T-34 Tank

[Lancer44]

Photos below courtesy of Marek Cieliczko from Warsaw.
Marek had a holiday in Gdansk and looking at T-34 at Westerplatte monument he discovered something interesting:

As you can see this T-34 is one of very early versions.
http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/7761/westerplatte1ng6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Cover of ball bearing on the left side wheel is opened:
http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/7203/westerplatte2vp3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/3295/westerplatte3te7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

If you enlarge the photo...

http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/5849/westerplatte4fs6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Obvious sign of German-Sopviet co-operation before 22 of June 1941.

Just to inform you. Westerplatte in Gdansk - Danzig is the place credited as the place where the first shots of WWII were fired.

This German ball bearing in soviet T-34 in this place is somewhat symbolic...

Cheers,

Lancer44

[shylethalsoldier]

Thankies Lancer44!! =D

[Chevan]

This German ball bearing in soviet T-34 in this place is somewhat symbolic...

This could be the ball bearing from the cuptured german vechicles( tank or self-propelled gun). Standarts mechanism sizes were unificated in USSR and the Germany from sovet-german cooperation in 1928-1932 yy .
I don't know were the bearing supplese in 1939-1941 from the Germany, but i think no.

[Sneaksie]

Why "Germany" and not "Deutschland"?

[Nickdfresh]

Len Deighton writes in Blitzkrieg: From the Rise of Hitler to the Fall of Dunkirk (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Blitzkrieg-Rise-Hitler-Fall-Dunkirk/dp/0712674284) of significant Soviet-German cooperation in the early 1930s and that the Soviets allowed the German Army to conduct small scale armored maneuvers on her soil. I can't find my copy to verify this though, since it's in storage.

[Jasa]

Plenty of business and diplomatic cooperation between Britain and France(and the US) and Nazi Germany before the war, but of course all that doesn't count!

[Lancer44]

Plenty of business and diplomatic cooperation between Britain and France(and the US) and Nazi Germany before the war, but of course all that doesn't count!

Jasa, YOU SAID BEFORE THE WAR.
WAR NOT STARTED 22-nd OF JUNE 1941 or 7-th OF DECEMBER 1941, but
1-st of September 1939.
Anytime someone mention co-operation of soviets with nazis and their part in conquering Western Europe you are jumping up.
Not very convenient parts of your puzzle?
Batko Stalin as a warmonger... Ooooh, how painful picture of otherwise unblemished Georgian gentlemen.

Lancer44

[Chevan]

Jasa, YOU SAID BEFORE THE WAR.
WAR NOT STARTED 22-nd OF JUNE 1941 or 7-th OF DECEMBER 1941, but
1-st of September 1939.
By the way , mate ,some hitorians consider the begining of WW2 after the Japanese invasion of China in the end 1920-yy.
And Why Britain's and France's interaction with Nazi BEFORE THE WAR IS BETTER then USSR-Germans interaction AFTER 1 sep 1939 and till 22 june 1941.
Just becouse it was against the Poles.
But tell me please, mate, why Britain and France tried to direct german agression to the East ( across the Poland). And why Churchil didn't wish to sign the allied pact with Stalin till 1939.
As you know he prefered to "sold the Chechoslovakia".

Anytime someone mention co-operation of soviets with nazis and their part in conquering Western Europe you are jumping up.
Not very convenient parts of your puzzle?
Batko Stalin as a warmonger... Ooooh, how painful picture of otherwise unblemished Georgian gentlemen.

Mate, i dont like the Stalin too, but what he did till 1939 was the resault of political isolation of USSR by Britain. Entire year till 1939 Stalin tried to get the soviet-bratain-france pact about collective war cooperation, but Churchil didn't consider him as the possible partner.
I believe it could be possible to stop the germany in 1939 if USSR-GB-France pack was sign. But no.
Several times Chemberlen flyed to the Berlin till 1938 for the meeting with Hitler, but not he not Churchil never meet the Stalin till 1943.

[Nickdfresh]

Plenty of business and diplomatic cooperation between Britain and France(and the US) and Nazi Germany before the war, but of course all that doesn't count!

