped by the poor sighting arrangements provided for in either design. Both the KV-1 and T-34 shared the same inferior single, limited field of vision, traversing periscope and turret view slit.

A graphic account of how detrimental this could be to the employment of the T-34 in combat was given by Clemens Graf von Kageneck, commander of the Tiger-equipped sPz.Abt 503 during Zitadelle:

Our neighbours pulled back under the strong growing pressure and Ivan advanced with strong armoured forces. I was able to assemble eight tanks and we attacked across a swampy sector, behind which a tree-covered slope rose to high ground. Then we saw an amazing picture. Riflemen from our neighbouring division were withdrawing - still in a half-organised fashion - and in between rolled Russian tanks, firing wildly in all directions. We were already in an ideal position and, in a short time, knocked out more than 20 of the Russian tanks that were moving in front of us like targets on a range. Once again, the weakness of the T-34 showed up, the tank commander in the turret could not see around him. Therefore, none of them noticed how the neighbouring tanks were going up in flames, and new targets kept coming over the hill.

Until the advent of the late production T34/76 turret with a commander's cupola and built-in vision blocks in 1943, the standard provision of a heavy, one piece forward opening hatch, also prevented a Soviet tank commander emulating his German contemporary in exposing his head to view the battle. Thus, in nearly all tank-versus-tank battles, Soviet crews fought with their hatches closed and with the restricted visibility, fought at a deadly disadvantage....

Skipping to p. 177:

The capacity for radio production of the Soviet electronics industry in the first few years of the Russo-German conflict was low. Instead of radios, the platoon commander would employ flags to send signals. In the heat of bttle, it was often impossible to see them, so drivers of T-34s had a tendency to follow the unit leader. This and the general lack of sightlines accounts for the characteristic bunching of Soviet armour so often commented upon by German tank crews and illustrated by von Kangeneck earlier. The distance between individual machines was frequently as little as 25 meters, whereas for the Germans, a distance of 100 meters between each panzer was the preferred norm. This accumulation of limitations rigidified Soviet tank tactics, which was observed by the Germans who moved rapidly to exploit the weakness. Destroying the lead command tank invariably led to chaos amongst those following. These were then shot up in their turn, their close proximity aiding the enemy in his rapid selection of targets. This was a major factor in helping to account for the high number of Soviet tanks destroyed by the Leibstandarte on 12 July in the great tank battle at Prokhorovka....

Healy goes on to state that the Germans had only 278 total write-offs for all AFVs at the Battle of Kursk (the phase ending July 17, 1943), whereas estimates for Soviet losses are in the range of 1,254 -1,614 for that same phase. He gives an estimate that the Soviets lost a total of 6,064 AFVs for the Battle of Kursk and the followup counter offensives that ran through the month of August, 1943.

So why is this important? Because the numbers and historical evidence clearly show that the Soviets "won" the Battle of Kursk at a great cost, as they did almost all of their battles against the Germans. The T-34 was integral to the Soviet victory, yes indeed. But the Soviets won with the T-34 primarily by overwhelming the Germans with massive numbers. That is a point which is frequently made about the M4 Sherman on the Western Front. Why is it not allowed to make the same claim about the T-34? All of the data points to this concept being even more true for the T-34 than for the M4 Sherman.

Jentz's Panther and Tiger books have range penetration data done by the Germans which prove that the armor and firepower of the T34-85 was very close in performance to the 76mm M4 Sherman. Other data show that the T34-76 firepower was similar to the M4 75mm gun. So although very different in design, the two tanks tracked each other remarkably in their performance, accomplishments, and in the large numbers knocked out by the Germans.

The difference is that years of Soviet propaganda and mistaken identity in the memoirs of the German generals have created the myth of the T-34.

Zaloga points out in the preface of Armored Thunderbolt that the M4 Sherman also used to have a mythology built around it. When I was a child, the phrase "built like a Sherman tank" was a common term of praise for any sort of durable machinery, and the M4 Sherman was often credited with helping win WWII. Today, it gets ripped with derogatory terms like "Ronson", etc. while the T-34 continues to bask in its Soviet era propaganda of "best tank of all time".

