Military Review

T-34 under enemy fire. Facts and statistics

63

Source: t34inform.ru


Tank to be reckoned with


In the previous part of the story it was about the analytical report of TsNII-48, which came out in the second year of the war and dealt with the defeat tanks T-34. There was also another point of view on the peculiarities of the domestic tank. In the pre-war period, the Germans did not have accurate data on the new technology of the Soviet Union and quite peculiarly assessed the combat potential of the Red Army's armor.

So, on December 23, 1940, Franz Halder writes in his diary:

“Scant data on Russian tanks; inferior to our tanks in armor thickness and speed. The maximum booking is 30 mm. The 45 mm cannon penetrates our tanks from a distance of 300 meters. The maximum range of a direct shot is 500 meters. Safe at a distance of 800 meters. The optical instruments are very bad: dull glasses, small angle of view. The control mechanism is not important. "

The journal "Technics and Armament" cites the words of an infantryman, strikingly different from the stated opinion of the military leader:

“There were very fast heavy enemy tanks with a 7,62 cm gun, which fired perfectly from long distances. Our tanks are clearly inferior to them. The 3,7-cm anti-tank gun is powerless against them, except at close range, the 8,8-cm anti-aircraft gun - at distances above average. "

Such a response was received by domestic tanks already during the battles in Ukraine. Such assessments from the soldiers were not uncommon, and German tank theorists needed to do something.

T-34 under enemy fire. Facts and statistics

Source: waralbum.ru

On May 26, 1942, another training manual with the rules of warfare appears in the Wehrmacht, but now it was devoted exclusively to the fight against the T-34. It contains, among other things, amusing instructions. So, the 50-mm KwK gun was recommended to fire exclusively at the stern and sides of the tank, while directing the projectile perpendicular to the armor. Anyone who was familiar with the contours of the T-34 will understand that for such a focus, either the attack tank must be on a hill, or the Soviet vehicle must sink aboard. According to the training manual, the 75-mm PaK 40 cannon has proven itself well, which successfully hit the armored mask of the T-34 gun with a Hohlgranate cumulative projectile. Of the tanks, only the T-IV could attack a Soviet vehicle frontally - its armor markedly increased the chances of survival. But the T-III was ordered in no case to go out towards the Soviet machine. Attack only on the side, and preferably in the stern, and exclusively with PzGr40 shells. For greater importance, it was possible to shower the T-34 with smoke grenades and give the crew the impression of a chemical attack.

In other discussions about the fight against a Soviet tank, the Germans had to dispel myths. For example, about the ability of the T-34 to move without tracks like the BT series tanks. The Wehrmacht anti-tank crews seriously thought that there was no point in shooting at the tracks of advancing tanks: they still would not lose mobility.


Source: waralbum.ru

Despite such a flattering assessment of the combat effectiveness of the T-34 on the battlefields of 1941, the Germans themselves explained why the Soviet tankers could not break the resistance of the Wehrmacht. First of all, this is the tactics of spraying tank formations - the exact opposite of the methods of the offensive of German armored vehicles. For very many reasons, it was not possible to concentrate the tank formations of the Red Army to break through the defenses of the Wehrmacht. If the first drawback was associated with the operational command, then the second already related to the tactical, technical and layout characteristics. According to the Germans, the weak point was the tank commander, who at the same time fulfills the duties of the gunner, which seriously reduced the effectiveness of the T-34. While the Soviet tank fired one round, the T-IV managed to fire three in its direction! This allowed the Germans to aim more carefully and hit the vulnerable spots of the tank. The T-34 turret rotated relatively slowly, which should have been taken into account by the assault gun crews during the attack. And finally, not all vehicles had a radio transmitter necessary as air; in fact, only the company commander had it. The Germans calculated the leading T-34 in the attacking order and destroyed it first. The rest of the crews, who had lost their commander, were forced to continue to act in battle without communication, according to the situation. Naturally, this greatly simplified combat missions for the Germans.

