Originally Posted By: Ducked
Doublehaul said:
German engineering woes
- Thread starter friendly_jacek
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
Panthers were still in Beta-testing, as we say these days.
Then they produced the Tiger, after the Panther. Tiger may have actually been more reliable even though it was more complicated.
Here it is as seen in the movie "Fury" a couple of years ago:
The Tiger was more reliable, it began life in the mid-to-late 1930's as a "heavy breakthrough tank" to counter the French Char B1.
The French were defeated in six weeks and this actually ended up paralyzing German tank development as they became enamored with "Victory Disease". It was complex, expensive, and despite it's fearsome (overrated) image it certainly could be used to good effect if properly supported. But not that many were made and we tend to forget that despite some of their neat-oh torpedo weapons, the Wehrmacht (and specifically the Heer) was NOT a mechanized army like the U.S., British, and later on the Soviets were and were still reliant on pack animals and rail to support their fronts far more so than the Allies were. The German war economy was not particularly great and they had no hope of matching what they ultimately would encounter with the U.S. industrial economy..
Panthers were still in Beta-testing, as we say these days.
Then they produced the Tiger, after the Panther. Tiger may have actually been more reliable even though it was more complicated.
Here it is as seen in the movie "Fury" a couple of years ago:
The Tiger was more reliable, it began life in the mid-to-late 1930's as a "heavy breakthrough tank" to counter the French Char B1.
The French were defeated in six weeks and this actually ended up paralyzing German tank development as they became enamored with "Victory Disease". It was complex, expensive, and despite it's fearsome (overrated) image it certainly could be used to good effect if properly supported. But not that many were made and we tend to forget that despite some of their neat-oh torpedo weapons, the Wehrmacht (and specifically the Heer) was NOT a mechanized army like the U.S., British, and later on the Soviets were and were still reliant on pack animals and rail to support their fronts far more so than the Allies were. The German war economy was not particularly great and they had no hope of matching what they ultimately would encounter with the U.S. industrial economy..
Last edited:
The Germans definitely bit off more than they could chew, but they did give everyone a very good run for their money. In fact, they got a lot further than should've been possible.
And if some things had gone the other way, it all could've taken a lot longer. Say that the Japanese decided to tackle the Soviets before the Americans, and steered clear from USA interest in the Pacific. That could've been the nail in the Soviet coffin, kept USA out a while longer and the Germans could have looked west again while getting resources from the east.
A bit strange what went wrong with the French, who should've had the strongest continental army at the time (if not the world, in 1939).
And if some things had gone the other way, it all could've taken a lot longer. Say that the Japanese decided to tackle the Soviets before the Americans, and steered clear from USA interest in the Pacific. That could've been the nail in the Soviet coffin, kept USA out a while longer and the Germans could have looked west again while getting resources from the east.
A bit strange what went wrong with the French, who should've had the strongest continental army at the time (if not the world, in 1939).
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
Say that the Japanese decided to tackle the Soviets before the Americans, and steered clear from USA interest in the Pacific. That could've been the nail in the Soviet coffin, kept USA out a while longer and the Germans could have looked west again while getting resources from the east.
A bit strange what went wrong with the French, who should've had the strongest continental army at the time (if not the world, in 1939).
very true indeed. the Pear Harbor attack looked like a tactical success but it was a huge strategic blunder.
as for the french campaign, i guess it was a combination of luck, choice of the undefended Ardennes forest, blitzkrieg, and poor command on the french side. the Maginot line mentality doomed them.
Say that the Japanese decided to tackle the Soviets before the Americans, and steered clear from USA interest in the Pacific. That could've been the nail in the Soviet coffin, kept USA out a while longer and the Germans could have looked west again while getting resources from the east.
A bit strange what went wrong with the French, who should've had the strongest continental army at the time (if not the world, in 1939).
very true indeed. the Pear Harbor attack looked like a tactical success but it was a huge strategic blunder.
as for the french campaign, i guess it was a combination of luck, choice of the undefended Ardennes forest, blitzkrieg, and poor command on the french side. the Maginot line mentality doomed them.