DMorpheus, your last point about the T-34 having the best balance of firepower, armor, and mobility in 1941 is absolutely true. BUT, the clear cut missing flaw that you continue to fail to mention is the extremely poor ergonomics of the T-34, which is the point that Michulec rants about for pretty much his entire book. Healy only spends about a page and a half of Zitadelle to make the same point - I've pretty much quoted most of that section - and it comes across much more professionally as a result. But that's not to say that Michulec's book is awful just because he keeps repeating himself about a fact that you don't seem to want to hear about the T-34.

Calling the The T-34 a "revolutionary design" or "technological pacesetter" (the term used in the current article) falsely implies that the Soviets were the ones who came up with all those new technological concepts. No, no, no, no, no, NO! As you yourself just stated, the sloped armor was well known by the time of the T-34's design, was already in use by many tanks (including the frontal armor of the U.S. M2 Light Tank), and the roadwheel suspension came from Christie's BT series of tanks. And the French also were using diesel engines in their tanks. So the T-34 was very much a COMBINATION of several earlier innovations, not a "revolutionary design". "Revolutionary design" and "Technological pacesetter" are inaccurate terms and should NOT be used to describe the T-34.

hohum - if the the title of "most destroyed tank of all time" bothers you, then the quote from Lidell Hart calling it "the best tank of all time" should bother you even more. The first title is actually TRUE - there is all that hard data I gave you backing it up. The second title is ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE and the quote comes from Lidell Hart, a writer who has more recently been discredited as a shameless self-promoter who probably had a lot less influence on tank theory than he would like historians to believe. The only "best" category that the T-34 really excelled at was in being produced by the Soviets faster than the Germans could destroy them.

DarthRad (talk) 09:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"He points out that Guderian constantly refers to difficulties in the 1941 battles against T-34s when in reality he must have meant the KV-1" Yes, he makes that claim with absolutely zero evidence to back himself up, and he goes on for pages about it. I could with equal validity claim the US won the battle of Midway because we had a secret squadron of death-ray-equipped flying saucers.

regards, DMorpheus (talk) 12:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: "a COMBINATION of several earlier innovations, not a "revolutionary design"" Tn that sense, a Wright Brothers's invention was also just a combination of few earlier innovations, namely, a glider and a gasoline engine. I believe, no further explanations are needed...--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

DMorpheus - OK, you make some very good points. I think I will for now abandon this "T-34 as Myth" project until one of the major English speaking tank historians writes something that will be more acceptable to everybody. Don't see that this is getting anywhere right now. Since Zaloga recently revised a good chunk of his former writing with Armored Thunderbolt, he would be the ideal candidate to do something new on the Soviet tanks also. Zaloga did get some acknowledgements from Michulec in T-34 Mythical Weapon so they were in touch.

At the same time, unless somebody comes up with bigger numbers for the M4 Sherman, the T-34 still owns the title of "most destroyed tank of all time". I think the title of "best tank of all time" is a big mistake, but there are just too many T-34 enthusiasts at present to wipe that off of this Wiki page.

The fact that the T-34 was the most destroyed tank of all time was certainly due to a combination of factors - horrible Soviet tactics and training, superb German anti-tank capabilities, and the gigantic nature of the war on the Eastern Front. However, the limited capabilities of the T-34 against German guns and armor after 1941 was also a big part of this story, just like it was for the M4 Sherman. And that's what needs to get emphasized whenever people get too enthusiastic about the T-34.

Paul Siebert - the Wright brothers' aircraft had a number of new technological INVENTIONS. It was not just a glider and an engine. They filed a number of patents for their discoveries on how to control the aircraft, etc., and in fact became consumed by their desire to protect their patents, spending enormous time filing lawsuits against everybody. They just about stopped designing new and better aircraft because they spent so much time on the lawsuits. I honestly can't think of a single thing that the Soviets invented with the T-34. So your analogy is not correct here, but I digress...

