The Soviet T34 Best Tank of WW2 Myth or Fact?

I found a couple of interesting articles about the T34 as viewed form the Allies point of view:

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/the-t-34-in-wwii-the-legend-vs-the-performance/

http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.gr/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html



I personally agree with the authors conclusions. The T34 - whichever model or variant - is overhyped and over rated.

Fact!

PS
T-34 is kinda a dogma for catholic. U can't explain, u've to believe

I voted "fact". A head to head comparison with later German tanks, T-34 was mediocre at best. What so wonderful about it was that it was there at all. The German were probably surprised that the Soviets had a modern (though far from perfect) tank! The T-34 provided a working solution against Hitler's mechanized warfare. It was poorly crewed and repeatedly defeated but the Soviet war machine kept churning them up in astonding speed, despite the tremendous strain of relocating thousands of kilometers. Had the Soviets tried to come up with a Panther, a Kingtiger or, god forbade, a Maus, they would probably lose the war.

Of course the T-34 was a wonder weapon, just not in a Marvel comics kind of way. Though I think there is some credit to those who think its ability has been exaggerated. The 3 favorite scapegoats for defeat in German commanders' memoirs:

1. Blame Russian winter.
2. Blame Hitler.
3. Blame the T-34.

But never themselves...

I think that its more a matter of propaganda than if he was or wasn't a good machine...

We all know that by 1943 during the op. Bragation, the Soviet ware overwhelming the Germans by 10 to 1, they had also improved their air support (with  new Yakolev's and Sturmovik's) and they have also a new amount of tanks (Su's, KW's, IS's, and even new models of T-34).

The T-34 ware used in the propaganda not only because he had a few attributes that made him a good tank, but also, because he was indeed easy to manufacture, easy to train the crew and he had an very aggressive and strong appearance.

Yes the German soldiers did got a little bit surprised with that astonishing green beast that apparently seems to dodge their bullets while running trough the line... but the Tank also had weak spots that only the time would show 'em.  The biggest prove that the T-34 was mere propaganda was that a single Tiger usually had a rate of 6 to one in a single combat (Like the Otto Carious story), so to the Russians compensate this massive rate they had to send more tanks than a tiger could handle with... so they did, they had to manufacture 12 times more than the Germans to MAYBE be a match. that's pretty much the overall look in the combat in Russia.

If we start to blame the winter, that's OK, the Soviets did achieve a lot of victories in the winter, but, the winter does't take the whole year... That's why the combat in Soviet Union, for the Soviets depend a lot not only - how many soldiers they would have to make an offensive, but also how bad was the weather for Germans... in other way, if any of these conditions weren't "happening", the Germans ware attacking and usually winning... And Yes the mistakes made by Hitler does count, because any Officer that refuse an Direct order, could be shot as treason... and Hitler have declared himself as the Military Chief in operations in the Russian front.... so that's why they always blame Hitler after all.

Best tank of World War II is certifiably the publicly renown and time tested... the mighty M4 Sherman tank.

From the Sherman's first debut in the hot scorching desert sands of North Africa and years later when the Sherman was trading punches with none other than the T-34 and it's cousins the T-55 and the T-62. And through out all this time the Sherman was still serving it's crew member's well as a machine with a knockout punch.

If it is going to be a all out brawl to the death and you want to see again the clear blue skies and dear Susie who is waiting for you back home with an apple pie in her hands just for you. Then you need to plant your butt in nothing but the best, a M4 Sherman tank.

woofiedog wrote:Best tank of World War II is certifiably the publicly renown and time tested... the mighty M4 Sherman tank.

From the Sherman's first debut in the hot scorching desert sands of North Africa and years later when the Sherman was trading punches with none other than the T-34 and it's cousins the T-55 and the T-62. And through out all this time the Sherman was still serving it's crew member's well as a machine with a knockout punch.  