I heard a ex German tank commander on a cable channel brag about how good his tanks were...but that WE had so many faster Shermans there was always one positioned to take a back shot where the German plating wasn't thick. His superior tone of voice suggested he didn't think that was "fair". Too bad.
If our "superior" - who's going to get THIS contract - purchasing methods hadn't intervened our M 26, as good a tank as there was at the end of the war, would have made it to Europe in quantity and changed that boy's mind.
If our "superior" - who's going to get THIS contract - purchasing methods hadn't intervened our M 26, as good a tank as there was at the end of the war, would have made it to Europe in quantity and changed that boy's mind.
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
Panthers were still in Beta-testing, as we say these days.
Then they produced the Tiger, after the Panther. Tiger may have actually been more reliable even though it was more complicated.
Here it is as seen in the movie "Fury" a couple of years ago:
They got bleep MPG and the Germans never had enough fuel.
Panthers were still in Beta-testing, as we say these days.
Then they produced the Tiger, after the Panther. Tiger may have actually been more reliable even though it was more complicated.
Here it is as seen in the movie "Fury" a couple of years ago:
They got bleep MPG and the Germans never had enough fuel.
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
I heard a ex German tank commander on a cable channel brag about how good his tanks were...but that WE had so many faster Shermans there was always one positioned to take a back shot where the German plating wasn't thick.
well, the tigers were good, except they were too slow, too expensive, and not enough gasoline like the above poster said. I still don't understand why germans didn't use diesel. worked well for russian tanks.
I heard a ex German tank commander on a cable channel brag about how good his tanks were...but that WE had so many faster Shermans there was always one positioned to take a back shot where the German plating wasn't thick.
well, the tigers were good, except they were too slow, too expensive, and not enough gasoline like the above poster said. I still don't understand why germans didn't use diesel. worked well for russian tanks.
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
Panthers were still in Beta-testing, as we say these days.
Then they produced the Tiger, after the Panther. Tiger may have actually been more reliable even though it was more complicated.
Here it is as seen in the movie "Fury" a couple of years ago:
They got bleep MPG and the Germans never had enough fuel.
Well given their importance, their units would have been supplied all the fuel they needed. There just wasn't enough of them. Too costly and time consuming to build. Note also if the upper front 100mm plate was angled at 45 degrees or more instead of 80 degrees, LOS thickness would have been doubled. Same with the mantlet and lower glacis plate. These improvements surfaced on the Tiger II. The sloped frontal armor of the Panther was superior to the Tiger I, 140mm LOS thickness vs. 100mm on the Tiger I. Yes, the Germans had a dearth of everything, fuel, rubber, motor transport, steel alloying metals, machine tools, etc.
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
Panthers were still in Beta-testing, as we say these days.
Then they produced the Tiger, after the Panther. Tiger may have actually been more reliable even though it was more complicated.
Here it is as seen in the movie "Fury" a couple of years ago:
They got bleep MPG and the Germans never had enough fuel.
Well given their importance, their units would have been supplied all the fuel they needed. There just wasn't enough of them. Too costly and time consuming to build. Note also if the upper front 100mm plate was angled at 45 degrees or more instead of 80 degrees, LOS thickness would have been doubled. Same with the mantlet and lower glacis plate. These improvements surfaced on the Tiger II. The sloped frontal armor of the Panther was superior to the Tiger I, 140mm LOS thickness vs. 100mm on the Tiger I. Yes, the Germans had a dearth of everything, fuel, rubber, motor transport, steel alloying metals, machine tools, etc.
Originally Posted By: Wolf359
I wouldn't say the Soviets were really Jewish friendly, the army waited during the Warsaw uprising while the Germans crushed it. That was Stalin's order, he wanted the Germans to wipe out the leaders so they wouldn't have problems afterwards.
Sure, ruthless at the top. I take "barbarian hoard (sic)" to be a mass-description though.
Incidentally, I think the Warsaw Uprising was the Polish Home Army, and an essentially non-Jewish phenomenon, because they were mostly dead by that time. You might be confusing it with the Ghetto uprising/liquidation, which was earlier.
I wouldn't say the Soviets were really Jewish friendly, the army waited during the Warsaw uprising while the Germans crushed it. That was Stalin's order, he wanted the Germans to wipe out the leaders so they wouldn't have problems afterwards.
