PDA

View Full Version : T-34 - once more



Tiger205
03-25-2010, 10:29 AM
Sorry to start once more, but as a newbie I have some comment to this tank - and the related thread is already closed

Tiger205
03-25-2010, 10:32 AM
So hello My Dear Friends!

I have some interesting arguement topics:

1/ T-34 with or w/o radio

2/ T-34 engine

3/ T-34 construction

4/ T-34 in post WWII battles

regards:
TGR

Tiger205
03-25-2010, 10:42 AM
1/ T-34 with or w/o radio


Genrally we can say that the soviets had radio shortages at the beginning of the great patriotic war.
For commaders (back to platoon leaders) had radios - athe rest used flags.

FOR T-34 (I mean T-34(76)) the commanders had radio transreceivers (very often lend-lease) and the others (generally) radio receivers ONLY.
FOR T-34(85) this was the minimal standard, but usually EVERY tank had 2 way transreceivers (I am not a native speaker, I hope you understand me)

SO!
We has received some Soviet reports regarding the siege of Budapest, and Suprised a lot, reading the complains of the comamders that the communication with the T-34(85) tanks supporting their infantry troops was hard - BECAUSE the tanks had no radio.
They spottesd the targets several times with signal-rockets to the tank crews.

(Why??? in 1944/45???)
Answer: some of the tanks came not from the factory, but from overhault, were (I guess) just removed the injured radios and not replaced with a new one)

At bottom - the issue is not so simple as we thougt.

Regards:
TGR

Tiger205
03-25-2010, 10:48 AM
2/ T-34 engine


The diesel engine was a good deision as lot of you already noted (better consumption, better torque, less flammable fuel, etc..)

the V-2 engine WAS NOT a soviet invention.
They bought Hispany Suiza V12 licences in the 30's.

- V-12 aircraft engine - later the KLIMOV engine of famous Yak fighters, Pe-2 bombers.
- V-12 AIRSHIP (!!!!) diesel engine - they converted this to tank engien for BT-7 first time. And T-34 later on.

the diesel engine had some disadvantages too:
- Hard to start in winter condition
- several unreabilites,

Taking in all round - the engine was a ggod attemp and took part of the succes of T-34!

regards:
TGR

pingponghobo
06-15-2010, 11:51 AM
So hello My Dear Friends!

I have some interesting arguement topics:

1/ T-34 with or w/o radio

2/ T-34 engine

3/ T-34 construction

4/ T-34 in post WWII battles

regards:
TGR

well, in regards to your argument option number 1, The T34 tank did not have a radio, which was its downfall in my opinion, the panzer however did have radio's in them yet the T34 still got them into submission. in regards to option number 2, it was a deisel engine in the front, making it be able to go fast and also did not have the explosive properties as gasoline powered tanks.

if anyone here has the military channel on satelite or anything, i know Bell has it on channel 631, it has lots of good information on WW2. If you have it and you watch it, i recoment you watch the show top tens, a week ago they did top 10 tanks and the T34 got first palce.

krazedkat
06-15-2010, 12:43 PM
Isn't it somewhat unneccessary to make multiple posts?

pingponghobo
06-15-2010, 12:54 PM
i agree, and I would also like to hear tiger205's thoughts on options 2 and 4

tankgeezer
06-17-2010, 10:07 AM
Quote: "in regards to option number 2, it was a deisel engine in the front, " If you are meaning that the T-34 had a front mounted engine, you would be mistaken. It surely did have a Diesel engine,(though none are ever perfect, it was a very good one.) that was mounted in the back.

pingponghobo
06-17-2010, 02:06 PM
my appologizes, maybe i was reading what would make it better, i was 100% positive it was a diesel engine, but it wasn't positive it was in the front, than you for correcting me.

tankgeezer
06-18-2010, 12:50 PM
Or you are just spouting tripe, and playing games. Take it to facey-space, dont bring it here anymore,ever. I see you have accrued warnings, mark them well. Think very carefully before you post another word.

krazedkat
06-18-2010, 06:59 PM
On Point 4 there is some interesting information on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34#After_World_War_II
Supposedly some were spotted in China converted into, essentially, a fire tank, used to fight fires.

Rising Sun*
06-19-2010, 09:37 AM
On Point 4 there is some interesting information on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34#After_World_War_II
Supposedly some were spotted in China converted into, essentially, a fire tank, used to fight fires.

There is a lot of 'interesting information' on wiki.

Sometimes it is correct.

Wiki and chinese fire engines have nothing to do with Tiger 205's point 4, which was concerned with post-WWII battles.

This is another example of your crypto-trolling, but it pre-dates my formal mod warning to you so there are no consequences for it.

Your next ****wit post will have immediate and severe consequences.

Re-read #10.

steben
08-05-2011, 08:33 AM
What about the steel quality used in the T34 - Looks like a very interesting discussion?
The biggest quality of the T34 was it's simple construction and cost.
We know figures about armor, guns, production... but I'ld really like some statistics concerning shot up / knocked out armor during WWII.
One would be astonished by the sheer numbers of "best tank" T34.

tankgeezer
08-06-2011, 06:24 PM
There may be printed info about the steel used in the T-34, but figures of damaged/destroyed may be difficult to come by.(at least accurate figures) Specifications aside, it is likely that some degree of windage was applied to metallurgy at the plants producing the T-34, given the demands for production, and the near proximity of the enemy. This is just my opinion, but there could have been opportunities for variations in both analysis, and processes, pouring temperatures, sufficient alloying time, that sort of thing,with the wolf being at the door so to speak.

83Footer
08-08-2011, 12:32 PM
Dispite whatever faults the T-34 had, it did what it was designed to do and could be built in large numbers.
There is an elegant genius in the design that matches wartime industrial conditions.
Meanwhile the Wehrmacht seem obsessed with fancy and fanciful machines that could not be made fast under wartimes conditions.

steben
08-09-2011, 02:51 AM
Overengineering is not invented by the Wehrmacht :mrgreen:
It still is typically German.

The problem however was a combination of Hitlers megalomania and his weight in decisions concering development and production.
There were some German design and prototypes along the way that were perhaps not as cheap as the T34 but at least perfect for the German efforts.

leccy
08-09-2011, 03:07 AM
I read last week but can not remember where that the only design changes (tweaks) allowed for the T34 were to simplify its construction or reduce its cost.

The figures quoted showed that a T34 cost half as much to build and took around half the time in 1945 as it did in 1940 to build.

steben
08-10-2011, 03:24 AM
Meaning there is a huge difference between "best tank" on strategic terms and "best tank" on tactical terms. That's why the Panther knocks out a lot of T34 in our beloved games (as it did in reality) and why the Allies win many times in strategy board games (as they did in reality)