Who said that? In fact, the Germans used IBM 'punch-machine' analog computers to tally Holocaust death tolls and to keep other records...

And Chevan, many historians view WWII as merely an extension of WWI hostilities.

[Chevan]

Who said that? In fact, the Germans used IBM 'punch-machine' analog computers to tally Holocaust death tolls and to keep other records...

He he ge ;)
Nice joke Nick.

Maybe you nothing hear about Britain-France-Germany Munhen agreements (1938) about "devision" of the Chechoslovakia.
Or about oil ( and materials) supplies of American companies to the Germany till 1939 and to the Japane till Prerl Harlbor...

And Chevan, many historians view WWII as merely an extension of WWI hostilities.
Those many historians just consider the WW2 as the resault of WW1. But the real begin of war action of WW2 was in China.

[Jasa]

Jasa, YOU SAID BEFORE THE WAR.
WAR NOT STARTED 22-nd OF JUNE 1941 or 7-th OF DECEMBER 1941, but
1-st of September 1939.
Anytime someone mention co-operation of soviets with nazis and their part in conquering Western Europe you are jumping up.
Not very convenient parts of your puzzle?
Batko Stalin as a warmonger... Ooooh, how painful picture of otherwise unblemished Georgian gentlemen.

Lancer44


Uh yeah genius, I said BEFORE THE WAR, as in as far back as 1934, when Stalin first tried to propose the idea of an anti-Fascist coalition involving Britain and France.

[Nickdfresh]

He he ge ;)
Nice joke Nick.

I wasn't joking. I've read this. The US used the same machine to keep track of service personnel records.

Maybe you nothing hear about Britain-France-Germany Munhen agreements (1938) about "devision" of the Chechoslovakia.
Or about oil ( and materials) supplies of American companies to the Germany till 1939 and to the Japane till Prerl Harlbor...

Those many historians just consider the WW2 as the resault of WW1. But the real begin of war action of WW2 was in China.

I've heard plenty of all of the above. I think it was common knowledge of US servicemen in the Pacific, that they may well be shooting at aircraft constructed with US sourced aluminum. One of the main reasons for the Pacific War was the US embargo of Japan and cutting off her oil supply.

[GermanSoldier]

I believe this was a great tank used in the U.S.S.R. It's armour was amazing. Good accuracy. Here is some information on the tank.

Crew 4
Length 6.75 m
Wigth 3.00 m
Height 2.45 m
Weight 30.9 tonnes
ARMOUR AND ARMAMENT
Armour 70mm Sloped Plate 45-47mm
Main Armament 76.2 mm F-34 tank gun
Secondary Armament 2x7 62mm DT machine guns
MOBILITY
Power Plant 12-cyl. diesel model V-2 500hp (373 KW)
Suspension Christie
Road Speed 55 km/h
Power/weight 16.2 hp/tonne
Range 465 km
(information from www.wikipedia.com)

[Panzerknacker]

Armour 70mm


Only in the gun mantlet, the rest of the vehicle had sloped plate of 45-47mm.

http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/4126/t34769yh.jpg

[RifleMan20]

First of all calm down man with the pics ,second of all yea,that tank kick booty,but I like the Panzer IV better.:)

[Wolfgang Von Gottberg]

First of all calm down man with the pics ,second of all yea,that tank kick booty,but I like the Panzer IV better.:)

Agreed. The hatch is very unique...I like it :)

Could the hatch (Opened) be used as a shield for the commander or crew?

[GermanSoldier]

Agreed. The hatch is very unique...I like it :)

Could the hatch (Opened) be used as a shield for the commander or crew?

Yes it can be, if you put it up. In the winter war tankers prefered for it to be closed for warmth.

[Wolfgang Von Gottberg]

How much armor plating did it have compared to the rest of the tank?

[GermanSoldier]

How much armor plating did it have compared to the rest of the tank?

I am not for sure, but my reading on other WW2 tanks the armour should be about the same all over the tank.