Sure, ruthless at the top. I take "barbarian hoard (sic)" to be a mass-description though.
Incidentally, I think the Warsaw Uprising was the Polish Home Army, and an essentially non-Jewish phenomenon, because they were mostly dead by that time. You might be confusing it with the Ghetto uprising/liquidation, which was earlier.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Ducked
Incidentally, I think the Warsaw Uprising was the Polish Home Army, and an essentially non-Jewish phenomenon, because they were mostly dead by that time. You might be confusing it with the Ghetto uprising/liquidation, which was earlier.
yeah, warsaw ghetto uprising was earlier but also as hopeless and deadly as the final one that resulted in destruction of the entire city and loss of 220,000 poles. the western backed Polish Home Army was hoping to liberate the major cities themselves before liberated by soviets. obviously, it didn't work well in warsaw. some smaller cities were liberated that way only for the welcoming Polish Home Army members being rounded up and shot by soviets.
Incidentally, I think the Warsaw Uprising was the Polish Home Army, and an essentially non-Jewish phenomenon, because they were mostly dead by that time. You might be confusing it with the Ghetto uprising/liquidation, which was earlier.
yeah, warsaw ghetto uprising was earlier but also as hopeless and deadly as the final one that resulted in destruction of the entire city and loss of 220,000 poles. the western backed Polish Home Army was hoping to liberate the major cities themselves before liberated by soviets. obviously, it didn't work well in warsaw. some smaller cities were liberated that way only for the welcoming Polish Home Army members being rounded up and shot by soviets.
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
...Say that the Japanese decided to tackle the Soviets before the Americans, and steered clear from USA interest in the Pacific...
They actually did on the border between the Soviet Union and Manchuria in the late 1930s. They were defeated soundly - so soundly they wanted nothing to do with a land war against the Soviets again. I've read some well written books that maintained the Soviets entering the war in August 1945 had as much to do with the quick Japanese surrender as the atomic bombs.
One big problem with the German war machine is Hitler rated the factories on end unit production only. Read # of tanks produced. No factory heads were executed for not building spare parts, so spare parts were not produced. Large numbers of tanks were idled because there simply were no parts once something broke. And the ability of a German general to shut down production lines while marginal improvements were made was legend.
Having the best broken equipment in insufficient numbers is a sure way to lose a war. Even a Field Marshal like Montgomery could eventually win a war against such an enemy.
...Say that the Japanese decided to tackle the Soviets before the Americans, and steered clear from USA interest in the Pacific...
They actually did on the border between the Soviet Union and Manchuria in the late 1930s. They were defeated soundly - so soundly they wanted nothing to do with a land war against the Soviets again. I've read some well written books that maintained the Soviets entering the war in August 1945 had as much to do with the quick Japanese surrender as the atomic bombs.
One big problem with the German war machine is Hitler rated the factories on end unit production only. Read # of tanks produced. No factory heads were executed for not building spare parts, so spare parts were not produced. Large numbers of tanks were idled because there simply were no parts once something broke. And the ability of a German general to shut down production lines while marginal improvements were made was legend.
Having the best broken equipment in insufficient numbers is a sure way to lose a war. Even a Field Marshal like Montgomery could eventually win a war against such an enemy.
Last edited:
The US was also the only nation that Hitler declared war on, the others he just invaded. It took Stalin a couple days to realize he was really being invaded. The Japanese knew enough not to start a war on two fronts, I think Hitler thought that by declaring war on the US, the Japanese would help him out by attacking the soviets in the east to take some of the pressure off his troops, but they honored their non aggression pact and Stalin was able to transfer a lot of troops to the west.
Hitler was in favor of diesel engines, but he was stonewalled by Speer and the military who felt that they would take too long to design and manufacture.
Hitler was in favor of diesel engines, but he was stonewalled by Speer and the military who felt that they would take too long to design and manufacture.
Originally Posted By: ArrestMeRedZ
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
...Say that the Japanese decided to tackle the Soviets before the Americans, and steered clear from USA interest in the Pacific...