DarthRad (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Wright brothers' inventions were of secondary importance. Their major contribution was to make a glider (already known) and put there a gasoline engine (also already known). With regards to lawsuits, I believe I'll express a common opinion by saying that they become famous because they build a first flying engine driven aircraft de facto, not de jure. Nothing would change if someone had been able to break some of their patents.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

One of the Wright brothers' patented inventions was figuring out a way to control the flying surfaces so the aircraft could bank and turn. Another important innovation was their engine, which was their own design and was lightweight enough to not anchor the aircraft solidly to the ground. So the reason the Wright brothers were able to get "an engine and a glider" to fly was because they actually INVENTED new things so the thing could fly. It was not just a combination of previous ideas. But seriously, this debate doesn't belong here. The key question is, what did the Soviets INVENT for the T-34? Nothing, as far as I can tell. They just put other people's ideas together. That does not justify calling it a "technological pacesetter" or "revolutionary design". --DarthRad (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This talk page isn't for the Wright Brothers, nor is this a forum for general discussion. If people have a desire to argue about irrelevancies, please do it somewhere else. Hohum (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"..there are just too many T-34 enthusiasts at present to wipe that off of this Wiki page." Kindly do not insult your fellow editors. The fact is that the sources are heavily in favor of the current content as opposed to the silliness Michulec writes. This is not a question of anyone's "enthusiasm" , is simply a question of reliable sources and a fair weighing of lots of them. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize that "T-34 enthusiast" was an insult. As for the current content, it seems to not follow some of the guidelines of other wiki pages. A large number of the citations come from internet websites - I thought those were considered not reliable. The content seems to still be in transition, with some "enthusiast" statements that are not internally consistent with the better, more tightly written parts of the article. Some statements are not properly cited. I would note that Neizvestnyy T-34 (The Unknown T-34) is listed as a reference twice for this article but is not cited by any footnotes in the article itself. This is the main reference source that Michulec cites for the section in his book on p. 161 about the unreliability of the T-34 (the excerpt I posted above). The book is apparently only in Russian. (http://www.aviapress.com/viewonekit.htm?VMA-002 and http://www5b.biglobe.ne.jp/~TANK-GUY/book-rev/Brev-06.html) Which is why I do not believe that Michulec is making this stuff up about the T-34. There must be new post-Soviet information out there now that just hasn't made it through the the language barrier. Somebody will eventually have the skills to write a decent English language book with this new information. And this T-34 article will get re-written at that time with much less controversy. Anyway, I'll leave this page alone for a while. DarthRad (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, a lot of causes for a tank to be written off without being destroyed by enemy. And if Michulec is right, 80% of T-34 never reached the front, breaking down somewhere along the way :) In reality, in WW2 a lot of tanks got destroyed several times... Some crews kept on swaping tanks as they got KOed from under them, and some tanks got several crews killed in them. After all a KOed WW2 tank if not burned down was easy repair: patch the holes, swap the engine or gun if needed, and wash the blood from the inside. Wheter that was actually done or not depended mostly on the surrounding situation: what were your forces doing, atacking or retreating, were there spare crews, or a recovery team at hand. For example, if you are in the middle of an attack operation, for when the tank gets fixed the frontline can be a 200km away. And if there are new (and better) tanks arriving continuosly, why waste time with a broken down tank? Just leave it there to rot or send it back to the melting furnace. And some tanks simply wore down. It's not for nothing that the lifespan of the things was measured in hours. 190.134.10.151 (talk) 04:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and when a tank get blown to bits it usually means the ammo on board detonated, either due to a directo hit to the ammo racks or after a fire. It has nothing to do with the "build quality" of the tank, but with the nature of the ammo on board and where it is stored. Loza was of the idea that soviet HE shells were more powerfull that the US, but in turn had a higher chance of going high order once the tank was set on fire (he supposed it was due to different explosive composotion). 190.134.25.206 (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Poor English writing

I partially removed Milanetti's recent changes, reverting to a version vetted by Hohum. This article is a featured article, and should not be subjected to poor writing skills. A featured article is supposed to be a shining example of our best work.

Milanetti changed the second sentence. The previous version was Although its armour and armament were surpassed by later tanks of the era, it has been often credited as the most effective, efficient and influential design of World War II.

Milanetti's version was: Although its armour and armament were surpassed by later tanks of the era, and –in the early years of the conflict - its trasmission was the most primitive of the time it has been often credited as the most effective, efficient and influential design of World War II.

