Talk:T-34

"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.

While they did come up with the name the first assault rifle was probably the cei-rigotti Pharoahjared (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

A whole bunch of information, including references on the T-34's ww2 combat performance was added in July 2012. Admittedly, some parts of the writing is not encyclopaedic or perhaps contains too much opinion. But instead of re-writing, editing or updating the newly added content, certain posters keep deleting ALL OF IT, including all the properly referenced data and reverting to a previous version. This, IMO, is unacceptable as it does not allow the subject topic to be altered or new contributions to be made. Instead it would behove contributers to read through and edit out the conjecture and un-reference opinions! And yes wikipedia is a synergistic effort, and no the current article is not perfect and not without bias/conjecture! 142.162.25.82 (talk) 14:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could only add the properly sourced, properly written elements. (Hohum ^@) 17:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you read what was posted, most of the quotes were sourced, as was the data, and some of the opnions as well, from generally respected authors. Yes there seems to have been some conjecture and opnion or interpretation of said data, but like most articles on wiki it is a synthesis of a number of sources. Additional, the pre-existing content was not always properly source and does contain some opinion and un-source content. The additional info was also re-formatted, which IMO, adds to the quality of the article. But certainly all extreme conjecture and unfounded opinions or correlations should be removed.142.162.107.79 (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Due to popular demand I have been going back through what I initially posted to try and clarify the references and remove extraneous conjecture and or biased/unreferenced opinion. Some of the conclusions that I added do follow directly from the data that is refereced....although I am certain parts would be open to debate!Tempsperdue (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that the following section or a version thereof should be included as it speaks to the soviet war winning mass production philosophy and the help they received from the Allies "These conclusions also give the lie to the fact that the Soviets (largely due to the huge number of T-34s produced) could have won WWII on their own, without the aid of the US or Commonwealth forces. If the 11,900 AFVs contributed by the Allies to the Soviets via Lend Lease were not available, and all German WWII fully tracked AFVs produced had been allocated to the East Front then the Germans would have required a kill ratio of only 2.45 to 1far less than the 2.94 to 1 actually achieved, in order to have destroyed all Soviet fully tracked AFVs that existed on 22nd June 1941, 23,300, and those that were produced during the war, 99,150(for a total of 122,450 soviet fully tracked AFVs). This is before we even consider the cumulative effects of increased German production (of all weapon types) due to the absence of the Allied strategic bombing campaign, the direct effects of German air superiority on the East Front from 1943 onwards, as well as the effects of the Red Army loosing over half its motorised transport (which had been received from the Allies due to lend lease), and the effects of 9-10 000 additional (and fully supplied) heavy 88mm flak guns on the East Front from 1941 onwards."Tempsperdue (talk) 01:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

As to this: "The inclined plates incorporated in the design along with a minimisation of shot-traps did provide an equivalently greater armour thickness for a given plate thickness and potentially lead to more shot deflections. However, shell penetration mechanics is a complex affair and inclination is not always more effective for a given weight ratio, as one needs more volume and more plate to cover a given area, as opposed to flat plate. The underlying structure supporting and joining the plates is also more complex to weld and assemble with inclined pieces.[citation needed] Many T-34s suffered, not from inherent design flaws, but rather from poor workmanship and quality control during the rushed assembly of the armoured plate, resulting on many occasions in gaps and misaligned armoured plate; this was especially noticeable on those T-34s built hastily at certain factories under harsh conditions during the German advance after 1941"...I have seen photos of some of the T-34s built in ww2 where the plates didn't meet or were mismatched. Also inclined plate is not necessarily more effective that vertical plate as one requires more inclinedplate to cover the same volume...so one can make the vertical plate thicker for a a given weight! But perhaps a discussion for the penetration mechanics article, although it does give lie to the supposed effectiveness of the T-34s inclined armour! Finally "Quality control and proper manufacturing and finishing techniques were dropped in favour of rushed production by a less than skilled workforce (the retreating soviet army had a habit of pressing every able bodied man into the army regardless of skill set)." I have read about the consequences to skilled soviet workers during the retreat but cannot remember where!Tempsperdue (talk) 01:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I have found a photo of misaligned plates here on the T-34: http://worldoftanks.com/news/1031-chieftains-hatch-devils-due/, but am not sure that this is not copyrighted. The info on the image says 'the website does not supply ownership info'...too bad, as it is a great photo and would allow us to add information on the workmanship of the T-34!Tempsperdue (talk) 02:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I have removed entirely unsourced speculation (again, I think). Instead of firing a shotgun of information into the article and seeing what sticks, try only adding reliably sourced information without speculative commentary, or your own conclusions. Also, adding a table and then both using it as something to draw conclusions from, and also adding a note undermining its accuracy means it isn't worth including it at all. The article should only reflect what reliable sources say.

Images of things as sources can be problematic. For instance, an image of misaligned plates on a tank isn't necessarily good by itself without a reliable source describing it as a typical example.

Also, I see no mallets in the other image provided. Unless this is backed up by reliable sources the caption and main body text should go.

Please stop using "ibid", it is basically useless in a wikipedia article as they become broken as the article changes. Take a look at WP:NAMEDREFS.

On the other hand, I don't want to be too discouraging, some of what you have added is fine. (Hohum ^@) 15:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I see you have re-added a section without discussion or consensus.

There is little doubt that on average German tank crews in 1942 were probably still the best trained and most experienced in the world

This is self contradictory and unreferenced.

You then go onto use a table to use as a reference for your own conclusions, yet call the table accuracy into question anyway. For each reason, the entire section is unusable on wikipedia. (Hohum ^@) 16:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, the table itself is not suitably referenced. (Hohum ^@) 16:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Hohum, I do see your point. The accuracy of the table has more to do with confusion between 75mm and 50mm paks, at least as far as I can currently remember. As to the German tank crews, I guess it is an un-citable statement, but at least in my opinion it is a view that is widely held; but I guess removing it is fine... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tempsperdue (talk • contribs) 18:34, 8 July 2012 (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

Raw specifications don't tell the whole story. (They never do, or, on the specs, France would have won in May '40.) In the case of the T-34, my impression has always been, it didn't have excellence in all areas, but its features combined produced an excellence. In short, the Sov designers got the combination right better than anybody else: gun power, armor, weight, hp, reliability, & production. Others had an edge in some areas; none had a better combined package. Nor AFAIK is that in doubt among even German or American historiographers, who may have reason to lie about it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe there is considerable doubt about the superiority of the T34 tank among German and American historians. Since you think those sources may have reason to lie about the T-34, let's try a British one, Encyclopedia Britannica. It states "the German vehicle [the Panther] was superior to the Russian [the T-34] except in mechanical reliability."TL36 (talk) 08:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I am all in favor of removing all of these excessive "enthusiast" superlatives about the T-34, and in fact believe this phenomenon of T-34 worship deserves its own section in this article - e.g., "The T-34 as Myth". There are very simple reasons as to how this T-34 worship got started after all, mainly in the memoirs of the defeated German generals who had all sorts of motives to inflate the reputation of this Soviet tank. Unfortunately the main sources that currently help to debunk this myth are from Soviet or former Soviet-bloc countries, and so have been slow to make it into acceptance among the moderators of this article. But sooner or later, one of the major Western tank historians will write a terrific and updated book about the T-34 based on this new post-Soviet information and thoroughly debunk this myth. The truth is out there already.