[Strina-Croatia]

Well the T-34 tank was a mass production tank with the purpose to outgunn the much stronger german mark IV V (Panther) and VI(Tiger) tanks.That tactic succeded but with many casulties because the weak armor and gun.Also it was easy to drive and russian farmers didnt need any special trening to drive it.

[pdf27]

Another relevant point - it had wide tracks with low ground pressure. This meant that during quite a large part of the year only T-34s and IIRC Lend-Lease Studebacker trucks were the only vehicles able to move any distance by road. This was a major tactical/strategic advantage.

[Torque]

First of all calm down man with the pics ,second of all yea,that tank kick booty,but I like the Panzer IV better.:)


Hi GermanSoldier,

I for one like the pictures so keep them coming, the more the better. This is WW2 in color after all.:mrgreen:

[Chevan]

Hi gentlements.
Nice to meet the new members are repeating our old discussions as at first time.:)
Another relevant point - it had wide tracks with low ground pressure. This meant that during quite a large part of the year only T-34s and IIRC Lend-Lease Studebacker trucks were the only vehicles able to move any distance by road. This was a major tactical/strategic advantage.
Well pdf if you are here, and protect the T-34 ;)
I just wish to add the later Germans tanks ( Panther and Tigers) were developed under inpression of soviet T-34. They had simular ( ore even more ) wide tracks.(but not simular mass Panther -47 tonns,Tiger 1/2 - 51/68 tonns against 32/34 tonns of T-34-76/85).
And you right the Studebacker was the best ( as it recal the soviets veterans) help of allies.
Together with T-34 the new US trucks was the power which gives the Red Army mobility in the Eastern bad roads.

As it was mentioned befor the main advantage of T-34 was the technological simplicity ( for the not hight-tech soviet industry in that time).This very importaint factors which let the Soviet plants made about 40 000 of T-34. If was literaly the most mass tank of the WW2. This lets soviet industry easy restored the loses of t-34 ( but not so easy the loses of tankers) after the great tanks battles like under the Kursk. As the resault - if Germany could able to made only 1250 Tigers of all modification and about 5 000 Panthers - they were uncapable to compare with soviets tanks industry( + UK/US industry) in common.
Another good factor was that the soviet industry had only two basic types of tanks scassi T-34( on which were developed the SU-85/100) and KV( which was basis for the IS-1/2, SU-122/152) being a litle modificated.
As the reault the soviets tankers had no shortage of spare parts for the soviet tanks.But Germnas who developed at least 4 modifications os tank and 4 of selph-propelled guns had it especialy in last period of war.
Cheers.

[Walther]

Actually the T-34 engine with it's aluminium block was quite advanced for it's day.
The first T-34s with the 76 mm gun were a bit undergunned, the later versions corrected this with a 85 mm gun. Also, while in the beginning only the troop commander had radio in his tank and had to expose himself to give orders to the other tanks in his troop by flag signals, this was later corrected as well.
The emergence of the T-34 and the KV-1 suddenly made a lot of German anti tank weapons obsolete. Especially the slanted armour proved to be huge advance over the vertical armour used until then (the slanted armour was copied on the Panther).

BTW, the German answer to the T-34 was the Pzkw V, the Panther.
The Pzkw VI, the Tiger was developed as an answer to the larger Russian KV-1 tank.

Jan

[General Zod]

Didn't the 85mm turrets have a 3 man crew in them?

[Panzerknacker]

Gunner, loader and tank commander I guess.

[Chevan]

Yes gunner, loader, tank commander and mechanic/driver - 4 mens of crew of T-34

[Vorontsov]

First of all calm down man with the pics ,second of all yea,that tank kick booty,but I like the Panzer IV better.

Yes, but T-34 is average tank. As I know Tiger is heavy, so then my favourite tank is KV-2, IS-1,2,3....