If it is going to be a all out brawl to the death and you want to see again the clear blue skies and dear Susie who is waiting for you back home with an apple pie in her hands just for you. Then you need to plant your butt in nothing but the best, a M4 Sherman tank.  

Omg Woffie... really?! the Sherman? The Zippo  version of an armored vehicle?! kkkkk WAW! I'm, I mean... WAAW.. I surely wasn't expecting this sort of comparison! kkkkkkk  

My own 5 cents. I wouldn't vote for Sherman because like the Panther  - another contender - the Sherman only took part in the last 2 1/2 years of WW2 so to vote it as the best tank of the war seems a little exaggerated when there are other contenders which were there from beginning to end.

That being said I would say the Sherman was an excellent and very reliable tank which did well what it was built to do .I would compare it to the VW Beetle. Not a top star but reliable, cheap and good at what it was supposed to do.

My own vote would go to the Panzer IV, unfairly disregarded in my opinion,  but which took part in the war from the onset to the bitter end  and which owing to the KwK 40 L48 was able to hold it's own against mainstream opposing tanks such as the T34/85 and latest Sherman models in 1944-45. That tank was reliable , mass produced, versatile and it's chassis was used to make the Stug IV, Jagdpanther IV, Wirberwind etc....That tank also served up to the 1960s(in the Syrian army. Almost 9000 units were produced and it was the Wehrmacht's true work horse as it was present on all fronts in all climates.

frinik wrote:My own 5 cents. I wouldn't vote for Sherman because like the Panther  - another contender - the Sherman only took part in the last 2 1/2 years of WW2 so to vote it as the best tank of the war seems a little exaggerated when there are other contenders which were there from beginning to end.

That being said I would say the Sherman was an excellent and very reliable tank which did well what it was built to do .I would compare it to the VW Beetle. Not a top star but reliable, cheap and good at what it was supposed to do.

My own vote would go to the Panzer IV, unfairly disregarded in my opinion,  but which took part in the war from the onset to the bitter end  and which owing to the KwK 40 L48 was able to hold it's own against mainstream opposing tanks such as the T34/85 and latest Sherman models in 1944-45. That tank was reliable , mass produced, versatile and it's chassis was used to make the Stug IV, Jagdpanther IV, Wirberwind etc....That tank also served up to the 1960s(in the Syrian army. Almost 9000 units were produced and it was the Wehrmacht's true work horse as it was present on all fronts in all climates.

U coudn't be more right man! Wise words! I think the same about the Panzer III.... another machine that took place in every single battle of the WW2 and the tank whose "dominate the Europe"!

Pz.IV had narrow tracks(low crossing), weak engine(300hp, i.e. BT-7M had 500hp), petroleum engine(fire danger).
Well, we may say that all diesel went to submarines to fight with England/USA fleet, but "petroleum engine" itself it's a technician degradation.

lockie wrote:Pz.IV had narrow tracks(low crossing), weak engine(300hp, i.e. BT-7M had 500hp), petroleum engine(fire danger).
Well, we may say that all diesel went to submarines to fight with England/USA fleet, but "petroleum engine" itself it's a technician degradation.

Well noted Lockie... but, even so... beside the odds, he was in every single battle and making the Blitzkrieg possible.

The STUG family of vehicles probably killed more enemy tanks than any other armored vehicle.

This is an interesting debate but pointless because of the vagaries of time, place, circumstances and the differences in production capabilities and tactical doctrine. The Pz IV and III were only the best until the T-34 came out. The Germans reacted with Pz VI Pz V. In 1940 the French tanks were probably superior to the German ones on an individual basis but German doctrine and employment was superior.

If I were forced to be in a 1 vs 1 combat between a T-34 and a Pz IV I would probably choose the T-34. If it were between an individual T-34 and a Panther or Tiger, I would choose the German tanks.

But they were not employed in singles, they were employed en masse. For that purpose, the T-34 and the Sherman were clearly superior because they were "good enough" and could be produced in prodigious quantities and were reliable. These were qualities that the German tanks could not match.