This sample was enough to display the unsuitability of the editor's English composition skills. So... what's the next step? Is an editor here willing to rewrite all the poorly written non-native-speaking edits that are applied to this article? Binksternet (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

While I'm not stepping up to say that I will monitor this article and fix every single grammar issue, I'm in two minds about immediately reverting relevant, good faith edits using what appear to be reliable sources, even on featured articles. My preference would be to fix them, so the article stays FA standard, and is also improved by the addition - immediate reversion in this case seems a little "bitey" too. On the other hand, it's not all been relevant, and I agree the style and grammar were poor. (Although that is true of some of the existing text too) - and I know not all editors have time to fix issues immediately.

I think the suitable compromise would be; to tag referenced, good faith edits where the core of the information is relevant, but the style or grammar is poor - with a relevant inline or section template, so that other editors don't miss it, and will hopefully get to it within a reasonable time - or remove it if the tag date gets old. Or go the extra mile and make the fix yourself. Hohum (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

T-32 Redirect

The entry for the T-32 redirects to this T-34 entry. I don't think it should; the T-32 was a Yugoslav tank and a totally separate model to the T-34. How does one go about removing redirects in order to create the T-32 entry? Noisms (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The A-32(T-32) was a prototype before the T-34. If you mean the T-32 (Skoda S-I-d) Assault Gun, check that is isn't already on wikipedia under a different name, and if not, you can start a new article with its most common name, but don't use T-32 tank, as this T-32 is an assault gun, not a tank. If you mean a different T-32 which is a tank, then edit the T-32 tank page by taking the redirect tag off and adding normal article information, but include a link to this T-34 article to refer to the prototype. Hohum 18:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Huge article, but useless without a 'center'

One of the most frequent problem with wikipedia articles is the lack of, let's say, a 'center'. What do i say? I mean, if a reader came here, it's likely that he could be confused. T-34 article, even if featured, it's a mess. I'd want a paragraph in wich i could find a basic description of a typical T-34 tank: internal, ammunition stores, armour thickness, etc. In this article, quite long, it's badly needed this neat description. Instead, there is not even a complete description of the 'famous' sloped armour; its hardness, quality, alloy, but even, the thickness and angle. I did not found it, and this is basically bad. The basic datas, when availables, are scattered all around. Instead, there is a lot of 'he said that', opinions, even referenced, that not really help the reader.

A paragraph in which you could find: armour thickness of a 'typical' T-34 (ex, the first T-34A, or T-34/85), engine, trasmission, tracks (lenght and widht, type etc.), weaponry (gun, machine-gun, elevation, ROF, ammunition store etc), sight system and whatever else. If you'll submit such article in a magazine, it's likely it would be trashed. Until this reorganization and rationalization, T-34 article will be just a mess and i'd prefer far more the simpler but well organized wwii page: http://www.wwiivehicles.com/ussr/tanks-medium/t-34.asp, easy to read, and easy to use in order to find everything you need. It should been taken as example of a user's friendly page, and it's far different than wiki article.

I added atleast the armour thickness, but there is a lot of work to do.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• The worst part of this article is that it contradicts itself. There are these four quotations stuck in there that praise the T-34 to the high heavens. Then if you read the fine details you find out why those quotations couldn't possibly be true - horrible ergonomics, mediocre armor comparable to the much maligned M4 Sherman in spite of the much trumpeted sloped armor (not a Soviet innovation by any means whatsoever), weak gun that got progressively better, but again not as good as the later 76mm M4 Sherman and no where near as good as either the Panther/Tiger or the Sherman Firefly. Somebody needs to sort out these internal contradictions. As the fine details do not seem to be in question, I think the best way to deal with these four quotations would be to put all of them into a section entitled "The T-34 as Myth" and explain that the high praise and superlatives were the products of inaccurate memoirs of the defeated German generals plus Soviet propaganda. See above discussion ("T-34 as Myth") as to how that idea got squashed.
• The T-34 changed quite a bit from beginning to end. There really was no "typical T-34". There were at least three different guns and many different turrets. The engine more or less stayed the same. The hull was slightly reshaped from the 76mm to the 85mm gun to make room for the larger turret ring. Each different Soviet factory made slightly different T-34's that were supposed to be the same model. The one book that actually goes into all of these details in a massively comprehensive fashion "T-34 - Mythical Weapon" was arbitrarily debunked as not reliable by some of the editors of this article (see above discussion "T-34 as Myth"). So if you want to sort out all the different models and the huge number of variations, you would have to delve into this book, which is about as comprehensive in its treatment of the various models of the T-34 as R. P. Hunnicutt's books are for the M4 Sherman and M26 Pershing.
• "T-34 article, even if featured, it's a mess." Agree, which raises these questions - how the heck did this article get featured in the first place, and how did it get changed into its current mess? DarthRad (talk) 08:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The poor source mentioned wasn't arbitrarily debunked, good reasons were given.

