PDA

View Full Version : T-44 was it Stalin's trump card against Allies?



Lancer44
07-27-2006, 06:58 AM
Look at this:

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/6038/t44gc5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

As an addition a bit from wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-44

What do you think?

I'm particularly surprised by info that two brigades were trained on T-44 than re-armed to T-34-85...

Cheers,

Lancer44

Sneaksie
07-27-2006, 07:27 AM
:D Lancer, what do you mean by 'trump card against Allies'? Why do you seem to think that every soviet decision was part of some evil plan?:) It was experimental design which did not saw adequate production because T-34/85 was efficient for it's time and it's mass production was worked through. It was decided to move on to more superior design and make new tank from scratch (Т-54).

Panzerknacker
07-27-2006, 08:44 AM
The T-44 was the soviet response against the PzKfw V Panther, and it was a superior AFV in some aspects.

Jasa
07-27-2006, 11:55 AM
As far as I know the Soviet's already had superiority to the Allies when they built the T34/85. Everything after that was just icing on the cake. The Americans were lucky that Korea is not good tank country.

Firefly
07-29-2006, 09:27 AM
As far as I know the Soviet's already had superiority to the Allies when they built the T34/85. Everything after that was just icing on the cake. The Americans were lucky that Korea is not good tank country.

Hmm, I think the Pershings and especially the Centurions were more than a match for the T-34/85.

Jasa
07-29-2006, 10:51 AM
Hmm, I think the Pershings and especially the Centurions were more than a match for the T-34/85.


Centurians sure, but not Pershings.

Chevan
07-29-2006, 11:42 AM
Hmm, I think the Pershings and especially the Centurions were more than a match for the T-34/85.
Hi Firefly
I think it's not correct to compare T-34-85 and Centurion (next generation tank). I hear much good about Centurion. But T-54 was more legitime rival for Centurion and IS-3 for "Pershing" M-26.

Chevan
07-29-2006, 12:39 PM
Look at this:

[IMG]

As an addition a bit from wiki:

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-44 (http://imageshack.us)

What do you think?

I'm particularly surprised by info that two brigades were trained on T-44 than re-armed to T-34-85...

Cheers,

Lancer44
Hi Lancer.
T-44 was the final tank of legendary t-34 series. It was a brilliant and most balanced medium tank of ww2. But it's time come to close after ww2, therefore T-44 didn't become the basis soviet tank.
T-44 was never "the trump card against allies".

Lancer ,I would want serious to have a talk with you, about names of some your thread.
.... "USSR in alliance with nazi Germany"
....."T-44 was it Stalin's trump card agains Allies"

it's look like the titles of "yellow" press in the times of the Cold War. But not as the theme of discussion.
Although the USSR was a big mistake, it was a country of my (and some other members) ancestors. And I often see that you use the Cool war "arguments" (not better than soviet propoganda "facts") even today.
It's not right, mate, If you wish pleasantly to spend time in this forum.
I think you don't want to see once the theme like "why Winston Churchill called the Poland as hyena?"
OK?
Cheers.

Dani
07-31-2006, 08:42 AM
The rest of the posts were moved here:http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3714

Nickdfresh
08-02-2006, 10:59 PM
Centurians sure, but not Pershings.


The M-46 Pershing (improved from the rudimentary M26), mounting a 90mm gun, was in fact more than a match for the T-34/44, and so was its prodigy: the M-47, M-48, and M-60 series.

And much of Korea was good tank country, ask the ROK forces.

Panzerknacker
08-04-2006, 07:10 PM
The Pershing is more in the category of the JS-2s JS-3s series. But off course a god piloted T-34/85 might cause some trouble , specially with the subcaliber ammo.

PLT.SGT.BAKER
08-09-2006, 08:44 PM
The 90mm on the pershings was said to not be that good on the german Tiger's front armor. It was with another american tank destroyer that had also have a 90mm and did not do so well on the tigers front armor.

(has the thought of WWII tanks against a modern M1 Abrams ever crossed your minds? I know it has with me!)

Cuts
08-10-2006, 05:45 AM
(has the thought of WWII tanks against a modern M1 Abrams ever crossed your minds? I know it has with me!)


Yeah.

I also keep wondering who would win in a fight, a white pointer using a Bazooka loaded with broccoli against a lion with a Plasticine katana.

Jasa
08-10-2006, 06:04 AM
Secret to killing an Abrams- TOP-ATTACK WARHEADS!

PLT.SGT.BAKER
08-10-2006, 06:08 PM
I've always wonder how many tanks and how many shots to take out the abrams head on.


EDIT: Oh yeah I was thinking about shermans against abrams. (think how much you need)

Jasa
08-11-2006, 08:25 AM
I've always wonder how many tanks and how many shots to take out the abrams head on.


EDIT: Oh yeah I was thinking about shermans against abrams. (think how much you need)


From what I have read, the 125mm on the T64-T90 series can penetrate the frontal armor(with the right shell) on an Abrams; but the problem is the Abrams gun ranges that one by about 1000 meters, and with its advanced targeting system its far more likely to obtain a kill first. However, the ATGMs from the 125mm can outrage the Abrams gun by about the same distance or more; meaning that if those ATGMs had top-attack warheads rather than their standard HEAT warheads, the T64-T90 could have an advantage against the Abrams.