They actually did on the border between the Soviet Union and Manchuria in the late 1930s. They were defeated soundly - so soundly they wanted nothing to do with a land war against the Soviets again. I've read some well written books that maintained the Soviets entering the war in August 1945 had as much to do with the quick Japanese surrender as the atomic bombs.
It was the Battle of Khalkhin Gol. It exposed the weak tanks and poor tactics of the Imperial Japanese Army against an industrial power in open country favoring tanks and battles of maneuver (which is one of the reasons they favored fanatic codes of suicidal fighting, because they could never match the West in firepower). A large part of the Japanese Army was also tied down fighting the Nationalist Chinese as they would be throughout the war, so they could not afford to keep fighting...
It certainly intimidated the Japanese into signing a Non-Aggression Pact with the Soviets and helped make Marshal Zhukov's career.
Japanese tanks were so poor that U.S. Shermans had to use high explosive ammo against them to smash them up because armor piercing often went through their thin armor so easily they could not transfer enough energy to do much damage. IJA tanks were only useful when their enemies had none, like in Singapore against the British. The British in Burma however made good use of armor against them later in the war and again, caught in the open with no cover of jungle or caves/bunkers, the IJA was relatively easily smashed...
Quote:
One big problem with the German war machine is Hitler rated the factories on end unit production only. Read # of tanks produced. No factory heads were executed for not building spare parts, so spare parts were not produced. Large numbers of tanks were idled because there simply were no parts once something broke. And the ability of a German general to shut down production lines while marginal improvements were made was legend.
Having the best broken equipment in insufficient numbers is a sure way to lose a war. Even a Field Marshal like Montgomery could eventually win a war against such an enemy.
I don't know if I've heard that. One of the main problems was Hitler's Nazi regime loved chaos and to play "divide and conquer" in order to insure his power was secured by constantly having territorial-sycophants currying favor while they were played-off against one-another. As a result, you had multiple competing projects wastefully pursuing the same research causing production problems. Their reliance on French made trucks captured in 1940 for Barbarossa, for instance, caused huge logistical problems for them in Russia. One of the many problems the Germans had was the gauge of railway tracks was a different size in the Soviet Union meaning they had to relay track to use German trains. This also caused a massive supply problem and in no small part led to the lack of winter gear in 1941 for the Battle of Moscow, their first major strategic setback. As did the Non-Aggression Pact with the Japanese, the one that freed up tens of thousands of well trained (for winter fighting) and well equipped Siberian reinforcements used to Push the Heer back from Moscow...
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
...Say that the Japanese decided to tackle the Soviets before the Americans, and steered clear from USA interest in the Pacific...
They actually did on the border between the Soviet Union and Manchuria in the late 1930s. They were defeated soundly - so soundly they wanted nothing to do with a land war against the Soviets again. I've read some well written books that maintained the Soviets entering the war in August 1945 had as much to do with the quick Japanese surrender as the atomic bombs.
It was the Battle of Khalkhin Gol. It exposed the weak tanks and poor tactics of the Imperial Japanese Army against an industrial power in open country favoring tanks and battles of maneuver (which is one of the reasons they favored fanatic codes of suicidal fighting, because they could never match the West in firepower). A large part of the Japanese Army was also tied down fighting the Nationalist Chinese as they would be throughout the war, so they could not afford to keep fighting...
It certainly intimidated the Japanese into signing a Non-Aggression Pact with the Soviets and helped make Marshal Zhukov's career.
Japanese tanks were so poor that U.S. Shermans had to use high explosive ammo against them to smash them up because armor piercing often went through their thin armor so easily they could not transfer enough energy to do much damage. IJA tanks were only useful when their enemies had none, like in Singapore against the British. The British in Burma however made good use of armor against them later in the war and again, caught in the open with no cover of jungle or caves/bunkers, the IJA was relatively easily smashed...
Quote:
One big problem with the German war machine is Hitler rated the factories on end unit production only. Read # of tanks produced. No factory heads were executed for not building spare parts, so spare parts were not produced. Large numbers of tanks were idled because there simply were no parts once something broke. And the ability of a German general to shut down production lines while marginal improvements were made was legend.
Having the best broken equipment in insufficient numbers is a sure way to lose a war. Even a Field Marshal like Montgomery could eventually win a war against such an enemy.