Mournful statistics


Let's get acquainted with the conclusions of the first part stories report TsNII-48, dated autumn 1942. To what extent did German rhetoric affect the lives of the crews and the combat damage of the T-34? As expected, the upper frontal piece was the strongest part of the tank. On average, 82% of all hits by German artillery did not pose a significant threat to the tank. Only guns with a caliber of over 75 mm could successfully fight tanks in such situations. At the same time, the 105-mm field gun caused not only through penetrations in the parts, but also breaks with numerous cracks. But the percentage of such fatal hits was less than one. Moreover, every tenth shell of such a large caliber (105 mm) did not penetrate the T-34's forehead. But the 88-mm cannon in 100% of cases hit a domestic tank in this projection. In TsNII-48 they did not find a single dent from acht-acht - only penetrating lesions. It is noteworthy that the engineers of the Armored Institute found through holes on the VLD from ... a 20-mm gun! The authors of the report suggested the operation of a sub-caliber projectile. As mentioned earlier, the T-34s were the main targets of the German artillery of all calibers. The guns of 37 mm and 50 mm calibers coped worst of all with the side armor, all the others penetrated the tank with a very high probability. Even 20-mm APCR shells were guaranteed to hit sloped armor from side projections. The most exotic defeat of the tank was a shell hitting the roof of the hull - 1 case out of 154. Many vehicles, in medical terms, had combined injuries from fire, artillery and mines. Only 5,9% of all studied T-34s were blown up by mines, but the consequences were fatal: a torn bottom, torn off by an explosion of ammunition in the tower and the roof of the engine compartment.

Now about the damageability of the T-34 turret. The Germans, for obvious reasons, fell into it much less often. For example, on 178 tanks studied, not a single trace of 88 mm shells was found on the front of the turret. The Germans got into the specified projection only from 20-mm, 50-mm and 75-mm calibers. Moreover, 70% of all lesions were through. Attached to the sides of the tower, the proportion of dangerous hits increased to 76%. Naturally, the turret and hull stern were the least susceptible to attacks: 13 and 19 hits, respectively. Most of them were fatal to machines.

The quality of the armor by TsNII-48 specialists was finally recognized as satisfactory. For highly hard rolled armor, few brittle lesions were recorded - 3,9% (breaks, cracks and splits). The main drawback of the T-34 was recognized by the Armored Institute specialists ... the crew! The tankers could not fully use the advantages of the armored vehicles entrusted to them and substituted the sides for enemy artillery fire. Moreover, they were inattentive on the battlefield and missed the firing points of the Germans. All this ultimately led the research engineers to the idea of ​​a sharp increase in the tactical training of T-34 crews. However, TsNII-48 still makes condescension and casually mentions some design features of the tank that do not allow full observation of the battlefield. Such statistics of losses and defeats of tanks did not last long: with the advent of heavy German tanks, it became very difficult for domestic armored vehicles on the battlefield.


Source: waralbum.ru

If you move to July-August 1943 in the Kursk region, the statistics will be much more tragic. According to front reports, the main players at that time were "Tigers" and, especially in the Oryol-Kursk operation, self-propelled guns "Ferdinand". As a result, the percentage of complete deaths of all types of tanks increased to 65%! This, of course, depends on the number of disabled. For comparison: in the Battle of Stalingrad, the proportion of completely destroyed vehicles was two times less. German 75-mm and 88-mm guns this time became the real kings of tank battle: they accounted for up to 81% of Soviet tanks from the number of destroyed ones. In total, 7942 tanks took part in the Oryol-Kursk operation, of which the Wehrmacht knocked out 2738 vehicles. An unusually large number of cars were blown up, up to 13,5%, with no traces of fire inside. In the future, this indicator increased due to the use of cumulative shells by the enemy, causing the detonation of the ammunition load of the T-34 and KV tanks. For example, in November-December 1943, 41% of the destroyed tanks were blown up in the Kursk direction. In many ways, it was such tragic statistics that caused large-scale changes in the design of domestic tanks, which became the gold standard for the whole world for many years.
Author:
Articles from this series:
Defeatability of T-34. Armored Institute report
63 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
    Kote Pan Kokhanka 29 August 2020 06: 51 New
    15
    Thanks to Eugene for the continuation, quite a good study of the problematic issue!
    Regards, Kote!
    1. The leader of the Redskins
      The leader of the Redskins 29 August 2020 07: 07 New
      +7
      I will subscribe to your words, so as not to repeat myself.
      Thank you author!
    2. iouris
      iouris 29 August 2020 12: 07 New
      +5
      Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
      quite a good study of the problematic issue