Tanker wrote:The STUG family of vehicles probably killed more enemy tanks than any other armored vehicle.

This is an interesting debate but pointless because of the vagaries of time,  place, circumstances and the differences in production capabilities and tactical doctrine.  The Pz IV and III were only the best until the T-34 came out.  The Germans reacted with Pz VI Pz V.  In 1940 the French tanks were probably superior to the German ones on an individual basis but German doctrine and employment was superior.

If I were forced to be in a 1 vs 1 combat between a T-34 and a Pz IV  I would probably choose the T-34.  If it were between an individual T-34 and a Panther or Tiger, I would choose the German tanks.

But they were not employed in singles, they were employed en masse.  For that purpose, the T-34 and the Sherman were clearly superior because they were "good enough" and could be produced in prodigious quantities and were reliable.  These were qualities that the German tanks could not match.

Exactly what I've mentioned in my comment... If u compare the Kill rate of an Tiger x T-34, the Tiger wins almost overwhelmingly the Soviet tank... so they had to build 12 times more and employ 12 times more soldiers than the Germans to be a match and is wasn't always a 100% chance of achieve a victory, because in the case of the Soviets, every victory usually, came with a loong bodycount. Tha's in my opinion is a signal of desperation, not superiority.

And yes, about the Stug, I totally agree, its my favorite Panzer, tough.

Tanker wrote:The STUG family of vehicles probably killed more enemy tanks than any other armored vehicle.

This is an interesting debate but pointless because of the vagaries of time,  place, circumstances and the differences in production capabilities and tactical doctrine.  The Pz IV and III were only the best until the T-34 came out.  The Germans reacted with Pz VI Pz V.  In 1940 the French tanks were probably superior to the German ones on an individual basis but German doctrine and employment was superior.

If I were forced to be in a 1 vs 1 combat between a T-34 and a Pz IV  I would probably choose the T-34.  If it were between an individual T-34 and a Panther or Tiger, I would choose the German tanks.

But they were not employed in singles, they were employed en masse.  For that purpose, the T-34 and the Sherman were clearly superior because they were "good enough" and could be produced in prodigious quantities and were reliable.  These were qualities that the German tanks could not match.

oh and I forgot to mention, the T-34/76 actually have been in production (mass production) since 1940, so he was in there against the Pz III, and IV, but the one that I belive that u ware mentioning i is the T-34/85, the one who really was a tough match for the Pz IV

Read the link Below:

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/soviet/soviet_T34-76.php

All the Panzer IV shortcomings where fixed, the latest version like the H or J where ten times better then a Sherman or T34. More armor (80mm face hardened), better guns (L48), better traction (ostketten) and a very good engine, only downside, it was just to old to evolve further with sloped armor etc, there where trials with it but that is another topic

The reliabality on the smaller engines where good, alot better then the bigger ones in the Tiger or Panther chassies. The panzer 3 and 4 series where probably one of the most reliable tanks in early and mid war.

col.moore wrote:
he was in every single battle and making the Blitzkrieg possible.

Pz.I took part in Blitzkrieg also And there was another a big degradation in Pz.IV. His transmission located in the forward part of the hull, thus forward wheels became a tractive ones. It needs a driveline(cardan), which goes from engine to tractive wheels.
As result, the hull became bigger - more recognizable from the long distance, more heavy - less maneuverable.

lockie wrote:

col.moore wrote:
he was in every single battle and making the Blitzkrieg possible.

Pz.I took part in Blitzkrieg also And there was another a big degradation in Pz.IV. His transmission located in the forward part of the hull, thus forward wheels became a tractive ones. It needs a driveline(cardan), which goes from engine to tractive wheels.
As result, the hull became bigger - more recognizable from the long distance, more heavy - less maneuverable.