An article can get into a mess by people choosing a source which reflects their favourite POV, and then pushing it. (Hohum ^@) 20:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Its kind of odd to see someone talking about how bad the T-34's gun was when even the L11 was far and away superior to anything the Germans had at the start of their Eastern campaign. The German's had a very low velocity 75mm on the PzIV and a 37mm on the PzIII. The L-11 outperformed both in armour piercing and the F-34 was considerably better. At first, the German's strategic advantage, coupled with better on the ground tactics meant this didn't matter as much, though at a few points, they took considerable losses. But putting them on the backfoot at the start of the war meant the Soviets didn't have to focus nearly as much at producing prototypes, fielding un tested designs or building vehicles that were not as suited to mass production. And the gun, in itself was enough of an advantage to justify this.--Senor Freebie (talk) 01:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"a 37mm on the PzIII. The L-11 outperformed both in armour piercing and .." This is actually wrong. The germans had in June 1941 350 Panzer III with the 3,7 and 1090 with the 50L42. This was not equal to the L-11 but a far cry better than the 37mm. Snark7 (talk) 14:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Tank production and deployment in a country that was pressed to the max to deliver every tank it could will result in some confusion which is part of what you see. As for the T-34 being revolutionary, it was the 1st real tank bringing all the elements together in a successful way, it was fast relatively well armored and had a decent gun. But one can take a snapshot as the US, GB, USSR, and Germany, franticly deployed new designs and point out that the T-34 suffered in comparison, however, with the M4 it shared the fact that while it lacked in some areas it was available in large numbers and in a relatively effective format. Yes I have also been puzzled at the downplaying of the M4 when in actual combat against the vaunted T-34 it proved to be more than capable of dealing with the T-34 but that is a US attitude towards its own tank that we didn't deploy a very good tank in the M4. In it's timeline until 1944 it was a damn fine tank and there were lots of T-34s at hand, towards the very end of the war it didn't look like the world beater it was in 1942 but that is the pace of war.Tirronan (talk) 11:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The thing about the M4 was that by the time it came out in its initial form (late 1942), it was already somewhat inadequate for the ETO. If it had come out a year earlier like the T-34 (1941), it probably would have proved just as dangerous and formidable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.138.146 (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Suspension

I am slightly confused as to the suspension system used in the T-34. According to the infobox it is a Christie suspension, while in the article is stated that the suspension was changed to a torsion bar system in 1942. The article on the Christie suspension is not quite clear on what characterizes a Christie suspension, except that it is considerably different from a torsion bar suspension. Could anybody enlighten me about this? --παγκρἃτωρ/pankrator 06:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pankrator (talk • contribs)

All T-34s had a Christie suspension; no production T-34 had a torsion-bar suspension. Briefly, christie's design used long-pitch tracks and large wheels, each independently suspended from swing arms attached to very large vertical coil springs inside the hull. At the time it was invented around 1930 it allowed for far higher speeds than any other suspension. In many incarnations it also allowed for convertability between tracked mode and wheeled mode (for example the BT series of tanks). However, the T-34, and other christies such as the British Cromwell, did not have a wheeled mode.

Christie suspensions are relatively easy to manufacture and do not impose any height penalty on the tank hull. However, they do impose a width penalty. The hull must accomodate relatively large-diameter springs, narrowing the useful space inside the hull.