      This issue has been studied for a long time. The author's merit lies in the fact that, while popularizing the military theme, he refrains from using primitive propaganda clichés about the alleged technological superiority of the USSR over Nazi Germany.
      1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
        Kote Pan Kokhanka 29 August 2020 12: 35 New
        +8
        Look at the author's sources! “These clichés” have not been in scientific literature for half a century, in popular science for 25 years!
        It was necessary to try to reveal the topic in the format of an article, the Author coped with it !!! For which many thanks to him !!!
      2. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 29 August 2020 15: 41 New
        -1
        Quote: iouris
        refrains from using primitive propaganda cliches

        Well, nevertheless, the author did not escape the ritual reference to the diary entries of Halder and some anonymous "infantryman" (it is strange that Karius is forgotten) - this is the tradition of everyone who writes about the T-34) The skepticism about the Manual on combat tactics is not entirely clear with the T-34, but even though there are no bravura reports that the appearance of the T-34 had the effect of an exploding bomb and shocked everyone - from the private to the highest ranks of the OKH.
        1. tima_ga
          tima_ga 29 August 2020 16: 33 New
          +4
          I haven’t heard about the effect of an exploding bomb, but the fact that the meeting with 34 in 41 was an unpleasant surprise for the Germans is a fact. However, they immediately began to develop countermeasures.
          1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
            Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 29 August 2020 16: 58 New
            +1
            Quote: tima_ga
            Haven't heard of the bomb blast effect

            was, was) This is usually illustrated by quotes from Otto Carius. Well, here you can understand him - sitting in a tin can of LT-38 in the summer of 41, when meeting with 34, you can completely put it in overalls)
            Quote: tima_ga
            the meeting with 34 in 41 was an unpleasant surprise for the Germans - this is a fact. However, they immediately began to develop countermeasures.

            yes, that's right.
            1. hohol95
              hohol95 29 August 2020 18: 46 New
              +1
              Forgot to add that the Germans saw the "fantastic T-34" only in the winter of 1941!
            2. Jager
              Jager 30 August 2020 20: 42 New
              0
              Eh, in vain the gunner of that "forty-five" in the forehead of the LT-38, it was necessary to hit him in the tower, You look, one "ace" and a liar was written off with the issuance of a birch cross instead of an iron one.
          2. Bulgarian
            Bulgarian 30 August 2020 08: 43 New
            0
            Germans would not be Germans.
          3. Hagen
            Hagen 30 August 2020 12: 59 New
            +2
            Quote: tima_ga
            However, they immediately began to develop countermeasures.

            It is interesting to note that this reaction, the increase in the thickness of the armor and the replacement of the gun, took the Germans a little more than six months. We did not react at all to the appearance of the Pz-IVF2, although starting with that the Pz T-34 lost its advantages. Affected by the tension of evacuation measures and the incomprehensible forecast of the GABTU at the end of 1942 about the absence of expectations of an increase in the increase in the thickness of the armor protection of enemy tanks. And having received the Tiger in January 1943, they fired at him only in April. It is clear that by the summer campaign they did not have time to do anything and found themselves without effective anti-tank artillery right up to 1944.
            1. Jager
              Jager 30 August 2020 20: 46 New
              +2
              Throughout the summer of 42 and until the beginning of 43, the USSR was solving problems with the production of cars, almost everything was missing ... Then the quality was tightened, but while they were swinging, it was already necessary to change the entire tank fleet ...
  2. Aaron Zawi
    Aaron Zawi 29 August 2020 08: 49 New
    +7
    Very conscientious work. Thank.
  3. Dimka75
    Dimka75 29 August 2020 08: 53 New
    14
    the main players at that time were the Tigers and, especially in the Oryol-Kursk operation, the Ferdinand self-propelled guns.