[Vassili Chukolov]

Hm, I was reading up on the battle of Stalingrad. There's a part in the book where a Panzer Tank commander describes coming up behind a T-34. He then started to lob round at the tank, but instead the round simply bounced off the back of the tank. I guess the T-34's had alot of armor on them. ; )

[General Zod]

Hm, I was reading up on the battle of Stalingrad. There's a part in the book where a Panzer Tank commander describes coming up behind a T-34. He then started to lob round at the tank, but instead the round simply bounced off the back of the tank. I guess the T-34's had alot of armor on them. ; )
Does the panzer commander say what kind of tank he was in?

[Vassili Chukolov]

It didn't say. I assume it may have been a Mark 4, or...

[Panzerknacker]

Probably was a KV not a T-34.

[tankgeezer]

Only in the gun mantlet, the rest of the vehicle had sloped plate of 45-47mm.

http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/4126/t34769yh.jpg

Thats a very good picture, someone asked if the hatches could be used as shields for the crew, yes, they are designed this way to provide protection from small arms fire and fragments. Panzerknacker, perhaps you can answer this question,, I have seen many pictures of many tanks, and it seems that deep mud has some magical attraction that tanks cannot resist. An armored siren song so to speak.. What do you think? - Raspenau -

[Vassili Chukolov]

Panzerknacker, I'm sure it was a T-34 the German Tank Commander was firing at.

[tankgeezer]

Panzerknacker, I'm sure it was a T-34 the German Tank Commander was firing at.
Any Idea if the German Commander was firing down on the T-34, or up at it? (like on an upward slope)it might make a difference considering the slope of the rear and side armor. Especially if it were an older mark of tank, with the smaller, lower velocity gun. Just some thoughts. - Raspenau -

[Panzerknacker]

Panzerknacker, perhaps you can answer this question,, I have seen many pictures of many tanks, and it seems that deep mud has some magical attraction that tanks cannot resist. An armored siren song so to speak.. What do you think? -


There is no much mystery, I guess a bad calculation by the driver is all you need to get stuck.

http://i2.tinypic.com/r02r2e.jpg

Panzerknacker, I'm sure it was a T-34 the German Tank Commander was firing at.

Roger that.

[Strina-Croatia]

Well i think although the many advantages it had ,my opinion is that it was a grave on tracks for the crew correct me if I am wrong!!

[Vassili Chukolov]

Well,when many of the Russian Tanks where made during the time when Germany invaded them, they came right out of the factiories and out into a firefight. Many, without proper gunsights. Which led to a number of tanks loss.

Also, I heard something interesting from a site, that when ever a German Tank came in really close quarters, or when a T-34 Tank was out of ammunition, they would ram the German Tank. To say that the T-34's armor would bash the German tank, and causing it to break down from more blows. I don't know if it's true or not, but it'd be nice to get soom history on it. I mean, you would really have to be desperate if the tank commabders came down to ramming there tank agaisnt another.

[Panzerknacker]

Also, I heard something interesting from a site, that when ever a German Tank came in really close quarters, or when a T-34 Tank was out of ammunition, they would ram the German Tank


That is true when engaging Tigers but in the early day were the germans who do that some times:

Kalinin front, 17 october 1941, this t-34 was rammed by a Stug III after the short barreled 75mm german gun failed to penetrate .

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/2937/13nb1rz.jpg

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/7398/t3413ky.jpg

http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/9109/t3429sk.jpg

http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/624/t3438qv.jpg

[Jenkin]

THE SU-100 TANK DESTROYER
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Weight 31.6 tonnes
Length 9.45 m
Width 3.00 m
Height 2.25 m
Crew 4

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Armor front 75 mm
side 45 mm
roof 20 mm
Primary armament - 100 mm gun D-10S
Secondary armament - none
Engine 12-cyl. 4-stroke diesel model V-2-34
500 hp (370 kW)
Power/weight 16 hp/tonne
Suspension Christie Operational
range 320 km
Speed 48 km/h Maximum



--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now that is my favorite Tank.

[Chevan]

That's the really amazing photo Panzercnacker , thanks.
I've never saw someting simular.

[Panzerknacker]

You re welcome Chev, here is another:

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/4817/t3442fm.jpg


The guys with bandages in the heads above are the crew of the Stug, the allies will use this tactic later in the war against Tiger and King Tiger.