Ok ok ok, I got your Point, They wasn't perfect... but even the T-34... The T-34 was fast, ok, Was easy to build, ok, was easy to drive, ok, but even with the failures of the panzers, if u compare as Tanker said, in a 1x1 combat, the german tanks have proved to be superiors (In fire power and in combat strategies), I'm not a fan of the Pz IV F-1 myself... I'd rather to be in a Stug or pz III than in any Panzer IV... if we start to talk about late '42 when the Tigers start to join in the war, and the first T-34/85 as well, then the subject takes in to another level, but as i said earlier, for the Soviet army achieve what they did they had to learn how to figh integrating Air power+massive infantry+massive armor div attack = gain numerical and fire superiority, keeping the germans pinned to surround them and then crush 'em with a final massive attack (op. Bragation).

lockie wrote:

col.moore wrote:
he was in every single battle and making the Blitzkrieg possible.

Pz.I took part in Blitzkrieg also And there was another a big degradation in Pz.IV. His transmission located in the forward part of the hull, thus forward wheels became a tractive ones. It needs a driveline(cardan), which goes from engine to tractive wheels.
As result, the hull became bigger - more recognizable from the long distance, more heavy - less maneuverable.

Lockie, here you can see a very well detailed analysis of the major failures of the T-34:

http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com.br/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html

woofiedog wrote:Best tank of World War II is certifiably the publicly renown and time tested... the mighty M4 Sherman tank.

From the Sherman's first debut in the hot scorching desert sands of North Africa and years later when the Sherman was trading punches with none other than the T-34 and it's cousins the T-55 and the T-62. And through out all this time the Sherman was still serving it's crew member's well as a machine with a knockout punch.  

If it is going to be a all out brawl to the death and you want to see again the clear blue skies and dear Susie who is waiting for you back home with an apple pie in her hands just for you. Then you need to plant your butt in nothing but the best, a M4 Sherman tank.  

Woofie, read this:

T-34 vs M4 Sherman
The main US tank in 1942-45 was the Sherman. It weighed 30 tons and was armed with a 75mm gun. The late war version M4 76 had a more powerful 76mm high velocity gun.
There are many similarities between the T-34 and the M-4 Sherman. Both tanks were built in huge numbers and they are comparable in weight and gun caliber. Even their updated version T-34/85 and M4 76mm are very close.

As a weapon system however the M4 was superior. It had the same good ‘soft’ qualities as the German tanks (internal layout, optics, radio), It had significantly better stability over rough terrain plus it was very reliable mechanically. In armor and firepower it was the same as the T-34.

The Sherman proved its superiority in the Korean war, when US M4 tanks demolished the North Korean armored units equipped with T-34/85 tanks.

I got it in this link here (below), quite interesting:

http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com.br/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html

A t34 was not fast and defenitely not easy to drive. Theoretical topspeed around 50km/h if i remember correct but due to the problems with the gearbox (4 speed) it could practically not use 4th gear. So in combat or over terrain it had a practical topspeed about 25km/h compared to tiger at 20 or the pz4 at 20 or the sherman 25

Most of all the positive things about the t34 are myths. Russians only used them because they didnt have any better to use and they where already massproducing them!

col.moore wrote:Ok ok ok, I got your Point

if u compare as Tanker said, in a 1x1 combat, the german tanks have proved to be superiors (In fire power and in combat strategies)

I'd not say that German tanks were a real SUPER ones, but they were definitely better to compare with a Soviet ones. The main dif. was that tanks were made for crew. It does members of crew must feel erself with a comfort and it's clear, coz 90% of time tank is out of battle.
Soviet conception does: crew for tanks. Nobody cares about losses. Instead destroyed tanks will be built a new ones.

`Tiger` was a good tank, but too complicate in service. I'd say that Pz.IV J was a tank of the war period - simple production.
But I can't imagine how many tanks could build Germany, if hundreds/thousands tons of steel and huge resources didn't go to build submarines.