Torsion-bar suspensions, which were invented in the later 1930s and began to see use just before WW2, also use individual suspension systems for each wheel. However, the torsion bar runs along the bottom of the hull from side-to-side. This imposes a slight height penalty but the height of a torsion bar is far less than the width of a christie coil spring tower. So, it is far more efficient in terms of using up hull volume. They are harder to manufacture, however. Early uses of the torsion-bar design would be, for example, the German Panzer III or Soviet KV series.

Since 1945, most tanks have used some variant of the torsion-bar system. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 22:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

"Revolutionary design"

Really? The title itself is not neutral, and what was revolutionary about the T-34? Everything about the tank had been done before. It should be renamed "History" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.114.227 (talk) 02:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It is revolutionary as 45mm is equal to 1.8 inches and the 7.62mm is equal to three inches. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 09:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree that "Revolutionary Design" is highly inaccurate. This subheading title does not reflect the content of what is written in this article, which clearly shows that the T-34 was an Evolutionary Design influenced by the experience with previous Soviet tanks. Just look at that photo lineup in the article of the BT and A-20 tanks which preceded the T-34. The Christie suspension and sloping armor, etc., key characteristics of the T-34 were already in place before the T-34 came into being.

So there, I made the change. DarthRad (talk)

As for putting Mellenthin's quote right next to a subheading of "Revolutionary Design", the juxtaposition creates an incredibly false and misleading conclusion. There were several reasons that Germany had nothing comparable to the T-34, and none of those reasons had anything to do with the T-34 being a "Revolutionary Design". Germany had only slowly started up its tank industry, secretly breaking the Treaty of Versailles in the early 1930's (aircraft production violations of the Treaty started earlier). The German Army recognized a need for better tanks, as the early versions of the Tiger I design were already underway in 1937-1938, well before the invasion of Russia. Most of all, it is a well known historical fact that Hitler was so encouraged by Chamberlain's appeasement policy that he jumped the gun and started WWII before his armed forces were completely ready and fully armed with all the best weapons on the drawing boards. Also, German military intelligence during WWII was abysmal (helped no doubt by the fact that many Abwehr were anti-Nazis, including Canaris, the head of the Abwehr) and had absolutely no advanced knowledge of the state of Soviet tank development. The German Panzer III and Panzer IV were adequate to deal with the Soviet BT and T-26 tanks that were known to the Germans from the Spanish Civil War and the Soviet-Finland Winter War. Information about the approaching arrival of the Soviet T-34 and the KV-1 tanks undoubtedly would have accelerated German tank design/production efforts. In any case, WWII was a constant arms race in which each side tried to leapfrog the other side with new designs and all armies would end up at one time or another with outclassed tanks on the battlefield. This would later happen to the T-34 vs. the Panther and Tiger tanks. DarthRad (talk)

The revolutionary thing about the T-34 was that it was the first tank to achieve the fine balance of armour, mobility and firepower for its time. All other tanks before it were deficient in at least one area (The British Matildas, the early German Panzers, most of the French tanks (excepting the SOMUA S35). Many of the ideas used on the T-34 may have been thought of before, but the T-34 was the first to combine all of them together into one package, much like how many of the elements of the AK had been done before, but the AK was one of the first to put them all together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.138.146 (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Arg. Too much Soviet propaganda again. The AK47 was NOT the first assault rifle, the Germans came up with the Sturmgewehr 44 first (indeed that is how the term originated - Sturmgewehr = "assault rifle" in German), i.e, a light infantry rifle that could fire full automatic using a smaller rifle cartridge, so that it had longer range than the existing submachine guns of the time (which fired pistol bullets) but was easier to handle than full sized battle rifles or machine guns. The Stg44 was introduced in 1944, the AK47 in 1947.

The balance of armor, mobility, and firepower for tanks that you mention was constantly shifting before, during, and after WWII. Virtually every new tank that was introduced during that time period was an improvement in that balance for a short period of time before being overtaken. What is truly missing from all this breathless praise for the "revolutionary" nature of the T-34 is any insight as to how rapidly the tank arms race in WWII made the T-34 into first an ordinary tank, and then into outdated target practice for the German gunners. The T-34 sat on top of the heap of that balance for only about one and a half years - June 1941 until late 1942. By late 1942, the long barrel 75mm Kwk40 had easily made the Panzer IV superior in firepower to the 76mm T-34s (yes indeed, look up the range penetration data - the 75mm Kwk40 was way better than the Soviet 76mm F-34 gun). And of course then the Tiger I came on the scene and re-defined the whole concept of where the balance of armor, mobility, and firepower should be. By the time the T-34-85 arrived in early 1944, it was at best only equal to the later model Panzer IV and the 76mm M4 Sherman in terms of armor and firepower. DarthRad (talk)

I never said the AK was -the- first assault rifle, but if you want to go into that debate, technically the Federov Avtomat would be the world's first assault rifle. But I digress. My point still stands.