Dani
08-11-2006, 08:35 AM
OK, now back to topic or open a new thread.
Thanks.

Jasa
08-11-2006, 09:34 AM
What more can possibly said about the T44 here?

Hiddenrug
08-19-2006, 07:07 AM
It was big! Very Big.

Jasa
08-19-2006, 08:09 AM
Yes, but not as big as a Maus. Smaller than a Maus, bigger than an M5 Grant. That describes the T-44 to a T. (pardon the pun)

Lancer44
08-19-2006, 08:41 AM
Hiddenrug said:


It was big! Very Big.

And Jasa commented:


Yes, but not as big as a Maus. Smaller than a Maus, bigger than an M5 Grant. That describes the T-44 to a T. (pardon the pun)

Hi Jasa,

Your comment caused me some serious stomach cramps from laughter. (Very healthy, indeed).

I did not expected that you are able to be sarcastic. I mean... political convictions usually contradict being sarcastic or humorous or even smart.

In this case you tried to ridicule Hiddenrug... but he is:

1. My mate
2. Australian
3. Typical Australian - it mean foot slogger in the Army.
4. I have to stand by Hiddenrug

Can you tell me how many tanks Australians had in WWII and how many, and what type, they have now? (You have your KGB sources ... I know you have!)

Cheers,

Lancer44

Hiddenrug
08-19-2006, 05:05 PM
Australian Armoured vehicles of WWII:
- Bren Gun carrier
- Landing Vehicle Tracked ( unarmoured) MK.IV LVT4
- White scout car M3 A1
- A12 Infantry Tank Mk.III Matilda IIA
- Light Tank Mk.VIA Vickers Light.
- Medium Tank M3 Grant I

Alot of Matilda's were captured by the German Armoured Division then used as PzKpFw ( # unknown )

Chevan
08-20-2006, 06:56 AM
Hi Jasa,

Your comment caused me some serious stomach cramps from laughter. (Very healthy, indeed).

I did not expected that you are able to be sarcastic. I mean... political convictions usually contradict being sarcastic or humorous or even smart.

In this case you tried to ridicule Hiddenrug... but he is:

1. My mate
2. Australian
3. Typical Australian - it mean foot slogger in the Army.
4. I have to stand by Hiddenrug

Can you tell me how many tanks Australians had in WWII and how many, and what type, they have now? (You have your KGB sources ... I know you have!)

Cheers,

Lancer44
Mate , Jasa was right.
As correctly note administrator Gen.Sandworm when Dani jeered above my english : "Well we are all here to have fun and learn...".
I aggree with him. I don't see the attempt to ridicule Hiddenrug in Jasa's post.
It was real funny. In this post is nothing insulting.
If you really want to help "typical Australian" , tell him more about tanks weigh and size definition. OK?
And what "KGB sources" do you mean?

Lancer44
08-20-2006, 07:32 AM
Mate , Jasa was right.
As correctly note administrator Gen.Sandworm when Dani jeered above my english : "Well we are all here to have fun and learn...".

Very much correct! No one is saying anything about your English. BTW - it is improving! And we understand each other - what else we neeed?



I aggree with him. I don't see the attempt to ridicule Hiddenrug in Jasa's post.
It was real funny. In this post is nothing insulting.
I agree - no insults nor offence.

What prompted my a bit funny response:

1. Hiddenrug remark that T-44 was Biiiiig... It was just a tiny bit bigger than T-34 and mainly lower or "less tall".

2. Jasa placed T-44 somewhere between "Mouse" and "Grant".
This Jasa's remark was very funny - at least for me!
I took it as Jasa's joke towards Hiddenrug.
And jokingly I tried to "defend" Hiddenrug.



If you really want to help "typical Australian" , tell him more about tanks weigh and size definition. OK?

Hey, nothing will help! Australians were and are, the "foot sloggers"!
Nothing wrong with it. Do you know how many tanks Australian Army have?
Check!
Compare the figure with any 20 million people European country and you'll see the comical situation.



And what "KGB sources" do you mean?

We all know that Jasa, USA citizen, with service record in US Army, leaving in Prague and moving to Ukraine must be sort of a CIA or KGB subject. LOL
Judging by what he previously said, I guessed KGB will be a closer shot, somewhat a bit away from CIA...

Cheers,

Lancer44

Chevan
08-20-2006, 07:59 AM
We all know that Jasa, USA citizen, with service record in US Army, leaving in Prague and moving to Ukraine must be sort of a CIA or KGB subject. LOL
Judging by what he previously said, I guessed KGB will be a closer shot, somewhat a bit away from CIA...

Cheers,

Lancer44
Oh, this something new.
Is Jasa dual agent of CIA and KGB, mate? :) ;)

Lancer44
08-20-2006, 08:10 AM
Oh, this something new.
Is Jasa dual agent of CIA and KGB, mate? :) ;)


All joke, joke, joke... LoL

Dual or rather "double agent" - Jasa??? - No way! He is KGB - end of story!