Meanwhile, it's very frustrating, and I find these designations of the T-34 as finest this or greatest that or "progenitor of the modern tank" to be every bit as annoying as all the references on Wikipedia that, three years ago, quoted Belton Cooper (author of "Death Traps") as saying Gen. Patton was the person responsible for stunting the development of the M4 Sherman and M26 Pershing. This falsehood was widely repeated across the Internet. In a single book, Zaloga's "Armored Thunderbolt" provided the documentation that completely crushed that falsehood into oblivion once and for all. Zaloga's recent book "T-34-85 vs. M26 Pershing" had a nice section describing how in the Korean War, the M26 Pershings greatly over-matched the T-34-85 whereas the M4A3E8 Shermans were equal to the T-34-85. Since Zaloga is readily accepted on these Wikipedia articles, as fast as one of his books come out, I have entered his stuff in and it never ever gets challenged. So, here's an appeal to Steven Zaloga, if you're reading this, I'm sure you've seen some of this new post-Soviet stuff out now about the T-34. Your 1988, 1994, and 1996 books about the T-34 are getting to be a bit long in the tooth. Write something new, Please! DarthRad (talk)

Just a little note. Whatever is editor's POV (and it seems that here everyone has one) please please please stick to the WP:NPOV and WP:MOS policies and do not add text to the article (or a whole section) that would turn the article into a conversation or an argument. Quote from the former: "Article sections devoted solely to criticism, and "pro and con" sections within articles, are two commonly cited examples. There are varying views on whether and to what extent such structures are appropriate; see Wikipedia:Avoid thread mode, Wikipedia:Criticism, Wikipedia:Pro and con lists, and Template:Criticism-section. [...] Commonly cited examples include articles that read too much like a "debate" [...]." Self-consistency first. If there is something biased, just be WP:BOLD and adjust the (presumably) biased text, do not just insert your counter-argument. --Kubanczyk (talk) 12:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

FAR

An editor has nominated this article for FAR. However, as the first step (of notifying interested editors on the talk page to see if work can be completed without a FAR) was not completed, the FAR has been placed on hold so that this notification can be placed. Here is the text of the FAR nomination, as a starting place for work. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Copied text:

Looking at the article, and comparing it to the criteria:

It is—

• (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
• The information on the tank's design is severely lacking, totalling as it does four completely broken up paragraphs.
• (c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
• Several chunks are completely unreferenced, including the last line of the "Background" section, an entire paragraph of "establishing initial production" and almost the entirety of "Design (T-34 Model 1941)".

It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of—

• (c) consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended. The use of citation templates is not required.
• Citations are completely and utterly inconsistent, ranging from the Harvard style to a divided bibliography-and-citations type. Many facts appear in the lead, but not in the text of the article proper.

Media. It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.

• Images, rather than alternating, go down almost unbroken in a gallery on the right-hand side of the page. Ironholds (talk) 05:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

There is an FA criteria for images to be on alternate sides of the page? (Hohum ^@) 17:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

There is MOS:Images that should be read and followed. Overall there are 23 photos in the article. This is a gallery posing as an article. A good rule to follow is only allowing one pic per section unless that section is unusually lengthy and the photo/s used must have relevancy to the section they're placed in. Brad (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

There are many versions and many details to be shown, hence so many pictures. Is it OK to have three separate galleries? One for T-34-76 kind, second for T-34-85 kind, and the bottom gallery for all the other variants (and the monuments)? --Kubanczyk (talk) 14:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Just bumped into this FAR by chance, and thought I'd give a few thoughts about this article, since I happen to have a bit of knowledge on the subject.

• First for comprehensive coverage, in which the article now is sorely lacking. Just to give short examples:
  • The development history is very short, and there's almost no information on T-34's genesis, which is important to the overall picture. To mention, the history of T-34's development presented quite some detective story, although it has been mostly resolved in recent (Russian) sources.
  • Also, not even a short technical description (compare T-26 article).
  • Rather little coverage on T-34 design and combat history analysis, and comparatively, even fewer sources. There's a vast amount of data on this topic, only a (small) part of which is presented here.
  • Only a small amount of information about T-34 postwar history, with Korean War section blown out of any proportion. Foreign use section is no better.