The Federov Avtomat was the Australopithecus of assault rifles - it somewhat resembled an assault rifle, but none of its mechanical design carried over into modern assault rifles, thus it was a dead end offshoot on the evolutionary tree. The M1 Garand, with its rotating bolt and gas piston, was far more influential to the design of all modern combat rifles. Kalashnikov copied these features from the M1 for the AK47. What most people don't realize is that the AK47 is really just an upside down M1 Garand firing a shorter rifle cartridge on full automatic. DarthRad (talk)

Granted, it was a race, but the same could be said of any tank, past or present. The T-34 just happened to get it right at the right time. Again, all other tanks were deficient in 1 or another of these 'hard' factors, whereas the T-34 managed to get it 'right' when it came out. One other thing 'revolutionary' about the T-34 was the ease with which it could be made, which was unprecedented for any other tank before it.

The fact that all post war tanks were influenced by the T-34 (or by the Panther, which was itself influenced by the T-34) does speak volumes as to what a benchmark it was in tank design.

Frankly, if the M4 had arrived around the same time as the T-34, it would have been remembered along with the T-34 as a revolutionary design, but it came a year later, as it happened. It's a little unfair, but that's how things turned out.

The Tiger I had terrible mobility strategically, and adequate tactical mobility at best. And of course, it was terribly expensive to produce. Sure, it had firepower and armour, but to stem the tide of T-34s and Shermans, it would have had to destroy at least 10 T-34s/Shermans for every Tiger lost (which it certainly didn't).

The T-34-85 was far superior to the Panzer IV (slightly better armour, far more mobility, equal in firepower, far easier to produce) and was the equal of the M4A3 E8. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.186.209 (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, you've gone off on a tangent here into a comparison of tanks with an aside on the industrial production failures of Nazi Germany. The original debate was about why the T-34 was not a revolutionary design. My point about the tank arms race during WWII was that each army was constantly trying to leapfrog the other with new tank designs that would give it a temporary advantage on the battlefield. The T-34 was just another in a series of such tanks during WWII that threw a brief scare into its enemies. If each new tank that temporarily threw a scare into the enemy can be considered "revolutionary", then the Pz III and IVs were revolutionary in their own time period (1940) as their mobility and excellent infantry support capabilities were integral to the success of the Nazi blitzkrieg in France and Poland. The T-34 forced the Germans to uparmor and increase the firepower of its own tanks. The Tiger I also forced all combatants to re-calibrate the size and power of their anti-tank guns and so in this sense it too was "revolutionary". The British Firefly was "revolutionary" because its 17-pounder could easily knock out a Tiger I and yet it was a far more mobile tank. The Germans were worried enough about it to specifically target the Fireflies during combat.

The Tiger I certainly had severe mobility and production issues. However, it was truly a tank killer with kill ratios of over 12:1 in many units (I think the overall figure for all Tiger units was around 5:1). The problem was that less than 2,000 Tiger Is and IIs were built versus nearly 100,000 T-34s and M4 Shermans. So the kill ratio would have had to be closer to 50:1, not 10:1, for the Tiger to win the war by itself. Hitler's insistence on tank superiority was a doctrinal and strategic mistake - tanks were fundamentally expendable weapons during WWII, and the Tigers were not built to be expendable. The T-34 was built to be expendable with lots of short cuts in quality taken to speed up production.

The T-34 was at the peak of the firepower and armor balance only during the period of mid-1941 to 1942. The Pz IV hull was later up-armored and yes, its turret and side armor remained weak, but the T-34 hull was never up-armored and the tank was EASILY knocked out by German guns after 1942. One on one, except in inclement weather (the T-34 was more mobile than the Pz IV only in the mud and snow), the later uparmored Pz IVs could more than hold their own against the T-34 (read "Panzer Gunner: A Canadian in the German 7th Panzer Division, 1944-45" by Bruno Friesen to get an idea of what fighting in a Pz IV was like).