I don't know if I've heard that. One of the main problems was Hitler's Nazi regime loved chaos and to play "divide and conquer" in order to insure his power was secured by constantly having territorial-sycophants currying favor while they were played-off against one-another. As a result, you had multiple competing projects wastefully pursuing the same research causing production problems. Their reliance on French made trucks captured in 1940 for Barbarossa, for instance, caused huge logistical problems for them in Russia. One of the many problems the Germans had was the gauge of railway tracks was a different size in the Soviet Union meaning they had to relay track to use German trains. This also caused a massive supply problem and in no small part led to the lack of winter gear in 1941 for the Battle of Moscow, their first major strategic setback. As did the Non-Aggression Pact with the Japanese, the one that freed up tens of thousands of well trained (for winter fighting) and well equipped Siberian reinforcements used to Push the Heer back from Moscow...
th
Originally Posted By: Wolf359
I think the T-34 had the same types of problems. Sometimes they'd strap spare engines on it before going into battle. I think someone else made the claim that they lasted the life of the tank which was about 200 miles or so before they got destroyed. The real problem was that the tank was rushed into battle without getting the bugs worked out. It was designed in response to the T-34.
The T-34 was a pile. There, I said it. It was a bad tank with an overblown reputation. It was a thrown-together, poorly-built contraption with dreadful build quality, terrible optics, a 2-man turret (the commander was also the gunner), a balky turret drive, terrible visibility, no radios, and an incredibly-cramped fighting compartment (that, incidentally, made escape from a burning T-34 almost impossible). Note the T-34 NEVER had a loss ratio better than 3:1! More than 80% of T-34s produced were destroyed.
Originally Posted By: Wolf359
I think the T-34 had the same types of problems. Sometimes they'd strap spare engines on it before going into battle. I think someone else made the claim that they lasted the life of the tank which was about 200 miles or so before they got destroyed. The real problem was that the tank was rushed into battle without getting the bugs worked out. It was designed in response to the T-34.
The T-34 was a pile. There, I said it. It was a bad tank with an overblown reputation. It was a thrown-together, poorly-built contraption with dreadful build quality, terrible optics, a 2-man turret (the commander was also the gunner), a balky turret drive, terrible visibility, no radios, and an incredibly-cramped fighting compartment (that, incidentally, made escape from a burning T-34 almost impossible). Note the T-34 NEVER had a loss ratio better than 3:1! More than 80% of T-34s produced were destroyed.
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
The T-34 was a pile. There, I said it. It was a bad tank with an overblown reputation. It was a thrown-together, poorly-built contraption with dreadful build quality, terrible optics, a 2-man turret (the commander was also the gunner), a balky turret drive, terrible visibility, no radios, and an incredibly-cramped fighting compartment (that, incidentally, made escape from a burning T-34 almost impossible). Note the T-34 NEVER had a loss ratio better than 3:1! More than 80% of T-34s produced were destroyed.
I agree the reputation is overblown a bit, but otherwise hogwash. It was a good design, some were "thrown together", others were more carefully built once the German threat was reduced. That's a production issue under duress and not a design flaw, in fact that's a strengh because they could be churned out whereas the Tiger had to be meticulously machined!
The optics weren't great but they were sufficient and the problem with the turret was solved with the T-34/85 (85mm gun) series. The visibility was also improved, not having radios isn't the fault of the tank design, though some of the commanders' tanks did have radios in fact.
As far as the loss ratio, the Soviets were mostly winning, which meant (like the Western Allies) that they were more exposed and suffered higher casualties against a desperate enemy fighting on the defensive after 1942...
They certainly did achieve better loss ratios at certain points, like in the beginning of Operation Bagration (their offensive that coincided with D-Day) or in the final collapse of German resistance...
Experience in the Korean War showed that the T-34/85 was roughly equal to the Sherman M-4A3E8 (76mm HVSS), both the final versions though the Sherman tended to do better due to optics, crew training, and experience...
The T-34 was a pile. There, I said it. It was a bad tank with an overblown reputation. It was a thrown-together, poorly-built contraption with dreadful build quality, terrible optics, a 2-man turret (the commander was also the gunner), a balky turret drive, terrible visibility, no radios, and an incredibly-cramped fighting compartment (that, incidentally, made escape from a burning T-34 almost impossible). Note the T-34 NEVER had a loss ratio better than 3:1! More than 80% of T-34s produced were destroyed.