[galex]

Does anyone know if that version of T34 (T-34/76 Mod. 1941) took part in the battle around the Kiev area, in November-December 1943 ?

[Panzerknacker]

What about this?

T-34 depicted in the south of Stalingrad september 1942.

This is a sniper tank or what ?, I never saw that many camouflage in a T-34 before, the commander is a Georgian and he claimed 12 german AFV destroyed in a week.

http://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb264/moisin/tan01.jpg


Those panzer nevers saw what hit them. :neutral:

[tankgeezer]

Camo and a hull defilade position is a very good combination for defense,or delay, waiting for the enemy to wander along, and then pick your target. Its only good for a few shots, then time to move to the alternate position to keep them guessing.
This set up is very difficult to spot, and even if it is spotted, hard to hit, before they move out to another prepared spot. These positions also had the advantage by night, as all of the local terrain features, cross roads, buildings etc. were on their range cards, with the appropriate lists of ranges, and azimuth/elevation data. So any one of them can be engaged just by setting the gun to the data on the card, and As you said my friend, they never know what hits them...

[Carl Schwamberger]

That sort of camoflage is also necessary when the Stukas are about.

[Panzerknacker]

Another use for the T-34 turret.

http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/4149/t34wz5.jpg

[astupiddvdcase]

Many say that the t-34/85 was the best tank of ww2 but i neva thought so cause i always favoured the german's superior technology so i went googling and came across this article which had some of the major faults of the tank such as its armour superiority over the germans against the later tanks such as panzer 4 and its 85 mm gun wasnt a match against the american 76 mm fitted on the american shermans. It also lacked many upgrades which other tanks were equiped with such as armour skirts by the panzers. The t-43/85 might had the biggest impact with its large production rate and being easily manufactured it wasnt the best tank of ww2 since the later war versions of sherman had a better main bun and comfort. heres the full article boys !

[Panzerknacker]

My dear astupid ( rare name isnt ?) The links to other forum are only allowed in the link section.

I dont think the the t-34 was overrated, it was definately the best tank in the world in the period 1941-42, after that it loss his technological advantage to more powerful german designs.

[Panzerknacker]

This must be the most weird and suicidal method to cope with the T-34. :shock:

http://video.google.es/videohosted?docid=-4998627977770287558

[tankgeezer]

Hi P.K. Looks like an episode of "stupid human tricks" (Dave Letterman) A nice try, under some circumstances, some of these tricks may work,, But there were usually other tanks, and infantry around, so the liesurely pace of these "sappers" work, would mostly end in ,,well, disappointment. And so much effort when a magnetic shaped charge would do the job. (Unless they wanted to capture, and use the tank themselves.. ) The T-34 may have been lacking in many things, but combat effectivness wasnt one of them. Until like you said, the better German designs out paced them.

[Panzerknacker]

Hi P.K. Looks like an episode of "stupid human tricks" (Dave Letterman) A nice try, under some circumstances, some of these tricks may work


There was obviously more serious ways to deal with the t-34. :rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pclFUcWM75o


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6klvgnKlbdg

[tankgeezer]

Great video my friend, enjoyed them immensely. The Russians failed to exploit the armored formation's capabilities, and did not properly cover or support them. A shame.

[zerkalli]

IN WW2 SOVIET T-34 have main gun (caliber gun) :

37 mm
45 mm
75 mm
76,2 mm
85mm
90mm

T-34 in battle, no prototype or experimental T-34.

Sorry my english

[Nickdfresh]

76.2mm and 85mm (T-34/85)

[Dragkon]

There was also a small amount of special T-34 "Tank hunters" with 57 mm Zis4 Guns made in 1941 and there was made experimental model of T-34 with 100mm gun in the end of the war. Some pictures of T-34/57:

[Chevan]

there was made experimental model of T-34 with 100mm gun in the end of the war.

It seems it was a prototipe of T-44 that wasn't accepted by the army.

[Firefly]

They also fitted some out as Flamethrower tanks.