• As for "well-researched" claims, there's a pityful amount of sources for such a subject in this article.
  • Which seems to rely mostly on Zaloga, ahem, a bit dubious "high-quality reliable source" and, all the more, the main source to write article from. For example, there's a blunder already in the preamble. Referencing Zaloga, well-known for substituting for gaps in knowledge with his vivid imagination, it tells us that T-34 was intended to replace both T-26 and BT series. While in fact, T-26 was planned to be replaced with infantry's T-50 tank (the article of which is also a nice piece of Zaloga's historical fiction), and T-34 was only intended as (less numerous) replacement for "fast" (maneuver, cavalry, however translation you prefer) BT tanks. Only the war, and the failure to mass-produce T-50 forced T-34 into the role of "universal" tank. And the article is strewn with other small mistakes and unreliable (or highly approximate) data from obsolete sources.
  • Small amount of sources also leads to inevitable bias, with only some of the wide spectre of points of view (not of them equally significant, of course) presented as established truth.
  • I understand that Russian sources represent a linguistic challenge, but their coverage on the subject is incomparable to western ones, which in regards to T-34 saw little development since Cold War end. And as for bias, many of them are comparable to Michulec's piece of writing in terms of harsh criticism (actually, Michulec may seem fresh for english speakers, but in comparsion to Russian sources his only contribution is his POV, from which you have to salvage any bits of useful information) — but attempting to be objective instead of being Pole. I could recommend a few books, if someone would be willing to use them to improve this article. --Saə (talk) 09:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree basic factual information leaves much to be desired. (And the heavy load of opinions, or even speculations, is not needed for now.) --Kubanczyk (talk) 11:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you point us to something authoritative which challenges Zalogas reliability? (Hohum ^@) 18:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is not about Zaloga or about "challenging his reliability". That's not the point. We should simply use the most reliable sources that we have on hand, preferably many of them. If an author happens to have a historical book that is sourced better than Zaloga's, as long as we should obviously include it, it does not mean we need to ban Zaloga. Wikipedia has a clear policy (WP:NPOV) regarding controversy/debate among editors (and inconsistency between reliable sources) and there are much much more controversial topics that are handled with success. --Kubanczyk (talk) 07:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Since Zaloga is heavily used, and his reliability was just strongly questioned, it clearly is a relevant point for the article FAR. Personally, I think he is reliable, and Saə was using more hyperbole than is justified. NPOV and reliability are (mostly) separate matters, unreliable sources should never be used, while a well balanced (NPOV) combination of reliable ones should be. (Hohum ^@) 17:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't care about his POV here. Zaloga is about reliable when you have nothing better, but the amount of small (and not-so small) factual mistakes he makes, especially in older works, makes him inadequate as a main source for FA now. Imagine someone's book on M4 Sherman that would've claimed that it was created to 1936 requirement for a heavy tank to counter new japanese armour, but its inadequate combat perfomance later led to a hybrid of M36 tank destroyer and up-armoured Sherman made into M26? (yes, here I'm using hyperbole, but only slightly) Even though, compared to vast majority of English-language authors working in a field of Soviet WWII armour, that I've seen so far, he's rather good. --Saə (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Your own personal assertion about the quality of particular works isn't relevant. To say one source is better than another, you'll need to show peer review showing that it is better, which can also be implied by how much other respectable historians reference their work. (Hohum ^@) 18:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, feel free to consider Zaloga, or whoever else — I personally recommend the renowned AFV historian George Forty. His 2005 book where he confuses ASU-57 and ZSU-57 is still unrivalled — a reliable source. Not that how silly yet another en-wiki article looks (roughly the above description, only without any hyperbole) concerns me enough to continue this discussion. --Saə (talk) 23:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Zaloga's more recent works are better documented, and thus more reliable, than some of his earlier books, most of which were relatively short monographs with some of the information based on what can best be described as dubious sources. Some of these older short books do not contain thorough notes about his original sources. In the article on the M26 Pershing, which I extensively revised, I point out that Zaloga completely changed his story about Patton being the cause of the delay of the M26 in his 2000 book "M26/M46 Pershing Tank" (matching/parroting Belton Cooper's version) to the more thoroughly researched version that laid the blame squarely upon Gen. Lesley McNair in his 2008 "Armored Thunderbolt". Quoting the letter that McNair wrote to Gen. Devers where McNair slams the latter's desire for the M26 is pretty definitive. Where Zaloga got the original version about Patton is anybody's guess, since he does not provide detailed sourcing in the 2000 book (my guess is that he heard this from Belton Cooper). The current Panther Tank article still contains a Soviet claim that the IS-2's 122mm gun could penetrate the Panther from front to back, a fairly dubious claim which is not corroborated by any other source and doesn't even make sense on a physical basis, given the Panther's well known superb frontal armor and other sources that rate the Soviet 122mm gun roughly equal to the British 17-pounder. It's been difficult to get rid of that bit of trivia from the Panther article because the source is one of Zaloga's older books about Soviet tanks, which he wrote, I believe, at a time when he was one of the first Western authors allowed into the Soviet Union. My guess is that the Soviets fed him some propaganda. So, in summary, I have found Zaloga to be a useful reference, but his more recent work is much, much better than some of his earlier work, where he seems to have been a bit careless about passing on poorly documented information, and some of that information was not true. Give him credit, though, for being willing to revise his own works. That's why he seriously needs to re-write some of his earlier works about the Soviet tanks of WWII. DarthRad (talk)

As for IS-2's gun performance, it seems to be a confusion on Zaloga's part. During one of the tests of 122-mm gun's M1944 APC shells, it indeed penetrated a tank from front to back, but a Pz.IV, for which this result is rather unsurprising. Still, frontal armour of Panther and Tiger, also present in shooting, was penetrated without much difficulty, and Panther's turret side was pierced all the way through (all shots made from 1400…1500 m range) See for example: Zheltov I., Pavlov I., Pavlov M., Sergeev A. Танки ИС в боях (IS tanks in action), Moscow: Tekhnika Molodezhi, 2002. Panther's high-hardness armour indeed made its glacis plate a very difficult target for guns in 75…90mm range, but 122-mm's 25 kg shell was a different matter and during comparative evaluation outperformed even the 100-mm gun, despite latter's significantly higher penetration in normal conditions. Contributing to this was also the decline in late-war German armour quality, owing to the critical alloyage shortages. Substitutes for these made steel plate very brittle, which didn't make much difference for 17-pounder, but proved fatal against heavy shells. Also, just for a short but, it seems, necessary note: Soviet penetration tables data is not directly comparable to British, US, Japanese or Papuan one, and the penetration values obtained by different methods usually differ wildly for the same gun. Judging by his progress, I hope Zaloga would also learn of this, somewhere around 2030. --Saə (talk) 07:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

That is all still your personal opinion, and starting to wander into WP:NOTAFORUM, instead of a FAR. (Hohum ^@) 14:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is not the A-19 122mm gun forum, but a discussion about reliability of sources. I consider Thomas Jentz to be absolutely meticulous in his writing, documenting where he obtained every scrap of information, and setting down no more than what his sources state. As such the range-penetration data which Jentz set down in his two books - "Germany's Panther Tank" and "Germany's Tiger Tanks: Tiger I & Tiger II: Combat Tactics" are about as definitive as it gets for the gun vs. armor debates. And in those books, you'll find that neither the 122mm Soviet gun nor the British 17-pounder could penetrate the front glacis plate of the Panther at any range. You'll find that the T-34's 85mm gun was slightly WORSE than the much maligned 76mm gun of the even more maligned M4 Sherman. So much for the "best tank in the world" label - how could that be if the German Army tests say the T-34's 85mm gun was not as good as the M4 Sherman's 76mm gun? This same data show that the much maligned armor of the M4 Sherman was roughly equivalent to the T-34-85 as far as resisting puncture by the Panther's 75m Kwk 42 - neither tank's armor was any good, but they were about equal. "Best tank in the world"? Or just a myth, perhaps only momentarily true for the 1941 time period? Jentz's data show that the firepower and armor of the 76mm M4 Sherman and the T-34-85 were very, very close to each other.