I agree the reputation is overblown a bit, but otherwise hogwash. It was a good design, some were "thrown together", others were more carefully built once the German threat was reduced. That's a production issue under duress and not a design flaw, in fact that's a strengh because they could be churned out whereas the Tiger had to be meticulously machined!
The optics weren't great but they were sufficient and the problem with the turret was solved with the T-34/85 (85mm gun) series. The visibility was also improved, not having radios isn't the fault of the tank design, though some of the commanders' tanks did have radios in fact.
As far as the loss ratio, the Soviets were mostly winning, which meant (like the Western Allies) that they were more exposed and suffered higher casualties against a desperate enemy fighting on the defensive after 1942...
They certainly did achieve better loss ratios at certain points, like in the beginning of Operation Bagration (their offensive that coincided with D-Day) or in the final collapse of German resistance...
Experience in the Korean War showed that the T-34/85 was roughly equal to the Sherman M-4A3E8 (76mm HVSS), both the final versions though the Sherman tended to do better due to optics, crew training, and experience...
Pablum. The Army actually tested a T-34 (the later 34/85 version), and "underwhelmed" was an understatement.
Even in 1945, the Soviets lost more tanks than the Germans.
Many T-34s left the factory with serious problems: bad welds, bad electrics, flawed castings, etc. Offhand, this was done by a 50mm shot that should have bounced off:
Directly from a New Zealader who fought them in Korea:
Quote:
‘And now, Sir, a few words for your private ear on the T 34. I assume that the tks given by Joe to Mr. Wu are old models. Even so they were grossly overrated in press reports in the early days of the KOREAN Camaign. (A well placed HE shell from a 20 pr will lift the turret off). Only about 4 per Sqn have wrls and their armour is of poor quality. The whole tk is of the crudest workmanship, and breaks down with the greatest ease. (In fairness I must add that this may be due to inexperienced CHINESE crew). They would have to be used in mass, RUSSIAN fashion, to be any treat to a well trained, well equipped Army, as they have been proved somewhat inferior to the SHERMAN. A CENTURION will do to them what a TIGER did to the SHERMAN. They got their initial build up as a scapegoat to cover the natural and understandable, fact that the first American tps over here were raw, frightened boys who were also soft from occupational duties in JAPAN. The T 34, I am convinced, should be de-bunked. It is a workable tk, but NOT a wonder tk’.
Even in 1945, the Soviets lost more tanks than the Germans.
Many T-34s left the factory with serious problems: bad welds, bad electrics, flawed castings, etc. Offhand, this was done by a 50mm shot that should have bounced off:
Directly from a New Zealader who fought them in Korea:
Quote:
‘And now, Sir, a few words for your private ear on the T 34. I assume that the tks given by Joe to Mr. Wu are old models. Even so they were grossly overrated in press reports in the early days of the KOREAN Camaign. (A well placed HE shell from a 20 pr will lift the turret off). Only about 4 per Sqn have wrls and their armour is of poor quality. The whole tk is of the crudest workmanship, and breaks down with the greatest ease. (In fairness I must add that this may be due to inexperienced CHINESE crew). They would have to be used in mass, RUSSIAN fashion, to be any treat to a well trained, well equipped Army, as they have been proved somewhat inferior to the SHERMAN. A CENTURION will do to them what a TIGER did to the SHERMAN. They got their initial build up as a scapegoat to cover the natural and understandable, fact that the first American tps over here were raw, frightened boys who were also soft from occupational duties in JAPAN. The T 34, I am convinced, should be de-bunked. It is a workable tk, but NOT a wonder tk’.
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Pablum. The Army actually tested a T-34 (the later 34/85 version), and "underwhelmed" was an understatement.
Even in 1945, the Soviets lost more tanks than the Germans.
Many T-34s left the factory with serious problems: bad welds, bad electrics, flawed castings, etc. Offhand, this was done by a 50mm shot that should have bounced off:
You're nitpicking and any of that could apply to some version of just about any tank!