    And again (again) from author to author it is argued that the Red Army in 1943 is opposed by the armada of Ferdinands (senseless and merciless, in the amount of 68 pieces).
    1. VIP
      VIP 29 August 2020 15: 04 New
      +1
      Yes, they were few, but they did a lot of Skoda
    2. sharp-lad
      sharp-lad 29 August 2020 21: 28 New
      +1
      According to front reports, the main players at that time were "Tigers" and, especially in the Oryol-Kursk operation, self-propelled guns "Ferdinand".
      The author quite correctly mentioned "Ferdinands".
    3. Jager
      Jager 30 August 2020 20: 49 New
      +2
      Do not forget that the Wehrmacht had a large number of self-propelled guns. Can you tell the Nashorn from the Ferdinand from a kilometer or a half away? I am silent about Stugi, there were a huge number of them. In addition, they partly related to artillery and in the reports of "standard" armored vehicles might not appear at all.
      1. svp67
        svp67 8 September 2020 07: 03 New
        -1
        Quote: Jager
        Can you tell the Nashorn from the Ferdinand from a kilometer or a half away?

        Unlike "Elephant", "Naskhorka" was not thrown into attacks. And it was there that they were used as "quality reinforcement tanks" to break through our defenses. Which of course was a big stupidity on their part, but the qualities, especially in terms of security, were very impressive for “Elephant”.
    4. svp67
      svp67 8 September 2020 07: 00 New
      -1
      Quote: Dimka75
      that the Red Army in 1943 is opposed by the armada of Ferdinands (senseless and merciless, in the amount of 68 pieces).

      And there are dozens of such machines "enough for the eyes." They were not used on the entire Soviet-German front, but on a narrow sector.
      Although you are forgiven, you are just an amateur who knows little about such matters.
  4. Bormanxnumx
    Bormanxnumx 29 August 2020 09: 03 New
    +4
    According to the training manual, the 75-mm PaK 40 cannon has proven itself well, which successfully hit the T-34 armored mask with the Hohlgranate cumulative projectile.

    This is probably a translation inaccuracy.
    The Germans clearly "guessed" that the PzGr.39 fired from the PaK40 penetrates the T-34 from any angle from a distance of up to 1 km.
    1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
      Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 29 August 2020 13: 13 New
      0
      Quote: BORMAN82
      The Germans clearly "guessed" that the PzGr.39 fired from the PaK40 penetrates the T-34 from any angle from a distance of up to 1 km.

      in the "Manual ..." about KwK 40:
      ... Of the 75 mm tank gun 43, as well as a hollow grenade, T-34 armor breaks through at a distance of 1000m

      (TsAMO, Fund: 3181, Inventory: 0000001, File: 0002, Sheet of the beginning of the document in the file: 59)
    2. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 29 August 2020 14: 20 New
      +4
      In general, some kind of muddy episode. What does the newest Pak40 have to do with it, which in 42 had just begun to appear at the front? What does the cumul PzGr. 38 HL / B, if the conventional AP of this weapon worked much more efficiently?