[Panzerknacker]

The gunsigh of the T-34.

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/50/conceptostcnicos1mirasctt9.jpg

[Sickles]

One main drawback of the T34 was its antiquated optics, especially when compared to the Wermacht armour

[tankgeezer]

The fire control optics of many soviet tanks were inadequate, even to the T-54. and T-62. they were designed more for close in fighting, 1/2 mile or less, to be most efficient. excellent for a massed attack, but not too good out beyond 1,200 mtrs.
For the U.S., the armor doctrine of the 60's and 70's reflected this in the use of what was called "Battle Sight" the computer was set for HEAT ammo and the range set to 1,100 mtr. This was expected to produce a hit in most all situations of close range combat situations.And by eliminating the steps of indexing ammo, and ranging, it saved valuable time in target engagement.

[gumalangi]

One main drawback of the T34 was its antiquated optics, especially when compared to the Wermacht armour

Not only to Russian eh,.. even to western,.. leitz and zeiss are still the best optics you could possible have,..

[gumalangi]

The fire control optics of many soviet tanks were inadequate, even to the T-54. and T-62. they were designed more for close in fighting, 1/2 mile or less, to be most efficient. excellent for a massed attack, but not too good out beyond 1,200 mtrs.
For the U.S., the armor doctrine of the 60's and 70's reflected this in the use of what was called "Battle Sight" the computer was set for HEAT ammo and the range set to 1,100 mtr. This was expected to produce a hit in most all situations of close range combat situations.And by eliminating the steps of indexing ammo, and ranging, it saved valuable time in target engagement.

Interesting,. to my curiousity,. why in the first place, they putting those 85, 100, 122 then?,. should they actually intend to use it at a closer range,..
shoot by chance?

[tankgeezer]

Not only to Russian eh,.. even to western,.. leitz and zeiss are still the best optics you could possible have,..

My meaning was not in the refractive qualities of the optics, but in their simplicity. The fairly crude sighting was not very helpful at distance,and even when technology was available to make the later tanks, (the T-54 through T-62), far more effective in battle, they were not upgraded, but left as is,, If I recall correctly the 54's had no basket floor in the turret, requiring the crew to walk around with it as it traversed, feeding the main battery from the floor mounted storage. This made it a very slow firing tank.
Other tanks of the 50's and 60's had range finders, and ballistic computers, to allow for accurate, fast firing even at great range.One cannot expect the T-34 to have such equipment,and as its main battery was too small for reliable use at range,(tank to tank) but it was set up well for close engagements from 300-600mtr, and maybe with luck to 1,000 mtr, but accurate laying of the gun was far more difficult at that range. Several shots may be needed to gain a hit on target.
Now I'm not saying that the U.S. or the German's had anything more sophisticated,(during WWII) except perhaps in the quality of the reticles, and mechanical function of the fire control equipment.And yes, the Zeiss, and Leitz lens elements.

[gumalangi]

My meaning was not in the refractive qualities of the optics, but in their simplicity. The fairly crude sighting was not very helpful at distance,and even when technology was available to make the later tanks, (the T-54 through T-62), far more effective in battle, they were not upgraded, but left as is,, If I recall correctly the 54's had no basket floor in the turret, requiring the crew to walk around with it as it traversed, feeding the main battery from the floor mounted storage. This made it a very slow firing tank.
Other tanks of the 50's and 60's had range finders, and ballistic computers, to allow for accurate, fast firing even at great range.One cannot expect the T-34 to have such equipment,and as its main battery was too small for reliable use at range,(tank to tank) but it was set up well for close engagements from 300-600mtr, and maybe with luck to 1,000 mtr, but accurate laying of the gun was far more difficult at that range. Several shots may be needed to gain a hit on target.
Now I'm not saying that the U.S. or the German's had anything more sophisticated,(during WWII) except perhaps in the quality of the reticles, and mechanical function of the fire control equipment.And yes, the Zeiss, and Leitz lens elements.

thank you sir,. well explained and understood,.. so it is then shoot by chance to hit the target yes,..