Jentz's data are all from tests done by the German and British Armies on captured tanks, and these are about as reliable as it gets. I have no idea where the Soviet data comes from. Perhaps they were testing precision manufactured versions of their guns instead of what actually came out from their factories. Yes, theoretically a 122mm gun should do a lot better than a 75mm gun, and an 85mm gun should do better than a 76mm gun, but not if the barrel and gunpowder are so shoddily manufactured that the factory gun could not generate the required high pressures and velocities. The Soviet 122mm had significantly lower velocities when tested by others than the Soviets. DarthRad (talk)

Soviet penetration data is calculated theoretically usually. Bear in mind that Soviet penetration data assumes 80% probability of penetration, whereas German data assumes 50% though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.138.92 (talk) 04:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The article is far too opinionated and biased. Statements are made about the T-34 being the "best" when such a thing is completely subjective to situation and enormously complex. In the opening paragraph such statements are made on three separate instances — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.135.164.254 (talk) 15:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

File:P82-2l.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:P82-2l.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 15 November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Estonian bog tank

The article claims this is an example of the design's durability. It's nothing of the sort. An absence of rust and degradation would be entirely expected after being submerged in an anaerobic environment. Bogs routinely offer up well-preserved artifacts from thousands of years ago. This whole section should be deleted IMO, as the restoration of an individual T-34 isn't particularly noteworthy, even if it was unusually well preserved. 2p0rk (talk) 22:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

T 34-85 three man turret

The sentence about the three man turret giving the commander the ability to focus on commanding the tank while leaving the operation of the gun to the gunner and loader does not require a citation, it is obvious isn't it? Imagine standing in the two man turret, spotting a target, then having to crawl down into the gunners seat, swivel the turret and find the target again through the very limited field of vision of the gunsight, and then hit the target: ridiculous, what were they thinking? If anything the Soviets should have made the commander the loader in the two man turret. Loading the gun only takes a couple of seconds, and then the commander can be up again searching for targets and directing the gunner and driver. Any tank commander or crew member could explain this.Azeh (talk) 09:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Lots of things are obvious to those with some knowledge of the subject. Even the obvious things, here, do need cites...especially since this is for the non-expert. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, and, related to this issue - the statements about the lack of a turret basket are misleading for non-experts. Sure, a turret basket is a wonderful thing to have. But hardly any tank in 1941 had such a thing. The only tank operating on the eastern front in 1941 with a turret basket was the Pzkw-IV. DMorpheus2 (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot the Soviet T-28 and T-35, both of which had turret baskets for their main 76mm gun turrets. But both vehicles were rare (about 60 T-35s and ~500 T-28s total) and quickly disappeared from the battlefield since they were no longer in production. DMorpheus2 (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Unbalanced section

The following section seems unbalanced:

Armour

:::Although in theory an effective overall shape, armor suffered from build quality issues, especially of plate joins and welds, as well as the use soft steel :::combined with shallow surface tempering, all this was noted by US engineers at the Aberdeen Proving grounds.[8] ::::'In a heavy rain lots of water flows through chinks/cracks, which leads to the disabling of the electrical equipment and even the ammunition.

:The following is a war time account of the effectiveness of the T-34's armour and relative impunity when faced with available German anti-tank guns of the time:

Remarkably enough, one determined 37 mm gun crew reported firing 23 times against a single T-34 tank, only managing to jam the tank’s turret ring”.[66]

Although the German anti-tank gun crew managed to score 23 hits, the T-34 referred to did not manage to hit the AT gun once.[66]'

When we consider the T-34 was one of the best-protected tanks in the world in 1941, this section is a bit silly in its unbalanced description. DMorpheus2 (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

T-34-85 or T-34/85

I'd like to suggest that we consistently use one or the other, and not mix both usages in the article. I suggest this mostly for the sake of good style.

Having said that, the Soviet and Russian usage is T-34-85, not T-34/85. This usage has been adopted much more commonly in newer English-language sources than T-34/85. The T-34/85 usage is a bit dated and, I'd guess, probably derived from the German usage of T-34/76 (a designation not generally used by the Soviets or Russians). Since this is a Soviet-era piece of equipment, not German, I suggest we use the Soviet/Russian usage.

Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I prefer T-34/85 for clarity's sake. IMO it doesn't leave questions (or as many, anyhow) about what's referred to. (Maybe informed by hot rodder practise...) I'm not so wedded to it I'd demand it, & I do agree a consistent use is preferable. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Its potentially confusing when you consider the usage "T-54/55" , which refers to the T-54 and T-55 series of tanks, not to a T-54 armed with a 55mm gun ;) DMorpheus2 (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair point. We're not doing that on this page, tho, are we? (Are we? ;p ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The Slash comes from Finnish sources. For example the infantry rifle M/28-30, or submachine gun M/31. 69.60.229.207 (talk) 03:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

This isn't really about the T-34 at all is it?

Soviet fully tracked AFV production from June 1941 to May 1945 was 99,150 (this includes all types of fully tracked assault and self-propelled guns) vehicles. An additional 11,900 tanks and self-propelled guns were received via Lend Lease.[88][89] In comparison, the Germans, who are often criticised for producing too few, albeit higher quality tanks replete with too many refinements and excessive quality control during production, produced a total of 26,925 tanks, 612 command tanks, 232 flame tanks, 10,550 assault guns, 7,831 tank destroyers, and 3,738 assault and self-propelled artillery AFVs, between 1938 and May 1945.[90] For a combined total of around 49,900 fully tracked AFVs. Soviet tanks had a generally rough and ready finish, and lacked many ergonomic and refinement features which were deemed essential by German and to a large extent by Allied tankers as well.[citation needed] That there were more Soviet tanks produced during the war than were destroyed (approximately 44,900 of the 55,550 T-34s produced were lost), regardless of the individual tactical performance of each, ultimately helped to win the war. The Soviets mass produced more fully tracked AFVs, and more T-34s in particular than the Germans did total fully tracked AFVs. It can be argued that it was exactly the emphasis on refinements, manufacturing quality and subtleties of design which gave German tank crews significant edge in combat at the tactical level. The Soviets achieved strategic success, but paid an exceptionally high price; approximately 44,900 of the T-34s were lost out of a total of 96,500 fully tracked AFVs lost compared with only 32,800 for the Germans (this includes all SP guns, SP artillery, and several thousand vehicles captured when Germany surrendered on the East Front) during all of WW2; a global loss ratio of 2.94 to 1 in favour of the Germans.[91][92]

That's all very interesting stuff about armored combat in WW2 but its not really about the T-34 is it? Certianly, far more specific conclusions could be drawn.DMorpheus2 (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. I suspect the numbers are sourced (many of which are irrelevant to the article), but the conclusions may be synthesis. Additionally, a 3 to 1 loss ratio isn't that relevant if at the end you have zero tanks, and the enemy still has thousands. (Hohum ^@) 17:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Operators

I tagged Italy and the Russian Liberation Army (ROA) usage. I am aware of no documentation at all of any Italian usage of the T-34. I've seen one blurry, obviously-retouched photo showing Regio Escercito troops near an STZ-produced T-34. No evidence that it is operational; from the photo it could be disabled/abandoned. It is impossible to tell.