      It was thought that someone confused something and meant the infantry gun 7.5 cm le.IG 18. Here is its cumul 7,5 cm Igr. 38 and especially the HL / A showed itself just fine, but, of course, at extremely small distances ...
      1. The comment was deleted.
  5. Vovk
    Vovk 29 August 2020 09: 36 New
    +1
    It would be nice to add optics to the combat shortcomings of the 34-1940 T-1942, or rather its almost complete absence. If the sight was still more or less mediocre, then everything else ... and in fact, even during the design, the use of prismatic optical observing devices was provided, but it was the highest military leadership of the USSR that hacked this plan and demanded to be replaced with ATTENTION !!! on polished steel surfaces. What could the crew see in them? Therefore, tank crews went into battle almost blindly, and the driver rarely drove a car with a closed hatch on the frontal armor. And you know another curiosity of the war, some of the T-34 STZs produced at the beginning of the war were accepted by military acceptance without sights at all, and tank crews were "hung up noodles" that they would calmly remove sights from German tanks and put them on the T-34 ... and after the first fight, this noodles flew ...
    Well, about the heavy turret hatch, which became the killer of a large number of crews, after the destruction of the tank, there is nothing to say ...
    1. Jager
      Jager 30 August 2020 20: 54 New
      +1
      Proofs about scopes in the studio! And it smells like blatant nonsense a la Suvorov-Rezun. In the last days of the STZ operation, already under fire, the tanks were not painted, were not equipped with spare parts, and often there was no electric fan for suction of powder gases in the tower. But about scopes, this is generally game, it was not so!
      1. Andrew Matseevsky
        Andrew Matseevsky 12 October 2020 03: 48 New
        -1
        A story told by an old tanker who came from Israel (!) For some anniversary of the Battle of Kursk. According to him, they actually removed the hired eightfold sights from the wrecked tanks and put them on their thirty-fours instead of their native fourfold. And the special officers chased them for it! Apparently for the sycophancy of German technology. This is how this audience approached the victory. Yes, he also wrote that the only thing that could be done with the Tiger was to shoot at the side from close range. However, for this it was necessary to drive up to him. But as that tanker said, the Tiger had a slower turret than the thirty-four, and that generally helped.
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 31 August 2020 13: 43 New
      0
      Already fat has flowed from the monitor.
  6. Avior
    Avior 29 August 2020 10: 57 New
    +1
    Halder writes not just about the T-34, but about Soviet tanks in general, the T-34 at that time was a minority.
    ... the strongest part of the tank was the upper frontal part.

    If it were not for the large holes cut in the armor for the machine gun and the mechanic drive hatch.
    And I would not interpret the recommendation of the Germans to shoot at the side as evidence of anything other than that the instruction, as expected, recommended shooting at the weakest points.
  7. Mik13
    Mik13 29 August 2020 11: 51 New
    +5
    So, the 50-mm KwK gun was recommended to fire exclusively at the stern and sides of the tank, while directing the projectile perpendicular to the armor. Anyone who was familiar with the contours of the T-34 will understand that for such a focus, either the attacking tank must be on a hill, or the Soviet vehicle must sink aboard.

    Obviously, this is the heading angle, not the vertical one.
  8. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
    Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 29 August 2020 12: 46 New
    0
    According to the manual, the 75-mm PaK 40 cannon has proven itself well,


    the manual is not about the PaK 40 anti-tank gun, but about the 7.5 cm KwK 40 L / 43 tank gun.
    1. Alf
      Alf 29 August 2020 16: 56 New
      +1
      Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
      According to the manual, the 75-mm PaK 40 cannon has proven itself well,


      the manual is not about the PaK 40 anti-tank gun, but about the 7.5 cm KwK 40 L / 43 tank gun.

      Who cares ? The ballistic data of both guns is the same.
      1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 29 August 2020 17: 11 New
        +2
        Quote: Alf
        Who cares ?

        well, if the author is not important, then the tiger KwK 36 L / 56 can be called a bottle 36)

        Don't be nagging, but I suppose those who write such essays should be careful about details.
        1. Alf
          Alf 29 August 2020 17: 45 New
          +2
          Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
          Quote: Alf
          Who cares ?

          well, if the author is not important, then the tiger KwK 36 L / 56 can be called a bottle 36)

          Don't be nagging, but I suppose those who write such essays should be careful about details.