Cheers,

Lancer44

P.S.

I'm waiting for him to show up...

Chevan
08-20-2006, 09:01 AM
All joke, joke, joke... LoL

Dual or rather "double agent" - Jasa??? - No way! He is KGB - end of story!

Cheers,

Lancer44

P.S.

I'm waiting for him to show up...
KGB agent walk from USA to .....Ukraine :)
What will he do there? What do you think?
And from what times did USA prepare KGB agents ;)...

Doug 1956
08-21-2006, 07:07 AM
:D Lancer, what do you mean by 'trump card against Allies'? Why do you seem to think that every soviet decision was part of some evil plan?:) It was experimental design which did not saw adequate production because T-34/85 was efficient for it's time and it's mass production was worked through. It was decided to move on to more superior design and make new tank from scratch (Т-54).


The T-54 was certainly not built 'from scratch', it was an evolutionary design based on the T-44, that was in turn based on the T-34. The major change between the T-44 and the T-54 was the application of similar turret design principles to those of the JS-3, that is the flattened dome.

A simple visual comparison will show the hull of the T-44 and T-55 was virtually identical, down to the uneven roadwheel spacing.

When comparing the T-44 with its potential German opposition it is worthwhile to consider that the the 85mm Soviet gun was roughly equal to the German 75mm/L48 or the US 76mm. The nearest Soviet gun to the Panther's 75/L70 in performance was the 100mm as fitted on the SU-100.

It is also not really applicable to compare Soviet and Western designs in a simple fashion. For instance, the IS-3 and the Centurion were roughly equal in weight, but were armed with very different philosophies, in that the early Centurion's 17pdr was a tank destroyer with a limited HE potential, whereas the IS-2 and IS-3 were armed with a great HE gun with a secondary anti-tank performance.

The T-26 was more or less halfway between a Panther and a Tiger 1, but was much more mobile than a Tiger 2.

Last point, The IS-4 was to the IS-2 what the T-44 was the T-34, and Stalin stationed two Regiments of IS-4 in Mongolia, ready to intervene in Korea if the 'necessity' arose. The JS-3 were kept for the Eurpoean theatre.

Would anyone know whether T-44s were sent to Mongolia at the time that the IS-4s were sent there around 1951?

Doug 1956
08-21-2006, 07:24 AM
Australian Armoured vehicles of WWII:
- Bren Gun carrier
- Landing Vehicle Tracked ( unarmoured) MK.IV LVT4
- White scout car M3 A1
- A12 Infantry Tank Mk.III Matilda IIA
- Light Tank Mk.VIA Vickers Light.
- Medium Tank M3 Grant I

Alot of Matilda's were captured by the German Armoured Division then used as PzKpFw ( # unknown )
German Matilda II were "Infanterie Panzerkampfwagen MkII 748 (e).

You missed a few Australian WW2 AFVs.

Australia was the only country to use the Coventantor in action, as bridgelayers in Borneo. The RAAC also used M3 Stuarts, and in the desert picked up some second hand Crusaders for use in the 9th Division's cavalry.

I am sure that there are others, especially if you include the Sentinel, which whilst only used for training was on strength in sufficient quantities to be thrown into the fray if continental Australia had been invaded.

Nickdfresh
08-22-2006, 01:10 PM
The T-54 was certainly not built 'from scratch', it was an evolutionary design based on the T-44, that was in turn based on the T-34. The major change between the T-44 and the T-54 was the application of similar turret design principles to those of the JS-3, that is the flattened dome.

A simple visual comparison will show the hull of the T-44 and T-55 was virtually identical, down to the uneven roadwheel spacing.

When comparing the T-44 with its potential German opposition it is worthwhile to consider that the the 85mm Soviet gun was roughly equal to the German 75mm/L48 or the US 76mm. The nearest Soviet gun to the Panther's 75/L70 in performance was the 100mm as fitted on the SU-100.

It is also not really applicable to compare Soviet and Western designs in a simple fashion. For instance, the IS-3 and the Centurion were roughly equal in weight, but were armed with very different philosophies, in that the early Centurion's 17pdr was a tank destroyer with a limited HE potential, whereas the IS-2 and IS-3 were armed with a great HE gun with a secondary anti-tank performance.

The T-26 was more or less halfway between a Panther and a Tiger 1, but was much more mobile than a Tiger 2.

Last point, The IS-4 was to the IS-2 what the T-44 was the T-34, and Stalin stationed two Regiments of IS-4 in Mongolia, ready to intervene in Korea if the 'necessity' arose. The JS-3 were kept for the Eurpoean theatre.

Would anyone know whether T-44s were sent to Mongolia at the time that the IS-4s were sent there around 1951?


Good info.
T-44
http://www.tankmuseum.ru/images/p2/t-44.jpg
http://schools.omskreg.ru/schools/s139/war/tank/foto/t-44.jpg

T-54
http://www.militaryvehicles.com/jpegs/06_full.jpg
http://www.kwsurplus.com/t54tank.jpg