Quote:
Directly from a New Zealader who fought them in Korea:
Quote:
‘And now, Sir, a few words for your private ear on the T 34. I assume that the tks given by Joe to Mr. Wu are old models. Even so they were grossly overrated in press reports in the early days of the KOREAN Camaign. (A well placed HE shell from a 20 pr will lift the turret off). Only about 4 per Sqn have wrls and their armour is of poor quality. The whole tk is of the crudest workmanship, and breaks down with the greatest ease. (In fairness I must add that this may be due to inexperienced CHINESE crew). They would have to be used in mass, RUSSIAN fashion, to be any treat to a well trained, well equipped Army, as they have been proved somewhat inferior to the SHERMAN. A CENTURION will do to them what a TIGER did to the SHERMAN. They got their initial build up as a scapegoat to cover the natural and understandable, fact that the first American tps over here were raw, frightened boys who were also soft from occupational duties in JAPAN. The T 34, I am convinced, should be de-bunked. It is a workable tk, but NOT a wonder tk’.
This is sort of like saying, "my 2016 Corvette Stingray will smoke your 2004 'Vette!" It's supposed too!!!
The Centurion was a seminal Cold War tank and the Brit MBT counter to our Pattons. The true Soviet match-up would have been the T-44/T-54/55 series, which was also quite a good tank still in service. Not the T-34,which was already old hat but 1950. The Cents were a generation ahead of the T-34 and may or may not have seen some combat at the end of WWII. Yes they very successful against North Korean or Chinese manned T-34/85's but really they should have been! He's also making a wider point about how many were panicky over how the T-34 rolled over our initial M-24 Chaffee (light, recon) tanks in the early part of the conflict in some sort of reassurance propaganda and yes, that wasn't a fair fight either...
I already mentioned they were "somewhat inferior" to the Shermans...
Here's what the German commanders said about initially encountering the T-34/76:
Quote:
"Very worrying", Colonel-General Heinz Guderian, Commander of Second Panzer Army.
"We had nothing comparable", Major-General F.W. Mellenthin, Chief of Staff of XLVIII Panzer Corps.
"The finest tank in the world", Field-Marshal Ewald von Kleist, First Panzer Army.
"This tank (T-34) adversely affected the morale of the German infantry", General G. Blumentritt.
Pablum. The Army actually tested a T-34 (the later 34/85 version), and "underwhelmed" was an understatement.
Even in 1945, the Soviets lost more tanks than the Germans.
Many T-34s left the factory with serious problems: bad welds, bad electrics, flawed castings, etc. Offhand, this was done by a 50mm shot that should have bounced off:
You're nitpicking and any of that could apply to some version of just about any tank!
Quote:
Directly from a New Zealader who fought them in Korea:
Quote:
‘And now, Sir, a few words for your private ear on the T 34. I assume that the tks given by Joe to Mr. Wu are old models. Even so they were grossly overrated in press reports in the early days of the KOREAN Camaign. (A well placed HE shell from a 20 pr will lift the turret off). Only about 4 per Sqn have wrls and their armour is of poor quality. The whole tk is of the crudest workmanship, and breaks down with the greatest ease. (In fairness I must add that this may be due to inexperienced CHINESE crew). They would have to be used in mass, RUSSIAN fashion, to be any treat to a well trained, well equipped Army, as they have been proved somewhat inferior to the SHERMAN. A CENTURION will do to them what a TIGER did to the SHERMAN. They got their initial build up as a scapegoat to cover the natural and understandable, fact that the first American tps over here were raw, frightened boys who were also soft from occupational duties in JAPAN. The T 34, I am convinced, should be de-bunked. It is a workable tk, but NOT a wonder tk’.
This is sort of like saying, "my 2016 Corvette Stingray will smoke your 2004 'Vette!" It's supposed too!!!
The Centurion was a seminal Cold War tank and the Brit MBT counter to our Pattons. The true Soviet match-up would have been the T-44/T-54/55 series, which was also quite a good tank still in service. Not the T-34,which was already old hat but 1950. The Cents were a generation ahead of the T-34 and may or may not have seen some combat at the end of WWII. Yes they very successful against North Korean or Chinese manned T-34/85's but really they should have been! He's also making a wider point about how many were panicky over how the T-34 rolled over our initial M-24 Chaffee (light, recon) tanks in the early part of the conflict in some sort of reassurance propaganda and yes, that wasn't a fair fight either...