The ROA was never in combat until the last few days of WW2 in Prague. While there is no doubt they had a few T-34s, they were issued from German stocks, not captured by the ROA from the Red Army.

Finally, although I did not tag it, some of the Finnish T-34s were bought from the Germans, not all were captured.

regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits

I've made a recent project out of acquiring better citations for this article. I copied the entire article to my laptop, traveled to various libraries and used bookstores(usually on other projects) and, wherever there was a "citation needed" tag, I'd search the indices of books on the shelves, and frequently I found something. The mainspace content has been edited with all these references in the past couple of days as a result of this compilation of research conducted over the past several weeks. There's one section that I just can't find anything for, so I've simply deleted it. If any of you can do better, I encourage you to replace the section in the mainspace with citations. Intuitively the content does make a lot of sense but I just can't find any sources to support it.

Support vehicles

There were many support vehicles and even civilian tractors and cranes built on the T-34 chassis starting during the war and continuing at least into the 1990s. The vast majority of these were conversions of old or damaged tanks and self-propelled guns.

• Bridging tanks: Old tanks rebuilt in the field or at repair facilities. These were simply driven into water two abreast for special river-crossing operations, to be recovered later.
• Armoured recovery vehicles: During World War II, some old tanks were rebuilt as armoured recovery vehicles (ARVs), by plating over the turret ring or adding a superstructure. After the war, this repurposing program was formalized in successively more elaborate models.

---

The article was delisted from the Featured Articles during FAR here. Criteria can be found here. I've just addressed all of the 1c issues (fully referenced). Would someone please help with the 2c issues (consistent citation style)? I do not believe it would be all that difficult to restore this one to Featured Article status, but it would be a bit tedious ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

__________________________________________________

"One can recognise the widely exported Czechoslovakian-built T-34-85s by a semi-conical armoured fairing (like a rear-facing scoop) on the left rear slanting side-panel of the engine compartment sponson."

This 'fairing' is an small armored housing for an infantry call button or 'door bell' and I have seen them on Soviet-produced vehicles from factory 174 also. So, I suspect this is a postwar add-on, not a recognition feature unique to Czech vehicles. DMorpheus2 (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Service Length

When did the USSR stop using this tank? We need to add this info in. I DO NOT believe any made it to 1991, but who knows?

74.51.57.78 (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

In the "Use in other countries" subsection, there's an indication that the USSR used the T-34-85 until at least 1968. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

As an aside, I notice a couple of years ago here on this Talk page, we saw a discussion about the allegedly "poor" armor penetration qualities of the Soviet A-19 122mm gun, rating it roughly equal to the British Ordnance QF 17-pounder (76mm). Perspective is everything. It isn't that the 122mm gun was so bad, but that the 17-pounder was so good. The 122mm was derived from a corps-level artillery piece designed in 1931. The 17-pounder was designed in 1941. In the intervening ten years, a great deal was learned about armor penetration. In most respects the 17-pounder was similar to the German 7.5 cm KwK 42 L/70 mounted on the Panther, but it had APDS ammunition shortly after D-Day. In comparison with these weapons, the 76mm and 85mm guns on the T-34 were a bit mediocre. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Well.....more specifically, the 17 pounder firing sabot was extremely good at punching holes in armor plate because that's what it was designed to do. It was not designed to be a general-purpose tank gun. No Allied towed AT gun was as good as the 17 pounder except perhaps the Soviet 100mm.

The 122 gun-howitzer's closest counterpart in the British Army would probably be the 5.5 inch gun, which probably wasn't a great hole-puncher either. I haven't looked it up, but I am not sure there was even an AP round for that weapon.

Compare the HE performance of the 122mm or the 85mm to the 17 pounder and I think you'll get a rather different perspective. The Soviet 76.2mm F34 was in action in June 1941 in tanks; the 85mm in Feb/Mar 1944; the 17 pounder first saw action as a tank gun in June 1944.

So perspective is indeed everything isn't it?

Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Here we go ... off into the thicket of another oblique off-topic Talk page discussion. The BL 5.5 inch Medium Gun was developed in 1939 from a World War I Royal Navy gun, the BL 5.5 inch Mark I naval gun (used on two light cruisers, and as secondary armament on HMS Hood and a couple of light aircraft carriers) — so AP ammunition was definitely available, but evidently never issued to Royal Artillery units.

The British made the mistake of specializing a lot of their artillery. Their high-velocity AT guns and many high-velocity tank guns (2-pounder and 6-pounder) were only issued AP ammunition. The low-velocity field artillery (and the howitzer armed tanks) were only issued HE ammunition. This made both families of weapons pretty useless if confronted by the "wrong" type of target. Nobody else made this mistake with anything like the obstinate regularity the British displayed. (Germans, Soviets, Americans, Italians, Japanese, even the French.) The British did correct this mistake late in the war with the 17-pounder, the 75mm tank gun (Cromwell), and the so-called "77mm" tank gun (Comet).

At the other end of the spectrum were the Soviets, who (in my opinion) best demonstrated a desire to field weapons that would be equally effective against any target — tanks or infantry. For the other nationalities I've listed, it seemed to be a happy coincidence whenever it happened, although they did issue both types of ammunition for nearly all their weapons. But the Soviets clearly planned it that way, with very few exceptions (their howitzers and their 57mm tank-killer).

To a very small degree, the Americans followed British pattern with their tank vs. tank destroyer thinking ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

So to bring us back around to the T-34 ;), and to which this digression actually contributes.....one of the important things the initial design got right was the armament. The 76mm gun was a very good dual-purpose gun for 1940-41. It could penetrate any tank in the world at combat ranges with its APHE round, while at the same time having a very useful HE-frag round. Compare that to almost any tank in the world in 1940-41. Designs like the French B-1 or the initial Churchill concept had two guns so they could combine AT and HE capability on one vehicle. Most other tanks (all British cruisers, most French tanks, most of the German tanks) could only really usefully fire AP *or* HE but not both. The Pzkw-III with its 50mm gun was beginning to go in the right direction. The KV is the only other example that comes to mind for this time period.