[tankgeezer]

Interesting,. to my curiousity,. why in the first place, they putting those 85, 100, 122 then?,. should they actually intend to use it at a closer range,..
shoot by chance?
The size of the gun is immaterial if the fire control system is incapable of allowing the crew to put a round on the target in time.In a tank to tank engagement, the one to strike first is the winner 99% of the time. At 1,000mtr. even a tank is quite small through the scope,and there is no time to get picky about laying the gun, so it does often come to a "poke,and hope" situation.The only alternative is to close the distance, and lessen the chance for error in aiming.
In a massed armor assault,unlike a tank to tank fight, there is no need for concern, as at distance, when firing upon the oncoming formation, if you miss the one you aimed at, you may well strike another one near them. and once the lines merge, and mingle, its all shooting from the hip so to speak, at ranges down to 50 mtr. (this is where the T-34 would excell , and did, despite the slow traverse speed of its turret.)

[gumalangi]

Is it safe to say that,. heavier German tanks,. when engaging enemy,. they will prevail better in a longer range yes?,.and not at a close combat situation,.. is this could explain also why on German tankers score more than allied counter parts? as they performed basic method of Anti Tank Unit,..

[tankgeezer]

It would depend on which German tanks were taking part in the engagement. early on, there was only the lightly armored PKW 1,2,and 3, then when the 4 was introduced, thing became a bit more serious. The 2's and 3's were not heavily armored, and would be as vulnerable as any other tank of that weight.the crux was in the main battery weapon. Most of the early ones were small bore, 20mm to about 40-50 mm., with fairly short in calibers of length. (the bore diameter divided into the length of the gun tube.) This gave low muzzle velocities, and was a true shortcoming in most armored vehicles of the time.The short tube was a vestigial remnant of tanks being used only as infantry support vehicles It was thought that the caliber of the main gun should not be so great as to allow the muzzle to extend beyond the ends of the tank, to protect the tube from damage.This erroneous thinking was soon discarded once the realities of tank to tank fighting revealed the flaw.These early main battery weapons were not real fire breathers at any significant range.
Once the longer main gun tubes began appearing, velocities, and hit/kill ratios ,began to rise. This catalyzed the up armor programs for all vehicles fielded at the time,with some being relegated to scouting, and recon duty because they were no longer viable skirmish machines.This also brought about the newer, more heavily armed, and armored German tanks.
so, now to your idea, at this point, the German tanks, had sufficient firepower, and protection to better withstand the opposing fire at distance, and to deliver higher hit/kill ratios. German face hardened, hot rolled armor was difficult to hole, sometimes even at closer ranges. (a sad truth faced by all Sherman, and Stuart crews.) Smart gunnery held some degree of sway, but one on one, there was no contest. This balance swung the opposite direction with the advent of the heavy Soviet tanks and tank destroyers. where their huge main guns, could at most ranges hole the German armor, or at least produce enough damage to influence the outcome of an engagement. And then, it came down to who can get the first hit the fastest, which brings us back to interior turret layouts, and fire controls. The better one's fire control, the higher the first round hit/kill probability. A few seconds matter more than the bore diameter of the gun, or the round it fires.

[Panzerknacker]

German face hardened, hot rolled armor was difficult to hole, sometimes even at closer ranges. (a sad truth faced by all Sherman, and Stuart crews.) Smart gunnery held some degree of sway, but one on one, there was no contest. This balance swung the opposite direction with the advent of the heavy Soviet tanks and tank destroyers. where their huge main guns, could at most ranges hole the German armor, or at least produce enough damage to influence the outcome of an engagement. And then, it came down to who can get the first hit the fastest, which brings us back to interior turret layouts, and fire controls. The better one's fire control, the higher the first round hit/kill probability. A few seconds matter more than the bore diameter of the gun, or the round it fires.

Fully agreed, that why the Js-2 in 1944 as sometimed the Black beast for the german panzer it had a 122 mm gun and a stereoscopical rangefinder.
But more important his crew was definately better trained that those of the T-34 in 1941-42.