I already mentioned they were "somewhat inferior" to the Shermans...
Here's what the German commanders said about initially encountering the T-34/76:
Quote:
"Very worrying", Colonel-General Heinz Guderian, Commander of Second Panzer Army.
"We had nothing comparable", Major-General F.W. Mellenthin, Chief of Staff of XLVIII Panzer Corps.
"The finest tank in the world", Field-Marshal Ewald von Kleist, First Panzer Army.
"This tank (T-34) adversely affected the morale of the German infantry", General G. Blumentritt.
http://english.battlefield.ru/memoirs/69-dmitriy-loza.html
Soviet tankie on the Sherman. He quite liked it, but he's mostly considering creature comforts (which are of course important) and doesn't make an overall comparison of combat effectiveness with the T-34.
For example:-
"Still one great plus of the Sherman was in the charging of its batteries. On our T-34 it was necessary to run the engine, all 500 horsepower of it, in order to charge batteries. In the crew compartment of the Sherman was an auxiliary gasoline engine, small like a motorcycle's one. Start it up and it charged the batteries. This was a big deal to us!"
The British stuff was of course rubbish, and they stopped accepting it when things got less desperate.
Soviet tankie on the Sherman. He quite liked it, but he's mostly considering creature comforts (which are of course important) and doesn't make an overall comparison of combat effectiveness with the T-34.
For example:-
"Still one great plus of the Sherman was in the charging of its batteries. On our T-34 it was necessary to run the engine, all 500 horsepower of it, in order to charge batteries. In the crew compartment of the Sherman was an auxiliary gasoline engine, small like a motorcycle's one. Start it up and it charged the batteries. This was a big deal to us!"
The British stuff was of course rubbish, and they stopped accepting it when things got less desperate.
Originally Posted By: Ducked
http://english.battlefield.ru/memoirs/69-dmitriy-loza.html
Soviet tankie on the Sherman. He quite liked it, but he's mostly considering creature comforts (which are of course important) and doesn't make an overall comparison of combat effectiveness with the T-34.
For example:-
"Still one great plus of the Sherman was in the charging of its batteries. On our T-34 it was necessary to run the engine, all 500 horsepower of it, in order to charge batteries. In the crew compartment of the Sherman was an auxiliary gasoline engine, small like a motorcycle's one. Start it up and it charged the batteries. This was a big deal to us!"
The British stuff was of course rubbish, and they stopped accepting it when things got less desperate.
The Soviets used the Shermans (with higher velocity 76mm guns and diesel engines mostly) in their elite Guards units and they were generally liked. One of the only U.S.-British weapons systems they liked. They made better use of our Dodge Trucks though...
http://english.battlefield.ru/memoirs/69-dmitriy-loza.html
Soviet tankie on the Sherman. He quite liked it, but he's mostly considering creature comforts (which are of course important) and doesn't make an overall comparison of combat effectiveness with the T-34.
For example:-
"Still one great plus of the Sherman was in the charging of its batteries. On our T-34 it was necessary to run the engine, all 500 horsepower of it, in order to charge batteries. In the crew compartment of the Sherman was an auxiliary gasoline engine, small like a motorcycle's one. Start it up and it charged the batteries. This was a big deal to us!"
The British stuff was of course rubbish, and they stopped accepting it when things got less desperate.
The Soviets used the Shermans (with higher velocity 76mm guns and diesel engines mostly) in their elite Guards units and they were generally liked. One of the only U.S.-British weapons systems they liked. They made better use of our Dodge Trucks though...
Red Army summary of Aberdeen Proving Ground evaluation of an early T-34. The comments about the poor quality armour echo those of the tankie above, who notes that the Sherman plate didn't spall off the inside from round impacts like that on the T-34 did.
http://english.battlefield.ru/documents/29-technics/95-evaluation-of-the-t-34-and-kv.html
http://english.battlefield.ru/documents/29-technics/95-evaluation-of-the-t-34-and-kv.html
- Status
Similar threads