As the armor of German tanks improved the Red Army considered putting the 57mm ZIS-2 gun into the T-34. This would have created the equivalent of the Sherman Firefly - a tank with a super-potent hole puncher but little HE capability. They were wiser to move to the 85mm gun.

While it is rather well-known that the T-34 had a great combination of the holy trinity (firepower, armor, mobility) it is often forgotten that the firepower was good both due to raw performance and because it was dual-purpose.

FWIW I think you are right about your assessment of British artillery.

Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, all British cruisers had in 1940-41 reflected that mistake. Most of the tanks in each squadron (company) were the standard version with the high velocity gun and only AP ammunition. There would also be a few CS tanks with a low-velocity howitzer and only HE ammunition. In 1940 the Panzer III (37mm high-velocity gun) and Panzer IV (low-velocity 75mm gun) approximated this dilemma, but at least they issued both types of ammo to both vehicles. My impression of the French was that their most useful tanks (S35 and similar tanks) were armed with a 47mm tank gun that fired pretty decent rounds for 1940, for both AP and HE. The Italians and Japanese had similar 47mm tank guns. And I recently added to the article mainspace that the T-34's 76mm tank gun was the best in the world in 1940-41.

The Americans were tending toward the same flawed thinking as the British: American tanks were designed to engage enemy infantry, while American TDs were designed to engage enemy tanks. But like the Germans, at least they issued both types of ammo to both types of vehicles; and at least with the early models of the M4 (medium-velocity 75mm gun), they had a fairly adequate dual purpose tank gun. It took a 90mm (M26 & M36), a high-velocity 76mm (other TDs and the M4A3E8), or an M4 moving around to the flank or rear (with its gyrostabilizer) to make a Panther or Tiger crew nervous, however. Earlier, the M3 light tank was similar to the early Panzer III, and the M3 medium tank was similar to the French B-1. But fortunately, American tank forces never saw action against the Germans until they were equipped with the M4. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 05:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Plagiarism 101

The statistics in the operational history part come from my site: http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.gr/2013/01/tank-strength-and-losses-eastern-front.html http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.gr/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html

Thanks a lot for copying my work without mentioning me or my site! Also maybe you didn’t understand it 100% but some of the German strength data for AFV’s are my e-s-t-i-m-a-t-e-s not all come from Jentz’s book. If you copy my information you should mention my site as your SOURCE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paspartoo (talk • contribs) 12:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

General Edit & Clean-up

The article has a lot of useful information, but it is painfully clear that it has been worked on at length by two major editors with the same set of sources. The amount of repetition and redundancy is enormous, running from sentences to whole paragraphs of identical information. For example:

"Even during the Battle of France, the Germans' 37 mm PaK 36 anti-tank gun had earned the nickname "Door Knocker" among German crews, due to its inability to penetrate anything but the lightest tank armour, though it worked very well at announcing the presence of the gun crew. The PaK 36 proved to be completely ineffective against the T-34, earning the contemptuous nickname "Door Knocker" from German troops"

As for paragraphs, to pick one example (there are more), the following appears in its entirety twice:

"From the point of view of operating them, the German armoured machines were more perfect, they broke down less often. For the Germans, covering 200 km was nothing, but with T-34s something would have been lost, something would have broken down. The technological equipment of their machines was better, the combat gear was worse."

It's also poorly organized, with the Mobility section just being a list of ways it broke down, though this is separate from a section on Reliability. Production, armour, and gun information is widely scattered, despite their being sections for such things, and heavily repeated as well. Finally, the introduction is way too long, containing far too much irrelevant information for a reader who should just be getting an intro to the topic.

I've gone through and made lengthy edits that have condensed things into their proper sections. In doing so I've deleted a great deal of redundancy. Note that while the trimmed word count appears high, the vast majority really was just repeated info (there were also little bits on German tanks and performance that were too detailed for this Soviet tank article, and/or were unsourced).

I have added no new information. Cheers.94.232.219.141 (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Palindromedairy (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's about all I can think of doing. Thanks for your patience, and for allowing a (initially) non-registered user to make such sweeping changes. I'd like to think it's a lot sharper now, but then again I'm obviously a bit biased.

There's a few things I'd like to raise, but am unable to address without access to the sources that have been used to date:

1) The summary chart now in the Overview section states that there was no appreciable difference in both speed and horsepower of the various models. How can this be? The T-34-85 is almost six tons heavier than the Model 1941, for instance, but it appears every model went up in weight by at least half a ton, and yet they're all just as fast?

2) The Mobility section lacks any cited reference to the T-34's famous mobility. That is, its wide treads, low ground pressure, and ability to handle fairly steep inclines. The example there now is a purely comparative one, in reference to the Panzer IV, which doesn't really cut it.

3) The Reliability section is absolutely dominated by the Aberdeen information, which, while quite valuable, is really about one or a handful of examples of one model of T-34. Reading it, you'd think it was the most unreliable tank ever. More references are required placing the Aberdeen info in context, explaining how these issues were addressed in later models (if indeed they were). Similarly, I've read that the early problems with failure over relatively short driving distances can be attributed to untrained crews (in addition to the early builds not having all the bugs ironed out). If that's true, it needs to be brought up, otherwise you think the T-34 was incapable of travelling long distances.

Cheers. Palindromedairy (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed on that last point. Operational readiness statistics would show that T-34 units did better than some of their competitors. I'll see if I can source what I swear I can remember ;)

DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Error

This sentence, though sourced, is incorrect: "Starting with the Model 1943, cold-rolled armour plate (similar to that used for the tank hull) was welded in a sloped hexagonal design, improving turret armour protection.[48]" Although there were some welded turrets manufactured in the initial narrow design (the so called "Model 1941" or sometimes "Model 42" designs with the single large hatch), all the hexagonal turrets were cast or stamped. None were welded. I wonder if this is a mistranslation. DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It might also be another case of confusion over the fact that "Model X" refers to different Models depending on what source is being used, since the year-based naming system varies from country to country. If you've got a source that contradicts it, and you're sure it's correct, it would seem to make sense to replace what's there now.