The historical record is quite clear about this fact. After 1942, the only problem that the Germans had with the T-34 was that the Soviets could produce them faster than the Germans could knock them out. One needs only to read a post-Soviet account of the Battle of Kursk (Healy's "Kursk 1943") or Drabkin and Sheremet's "T-34 in Action" to realize the horrendous casualties suffered by the T-34 tank crews, and to understand how easily these tanks were knocked out by the Germans. Accounts of T-34 crews in action in the 1941 time frame describe isolated T-34s fighting off the Germans, with the crew buttoned up, taking shot after shot, until the Germans were finally able to bring a heavy gun in to knock out the tank. Accounts of later actions, once the Germans figured out how to knock out the T-34s, describe T-34 tank crews leaping out of their tanks as soon as it received the first hit, which usually penetrated the tank. T-34 crew went into combat with their hatches open to facilitate a quick exit. "T-34 in Action" even has a rating as to which crew member was most likely to survive based on how quickly they could exit the tank. Morale appears to have been terrible as the Soviet Army imposed a rule that tankers would be sent to punishment battalions if they abandoned their tank for any reason (including losing a track) other than if their tank had burned up.

As for the T-34 being the progenitor of the modern tank, PLEASE let's put that myth to rest also. Just what exactly from the T-34 is in use today in modern tanks? Sloped armor? We have already established that sloped armor was being used in many tanks before the T-34, so the T34 did not originate this idea. Christie suspension? NOT. See excellent explanation by DMorpheus above about the downsides of the Christie suspension - thus all modern tanks use a torsion bar suspension. What about the T-34's classic slack track treads? Well, this too has been abandoned in favor of smaller wheels and tensioned return rollers since the slack track was highly prone to de-track off the wheels. Low silhouette and cramped crew space requiring short tank crewmen? Still a feature of modern Russian tanks but definitely not for Western tanks. Side sponsons over the track? Not. No modern tank has side sponsons. In fact, if you had to pick one tank that was the prototype for modern American tanks, it would be the M26 Pershing, since nearly all the major features of modern American tanks are found in this tank (except of course, the Chobham armor). If you had to pick one tank that looks most like modern Soviet tanks, it would be the IS-3, with its hemispherical turret, ultra-low silhouette, large amount of frontal armor and very thin top and side armor. The competing line of Soviet KV and IS series of tanks had the return rollers instead of "slack track" and the torsion bar suspension, and it was the design features of this line of Soviet tanks that lived on in the post WWII Soviet tanks, not the T-34. No matter how "revolutionary" the T-34 proved to be for 1-1/2 years during WWII, its mechanical features were largely evolutionary dead ends, just like the Federov Avtomat and just like all but one of the subspecies of Australopithecus.

This T-34 article desperately needs a "Mythbuster" section. DarthRad (talk)

This is not a forum. This is a place to discuss how to improve the article using reliable sources. (Hohum ^@) 19:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Combat history

More shuld probably be added? Syria used T-34 tanks in the israeli-arab war of 1967. What about the T-34's perfomance in this conflict? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.110.193.21 (talk) 10:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Czarnkowski czołg

Can somebody make a photo of Czarnkowski czołg T-34 for Commons? Thank you.--95.129.137.176 (talk) 13:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

"The best tank of the war"?

How is it possible to make such a general, vague, and sweeping assessments by calling 'x' tank "the best tank of world war 2"? The sheer number of factors are overwhelming and extremely situational. Many times during this article have such references been made, taking a non-neutral point of view and citing less than fair sources with seemingly no external reasoning other than invoking nationalistic pride. Instead of saying "x" tank is "better" than "b" tank, we should present the specifications in a non-POV way and let the reader come to his/her own conclusion.

I move to remove all mentioning of such cases, and replace them with side by side statistical breakdowns, or perhaps a new comparison article instead. This way the reader can draw their own conclusions based of the specifications of the tanks.

76.181.103.83 (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Jade rat