[tankgeezer]

How true my friend, it took real guts, and presence of mind to win in a one on one battle in the early 40's, (and a large load of luck) by the 70's it was more like a video game, rangefinders, connected to a computer that took into account the ammo being fired, the bore wear of the tube, and through these the gun was set to land a shot on target by the gunner just placing the aiming cross on the target. Add to that the fierce munitions available, APDS,and HEAT, and all one need do is touch the opposing tank, and he is holed.A first round can be fired in as little as 5 seconds,(3 using "Battle Sight") the whole deal being over in 12- 15 seconds. The doctrine being for two rounds into the enemy before closing fire.
Though in these modern times the whole business is different with the Chabham armor. Now, as in the 40's you really have to work for the kill.

[tankgeezer]

Items sold for export are marked Germany, Deutchland is for domestic consumption.

[larryparamedic]

Photos below courtesy of Marek Cieliczko from Warsaw.
Marek had a holiday in Gdansk and looking at T-34 at Westerplatte monument he discovered something interesting:

As you can see this T-34 is one of very early versions.
http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/7761/westerplatte1ng6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


Lancer44

By my reference I believe this is a late 1942 to an early 1945 model of T-34. Several facts give that away but most notably the cylindrical external fuel tanks on the hull sides are a dead giveaway.
(T-34 Mythical Weapon by Robert Michulec and Mirostaw Zientarzewski)
The treaty was essentially broken with Russia and Germany in 1941.
I have no explanation of the bearings other than prior to Germany's invasion of Russia armor experts from Russia had even toured German tank factories and it's possible an exchange of material had gone on up to that point?

[Panzerknacker]

Destroying a T-34, one of his crew captured, ww2 amateur video of german soldier.

Minute 1:00 to 2:50.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyVy0IESPW8


http://i29.tinypic.com/2lvl253.jpg

http://i25.tinypic.com/20rok7l.jpg

[Kimura]

For the U.S., the armor doctrine of the 60's and 70's reflected this in the use of what was called "Battle Sight" the computer was set for HEAT ammo and the range set to 1,100 mtr. This was expected to produce a hit in most all situations of close range combat situations.And by eliminating the steps of indexing ammo, and ranging, it saved valuable time in target engagement.

one other important factors to do so was the increase of the speed of the rounds up to 1500m/s with flat curve trajectory to allow such settings.

[Sergej]

I found this in the net
http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/8679/05998rr9.jpg
I don't know is it real. This is Googletranslation from Swedish:
T-34 airborne tank was an attempt to obtain a 1945 wagon that could be transported by air.
T-34 was based in part on T-34 medium with three wheels on each side that made the wagon
very bad terrängegenskaper(crosscountry?) why there was no production of the vehicle.
Does anybody has any infos?

[Churchill]

Hahaha, that looks funny. If the Soviets made many of those(and made them work like a normal T-34 or a T-34/85) they could have been much better than the normal sized ones; easier to conceal and produce.

[ww11freak34]

it was a awsome tank

[Churchill]

That's Chevan's sig...

[ww11freak34]

i would rather be in a t-34 then a sherman getting attacked

[Panzerknacker]

Excelent video showing 50 mm german antitank gun in action against the T-34.

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=kEKXMccR760

[navyson]

Excelent video showing 50 mm german antitank gun in action against the T-34.

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=kEKXMccR760

Interesting, looks like they took out three tanks. At least some of the tankers were lucky to survive, although they did get captured.

[Panzerknacker]

They did, that clearly show the toughness of the russian design, ( that and the projectile bouncing in the side) those tank were static as you might see ( seems they get stuck in marshy terrain) but probably the germans felt there was a real need of destroy them, sometimes were used by snipers as a shield and also by artillery spotters, not to mention the russian could recapture the terrain and repair the T-34s.

The weird part of the video is the german infantry messing around the burning tanks...with all that ammo inside I would get away as fast I could.

http://i33.tinypic.com/2iae6c0.jpg

[navyson]

I noticed that too. (German infantry playing around tanks)
After seeing the one tank blow up I would have stayed well away like you said PK.