Palindromedairy (talk) 14:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

General Reliability

The whole General reliability section is completely focused on early models of the T-34. The tank itself was one of the most reliable tanks during the war, however if one were to read the article one would think that the T-34 was not at all reliable, The models of late 1941 were reliable and the models of 1942 and 1943 were highly reliable able to travel far greater distances and require far less maintenance than any German tank.Nor123Nor (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I raised that issue just two sections up. In short, I agree: unfortunately, no one is producing any reliable sources to demonstrate otherwise. I've clarified, as part of my cleanup, that the problems in the current examples were specifically in the earliest models, but there's no room to do more unless sources that actual contrast tank types (as opposed to less useful blanket statements of reliability) are produced.Palindromedairy (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia comrades, I see you’ve changed the T-34 page once again! Regarding the reliability of the T-34 model 1943: http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.gr/2013/01/german-evaluation-of-captured-soviet.html Regarding the reliability of the T-34/85: http://www.scribd.com/doc/230672358/ENGINEERING-ANALYSIS-OF-THE-RUSSIAN-T34-85-TANK?in_collection=4556464 Paspartoo (talk) 14:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Strange Parallel with the Sherman M4

The second paragraph of the Overview section draws a strange comparison with the Sherman M4, as if assuming the reader is familiar with the details of this machine. The article should stand on its own and I find this paragraph out of place and inconsistent. In particular, it makes the statement: "Both were an approximately even match for the standard German medium tank, the Panzer IV." However, elsewhere in the article it is stated in the Operation Barbarossa subsection of Operational history: "...but the T-34 was a notable exception, superior to any tank the Germans then had in service." Stating that the Sherman M4 was "approximately equally matched with the Pz IV" is also a stretch, but this could be an article in itself. At best, I don't think this parallel adds anything to the article. At worst, it's just incorrect. If it must be retained, the comparison should be reduced in scope to compare the "backbone of the armoured forces" and designed for simplicity and mass production aspects and leave out any comparison of performance. CptCaveman76 (talk) 09:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

"Both were an approximately even match for the standard German medium tank, the Panzer IV." I feel the same way about this statement, Cpt. A big part of the historical importance of the T-34 is its superiority to German tanks in the early phase of its service life. Notreallydavid (talk) 10:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hitler Misquote?

I believe the following quotation may be misleading and a misquote. It is found in the Barbarossa subsection of the Operational history section :

Adolf Hitler later said, "If I had known about the Russian tank's strength in 1941 I would not have attacked".

The cited reference is: Correlli Barnett, ed. (1989). Hitler's Generals. Weidenfeld and Nicolson. p. 456. ISBN 0 297 79462 0.

I believe in this quotation, Hitler was referring to Soviet tank strength in general i.e. referring to numbers rather than the qualities on the T-34 in particular. I think the apostrophe is mis-placed and that it should be "Russian tanks' strength" instead of "Russian tank's strength"

I do not have access to the source material, perhaps someone who has could check this out.CptCaveman76 (talk) 09:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I have a copy and will check the quote shortly. Palindromedairy (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Having checked, the quote does indeed feature a misplaced apostrophe. It is also uncited besides; I'll remove it immediately. Palindromedairy (talk) 02:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Removal of WP:OR and WP:SYN

I've reviewed the entry introducing and its given source. None of those cited source following the origin quote, it rather seems viewed from a selective personal preference, which concluded to that synthesis WP:SYN. That's obviously not within the meaning of our guidelines. I suggest we discuss this to gather consensus for speedy removal and rephrasing.

1) "The T-34 was a Soviet medium tank which had a profound and lasting effect on the fields of tank tactics and design. First fielded in 1940, it has often been described as the most effective, efficient, and influential tank design of World War II"

Chris Mann and Hughes does not in the slightest preconize what is described; it's more likely a mixing up of the ref. from achtungpanzer.com: "when introduced into production in June of 1940, was the most advanced tank design in the world. It was superior to any other tank in the world, including feared German tanks. Its revolutionary design featured sloped armor, speed, hitting power and low silhouette along with reliability and low production cost"

It was miles away from being efficient and effective at its introducing. The new T-34 suffered from serious teething problems regard to their clutches and transmissions. Mechanical breakdowns accounted for at least 50% in 1941. Only 27% of 7'000 tanks were in good enough mechnical condition to last more than a few days of fighting before suffering mechanical breakdwons. However, I rather want to take Zaloga and Grandsen wording in agreement to Field-Marshal Ewald von Kleist: "The combadt début of the T-34 in the summer of 1941 revealed it to be unquestionably the finest tank design of its time. The revolutionary combination of thick, angled armour, heavy firepower and superb mobility placed it in a class above its closet German contemporaries, the Pz Kpfw III and Pz Kpfw IV (D and E)" - Which gives a fair settlement and factual view, apart from some sweeping and creative wki-editors. WP:NPOV

It would also replace the uncourced and heavy inflated second dublicated statement: "At its introduction, the T-34 possessed the best balance of firepower, mobility, protection, and ruggedness of any tank. Its 76.2 mm (3 in) high-velocity gun was the best tank gun in the world at that time"

2) " German tank generals von Kleist and Guderian called it "the deadliest tank in the world"

Where this quote is coming from? I couldn't find, neither in the cited book(Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War II pp.110-170) which I've rewieved as well, nor in the recovered wepages: 1, 2 Thanks, regards Bouquey (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I would broadly agree that a modification of wording would be acceptable, and a more rigourous attribution of some of the more sweeping claims be backed up by some good RS. Much like the panther intro. Irondome (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I would welcome a rewrite of the lede section. However we must bear in mind that it's a lede section, therefore a brief summary of the entire article, and sweeping generalizations are appropriate. Focusing too much attention on the teething problems of the Model 1940 would violate WP:WEIGHT. The Model 1941 formed the bulk of the T-34 force when the Germans invaded, and they were quite reliable. Please post your proposed rewrite here for review before posting it in the article mainspace. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I have nothing to oppose to a brief summary which is well sourced and cited. You can track the progress on my sandbox. Suggestions for improvement are encouraged, thanks. Bouquey (talk) 14:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Misleading Information

Kleist and Guderian don't called it "the deadliest tank in the world".

Check source 1: Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War Two, Grandsen, Zaloga - the article not only fails to give the page in the reference, but also misleading it with an Guderian and Kleist citation. Guderian is solely mentioned at page 123 and von Kleist ist not even memoired in the entire book !

Check source 2: https://web.archive.org/web/20120330022217/http://www.theeasternfront.co.uk/Commanders/german/guderian.htm - dont emphasize that quote.