But I can't imagine how many tanks could build Germany, if hundreds/thousands tons of steel and huge resources didn't go to build submarines.

Good note! I've never tough at this before... yes, well, the Kriegsmarine was indeed sucking most of the German war effort to build Submarines ans "Giant Ships" like the Tirpitz and Bismark.... even the Luftwaffe felt that i think...

Donken wrote:A t34 was not fast and defenitely not easy to drive. Theoretical topspeed around 50km/h if i remember correct but due to the problems with the gearbox (4 speed) it could practically not use 4th gear. So in combat or over terrain it had a practical topspeed about 25km/h compared to tiger at 20 or the pz4 at 20 or the sherman 25

Most of all the positive things about the t34 are myths. Russians only used them because they didnt have any better to use and they where already massproducing them!

Well, the most of the reports that I've found, was mentioning how good he was at the "Soft terrain", and he wasn't much better than the Germans in the rough terrain... but most of the reports say that he was quite easy to  teach rookies... those dificulties (the 4th gear issue), was a "field problem", or in other words, they haven't time to actually deal with that so, the soldiers had to find their way trough during the operations...

It is a difference between learning (theory) and doing (physical). Even thou the principle behind the gearbox/drivetrain and driving a t34 couldnt been easier in theory. A 10 year old kid can learn it! But it was almost impossible to operate it physicly. Reading technical stuff on a paper ( look at the t34, its probably the best tank ever made) and using it in real operations (the same tank is the worst one ever made) i go for the later one

Interesting fact about this. The german tiger was the opposite. So complicated and advanced. You really needed to study it to be a good driver, but it was probably the easiest tank to drive physically. Hydraulik gears, good clutch, the steering is amazing etc.

Donken wrote:It is a difference between learning (theory) and doing (physical). Even thou the principle behind the gearbox/drivetrain and driving a t34 couldnt been easier in theory. A 10 year old kid can learn it! But it was almost impossible to operate it physicly. Reading technical stuff on a paper ( look at the t34, its probably the best tank ever made) and using it in real operations (the same tank is the worst one ever made) i go for the later one

Interesting fact about this. The german tiger was the opposite. So complicated and advanced. You really needed to study it to be a good driver, but it was probably the easiest tank to drive physically. Hydraulik gears, good clutch, the steering is amazing etc.

Totally agree with you... The Tiger is in my opinion even against the odds that the "Allied Fan boys" throw in it,  it is an masterpiece! The historians they always want to follow the theories... but when we start to look as the men in the battlefield things are different tough.

Donken wrote: More armor (80mm face hardened)

Actually they never improved the turret armor - it remained at the same 50mm since 1941, a major downside even in '43, not to mention the later years.

I voted fact as the T-34 really was the weapon of victory. Imho, the actual combat usage and successes made possible by such a simple yet robust tank ought to be the main factors when determining such a vague category as "best" is. Sure, on paper the Panther trumps it in almost every regard, but in practice it only became a useful tank in late 43 and 44, which was much too late for it to have a significant effect on the war, not to mention its catastrophic debut at Kursk, when they were still very prone to engine fires after a plain road march. Once all the flaws were ironed out, the Panther G was being produced with steel of questionable quality in many cases due to the lack of specific and rare metals in blockaded Germany and a severe lack of trained and experienced crews that were capable of employing the tanks to their full effect. And then there's the also severe shortage of fuel in the later war years which plagued German tank crews.

Imo it's very interesting and ironic how the Germans basically started the war with USSR with superior crews and tactics but inferior machines and almost succeeded in beheading it and then proceeded to lose the war after they improved their machines which were then superior on paper but faced shortages in a great deal of other areas, and to an army which was at first tactically inferior but learned and improved at a fairly impressive rate, in the end utilizing their own tactics against them.

And a final comment on the dubious truths of almost every Soviet victory being a Phyrric one - one does not regain the initiative and repel an invader across half of Europe by paving the way to his capital by corpses.