The T-34 tank

After recently viewing a documentary on the history channel about comparing the Soviet and German tanks of the WWII period, i noted that little attention was paid to the Soviet made tank and when it was looked up, it was usually refered to as being incredibly crude, simplistic, backward, and only successful due to the fact that it fought in vast hordes.

This as opposed to the great amount of detail given on the subject of the deployment and development of German tanks and their actions against western allied forces.

In the usual way that the history channel has, it decidedly took a strong anti-Soviet slant in favor of German tanks, venerating them as being highly sophisticated and superior designs to the T-34 and Soviet engineering in general, and actually used German sources rather than Russian ones to study the history of the T-34.

I was wondering what was the viewpoint of this forum's members on the T-34 and generally it's effect on the history of tanks.

Try Discovery Channel. They had a program about the 10 best tanks ever made, and the T-34 was up there among the top three, the Leopard II taking the champion honors. Can't remember the name of yet another program, I believe this time it was from National Geographic but that one had the T-34 tops over all. This program also factored volume production and psychological factors (battlefield intimidation).

Well T-34, or Sotka (duck) as we called it was one of the main prized things among soviet inventory that our own history writing credits. Not only that it was simple and robust (wich made its manufacturing and usage simple) it was highly effective and its appeareance in the 1941 was fierc suprise to the germans. If the Soviet leadership would have been in the shape when the Barbaroza begun, The vast force of T-34s and another forgotten one, the Kv-1 would have propaply turned the history around if Soviets would have took all the advantage of them in full use.
In 1941 it was far superior to anything anyone had and after Panther and Tiger appeared, they managed to turn it (T-34/85) to a more than a match for these desing and surprass anything that western allies managed to come up.

No doupt that T-34 deserves number one position in chart of tanks of all ages. I agree that these american channels with their western bias are even worse than some of old Communist age propaganda about their equipment. Its not suprise at all that you can find more baseless discrimination, underminding and neglect of facts in western military publications than from older soviet and current russian ones. The eastern side atleast aknowlidges the great western and even Facist desings, but somehow that seems to be near impposibility to certain american issues.

hmmmm... i used to watch the history channel, discovery, and TLC on a fairly frequent basis. the impression i got from that time was that the T-34 is a crude but effective weapon. they did emphasis the fact that the space is very crammed inside and that there is no intercom in the tank so that the tank commander has to kick the driver in the back to let him know which way to turn, or to brake and accelerate etc. but they also mentioned the ease of production and the sloped armor.

I remembered in one of those docuementaries, a celebrity, I think a rock star, bought himself a T-34 that was restored, and he was demonstrating his price and joy to the camera crew in the tank proving grounds, showing the apparent agility of the tank. It was quite remarkable, with the owner driving the tank himself and having a blast.

The wide tracks and width of the tank gave the tank good traction and footing, as it can splash and pull itself of the mud.

Its speed and agility makes the T-34 good for ramming, which is a frequent tactic used, with the sharp edge from the armor slope acting like a big blade.

One of the reasons why the T-34 was easy to produce was that the turret was casted, similar to another mass produced tank that appeared in serious numbers, the Sherman. The Germans on the other hand preferred the technically advantageous welding, but is more laborious and slower to make. Modern Western tanks use welded turrets and the Russians are just only getting around to finally make welded turrets with their latest mod of the T-90.

As factories churned them out, there was no time to test and certify each tank, so at the moment they were finished, they were driven directly to the battlefront. And surprisingly a lot worked.

The Germans were defeated by their own over engineering and complexity. They lost as many tanks from mechanical failure as they did with actual combat. In one of those programs, they were showing a Panther tank being restored. The restorers were amazed that many of the parts were of amazing strength and quality. The problem is, they were meant to last for months and years, when the average lifespan for a tank that time was probably in weeks.

Disadvantages of the T-34? Lack of a radio for coordination. I think only the commander of the brigade or company only has the radio. Another is the optics, which is not as good as the German equipment, often made by Zeiss. Because of the poor quality of the Russian optics, their accuracy in range is more questionable, even if ballistically, the gun can deliver at that range.

From 43-44 all Russian tanks had two way radios, Laryngaphone intercom was standard, and yes, the 76mm armed versions were cramped and the two-man turrets meant that the Commander also had to load the gun, which was a major distraction from his principal duty. The T-34-85 with the three-man turret had no such problem. And as per Chrysler's assessment of a T-34-85 captured in Korea (the tank itself was made in 1945): "Crude exterior finish was countered by precision machining on functioning parts according to need [...] materials were found to be ample for the job, better than those to be used in American tanks in some instances [...] design was simple to the degree that an average mechanically trained crewman could attempt repairs with some assurance of success"
The main defects concerned the vulnerable location of the radiators, the noise and vibration levels inside the tank due to rigidly mounted engine, lack of a muffler, lack of shock absorbers, all steel tracks, difficulty in steering and gear changing, lack of an auxiliary generator, and sometimes shoddy workmanship that could lead to malfunctions.
Conclusion: The T-34-85 was a potent weapon in the hands of a trained crew.

The Germans may have been better served by using the Geschützwagen III/IV chassis with torsion bar as a standard tank setup, that would have simplified their tank production considerably.

Torsion bar suspension is quite complex actually, compared to a leaf spring system. I really don't know why something as urbane as a Volkswagen Beetle should have a complex torsion bar suspension. There is a good reason why no one else used it in the car business.

Daimler Benz proposed a near copy of the T-34 for the Panzkerkampfwagen V requirement, but it wasn't deemed "German" enough, so the contract went to the much more complex MAN designed proposal, which led to the Panther.v Of course, in their first and most decisive tank battle in Kursk, a lot of these tanks broke down.

Americans have used torsion bars in their cars back in the 60's and 70's, the Dodge Charger being a notable one, so it's not just a German thing. The torsion bar setup on the PzIII may have been more complicated than the PzIV leaf spring, but it had much better cross-country and weight-loaded performance and would still be worthwhile. The interleavened wheels of the Panther and Tiger were stupid though.

The Germans used interleaved roadwheels because of one advantage: good weight distribution. From a maintenance standpoint they were indeed a nightmare, plus the fact that when impacted with mud track shedding could occur.