It's clearly that some editors are liying here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FileDivaM (talk • contribs) 12:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

You still do not seem to get it. you go to talk, as you have done, and wait for consensus for your proposed change. You do not make the changes anyway. So I am restoring the article to its previous condition until consensus is reached. Please do not revert. Also check WP:AGF. Throwing around terms like "liar" does not help your credibility. Moderate your tone and go easy on the edit button. Just some advice to a new user. Irondome (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

There are several source quoting Von Kleist as calling it the finest tank in the world. Guderian calls attention to the "vast superiority.."of the 34 "to our tanks" Panzer Leader pg 233, penguin, London 2000. PL is peppered with such sentiments. If "deadly" cannot be found in due time, it will be removed. However Kleists and Guderians quotes would more than suffice. It would also support the best balance of armour, firepower and mobility bit which seems to annoy you so much. Remember the lede must summarise what is to come. If it is the truth, then it is not peacock. Try to maintain your WP:NPOV on this. Cheers Irondome (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Kleist called it the finest design at praticular time of 1941, in the same acknowledge as Guderian that they had nothing comparable at praticular time. But cutting it down and drawing it to like the deadliest in the word, is pure synthesis(!) with the sole purpose to fit selective arguments of one's POV. Also, the called the best tank gun in the world, is peacock. They were already wheeled and halftracked vehicles of 88mm (flak 36 )and 90mm (italian) guns which already surpassed the 76mm gun in years, see the the spanish civil war! so you better fix your WP:NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FileDivaM (talk • contribs) 19:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

That won't do. The examples you give were not tank mounted at all at this time. In any event, the assertion that the Soviet 76.2mm was the best multi purpose tank gun at the time would be correct. As I have said, if "deadly" can be found in any additional quote it will be added. If not, it will be replaced by "Finest". This will be based on consensus based on discussion here by other interested colleagues. It would amount to the same thing anyway. Deadly. You appear to have a pro-axis POV in terms of equipment. I have also noted it at the 8.8 cm KwK 43 article that you are attempting to WP:PEACOCK Irondome (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

See https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=osu1392912024&disposition=inline

"The T34 was a revolutionary advance in tank design because it was able to combine unprecedented improvements in mobility, protection and firepower in a single vehicle. The design innovations included the Christie type, independent suspension combined with an extremely wide track allowing for high speed cross-country mobility and the increase in overall weight associated with increased armor. The increase in overall armor thickness combined with the use of highly sloped armor provided unprecedented protection in a medium tank for its day, this protection was complimented by the use of a diesel fueled engine decreasing the risk of fire caused by fuel, making the new tank one ofthe safest in the world. The use ofthe 76mm gun that was capable of effectively using both high-explosive and armor-piercing ammunition provided a marked increase in firepower over any of the T34's contemporaries". P.11

From TWO WAYS TO BUILD A BETTER MOUSETRAP Thesis by Major David Frederick McFadden B.S. Ohio State University 2002. Irondome (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

A perfectly good RS published by a major academic institution coming from an author with a military background. I believe we can use this in the article. Is this acceptable colleagues? Irondome (talk) 20:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Added McFadden reference, removed tag. Also added and sourced the Kleist and Guderian quotes. Removed "deadly" because I can't find it after a long search. The new cites should more than back up the points made in the lede. Irondome (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I like the way the lede section looks now. Let's keep it that way. I do remember reading Guderian saying that the T-34 was the "deadliest" tank in the world in 1941. It was in either "Achtung Panzer" or "Panzer Leader." But the quotes we're using now are well sourced so let's keep them. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 06:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Time to split T34-76 and T34-85 articles ?

A major advance and far more powerful, T34-85 should have separate article. Rcbutcher (talk) 07:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio T-34

(moved from my talk page (Hohum ^@) 21:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC))

As you have revert my edit as copyvio; I want to inform you that the sentence in the lede:" Although its armour and armament were surpassed later in the war, it has been often credited as the most effective, efficient, and influential tank design of World War II" is also clearly a copyvio.

Why I can't add my edit? All points on the sentence are adressed in the article, and as far the WP:LEAD goes, we should: "include mention of consequential or significant criticism or controversies".

CobhamLaine (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

What is it a copyvio of?

WP:LEAD requires that the Lead is summary of what is in the main text. It should not have things which are not reflected in the main text. I hope this is clear enough. (Hohum ^@)

It is a copyvio of this (the cited source). General Ization ^Talk 19:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. That source is copyright 2011, yet the phrasing was in the article in 2008. here. In fact, the entire section is lifted from Wikipedia and credited as such at the end of the section. (Hohum ^@) 19:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, you are correct. Obviously, that source should be removed as a citation (though another should be sought). General Ization ^Talk 19:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I have removed it, thanks.CobhamLaine (talk) 20:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

You have completely misunderstood. ""Ironsides": Canadian Armoured Fighting Vehicle Museums and Monuments By Harold A. Skaarup" is copyright 2011, and uses Wikipedia as its source using material which was in Wikipedia from at least 2008. That doesn't make Wikipedia a copyvio of the book, it means Wikipedia was using a meaningless WP:CIRCULAR reference. I have put the reference used to support the 2008 wording back. (Hohum ^@) 21:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The site www.achtungpanzer.com doesn't seem do be the genuine source of the sentence. Its lead is completely different, therefore it should not be credited and referred as such origin, even when it was mentioned in 2008. A reason why Harold may took it as his own intellectual property.CobhamLaine (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

You still don't seem to understand, and I'm not explaining it again. (Hohum ^@) 21:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I only see that you are discrediting Harold A. Skaarup as historian by removing its following citation. Can you track it down? How could you be sure that it is clearly WP:CIRCULAR? CobhamLaine (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, last try. The book is copyright 2011, he uses wording that was in Wikipedia in at least 2008, and he even credits that wording to Wikipedia. (Hohum ^@) 17:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Factual errors in this article, and one notable omission?

143.167.143.33 (talk) 12:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)The Soviet army was unhappy with the overall layout of the T-34 (later T-34/76) right from the start. The Christie-type (note: NOT Christie, the T-34 could NOT be run on its road wheels) suspension took up excessive internal space, the two-man turret was too cramped and made the tank essentially impossible to fight, the manufacture quality of many of the components varied from excellent to abysmal (for example the radiator). The later T-34/85 introduced a larger three-man turret, but many of the vehicles earlier flaws remained the same. There were several attempts to introduce changes to the basic design, the most notable being the T34M which included a switch to torsion-bar suspension, and the T-43 which introduced heavier armour; however the main impetus was a demand for a larger caliber gun and such programs were terminated.

The one omission I would like to make note of is that surely the T-34 must probably be the most destroyed tank of WW2!

Further I must point out one more error; the T-34 is NOT an ancestor of the T54/55 and later generations, the design lineage of the T-34 began with the T-34/76 and ended with the T-34/85. The T-54-55 and T62 are all designs which can trace their ancestry back to the T-34s original replacement, the T-44 which was an entirely new design.

Andy Loates