          Well, by and large, you are right.
  9. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
    Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 29 August 2020 13: 54 New
    +1
    It contains, among other things, amusing instructions. So, the 50-mm KwK gun was recommended to fire exclusively at the stern and sides of the tank, while directing the projectile perpendicular to the armor. Anyone who was familiar with the contours of the T-34 will understand that for such a focus, either the attack tank must be on a hill, or the Soviet vehicle must sink aboard.


    I don't quite understand what the author finds amusing. Translator's blooper? This means, of course, the frontal plane of the enemy tank's hull, not the slope of the armor. If the author considers himself immersed in the topic, then he is obviously familiar with, say, the Panzer Beschusstafel dated 15.02.1943/XNUMX/XNUMX, containing tips for shooting 5 cm KwK 39/1 and 39/2, an overview of the "weak points" of enemy tanks and the upper limit of the range of confident defeat. Point 5 deals with the importance of choosing the angle of attack. And, of course, the result is "guaranteed" only when using the Pzgr 40.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 31 August 2020 13: 54 New
      +1
      Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
      I don't quite understand what the author finds amusing. Translator's blooper? This means, of course, the frontal plane of the enemy tank's hull, not the slope of the armor.

      In fact, when shooting at the side of the T-34, you can achieve a clean hit along the normal. Because the sloped armor ends above the tracks, and below there is a vertical section (also weakened by the cutouts for the balancers). And behind him are the tanks.
      1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 31 August 2020 14: 10 New
        0
        According to Beschusstafel all the side projection of the T-34 hull is confidently amazed (even so - it has a Vernichtende Wirkung) 5 cm Pzgr 39 (up to 400 m) and Pzgr 40 (up to 350 m)
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 31 August 2020 14: 16 New
          +1
          Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
          According to Beschusstafel, the entire side projection of the T-34 hull is confidently affected (even so - it has a Vernichtende Wirkung) 5 cm Pzgr 39 (up to 400 m) and Pzgr 40 (up to 350 m)

          Not surprising.
          50-mm anti-tank gun PaK.38, ordinary armor-piercing:
          The 75-mm sheet normal showed the back strength limit of 700 m, the through penetration limit of 400 m. That is, starting from a distance of 700 m and closer PaK.38 can penetrate unshielded HF armor, with 400 m it is guaranteed to break through.
          The 45-mm sheet along the normal showed the through penetration limit of 1500 m, at an angle of 30 degrees to the normal 1300 m.
          That is, PaK.38 confidently hits the T-34 in the side and the tower at any real combat distance.

          50-mm anti-tank gun PaK.38, sub-caliber:
          The 75-mm sheet normal showed the back strength of 870 m, the through penetration of 740 m, at an angle of 30 degrees to the normal of 530 and 470 m, respectively.
          The 45-mm sheet along the normal showed the through penetration limit of 1300 m, at an angle of 30 degrees to the normal 700 m.
          © Results of tests of captured BBS on domestic armor. Gorokhovets training ground from October 9 to November 4, 1942
  10. Viktor Sergeev
    Viktor Sergeev 29 August 2020 17: 16 New
    0
    What does Ferdinand's tigers have to do with the Kursk Bulge, if there were very few of them?
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 31 August 2020 14: 18 New
      +2
      Quote: Victor Sergeev
      What does Ferdinand's tigers have to do with the Kursk Bulge, if there were very few of them?

      We read carefully:
      According to front reports, the main players at that time were "Tigers" and, especially in the Oryol-Kursk operation, self-propelled guns "Ferdinand".

      That is, this is not an entirely objective reality, but a reality given to us through the prism of domestic documents. Where later "fours" were regularly recorded in "tigers", and self-propelled guns with a rear wheelhouse - in "ferdinands".
  11. Pavel57
    Pavel57 29 August 2020 20: 23 New
    +1
    Harsh statistics.
  12. Corrie sanders
    Corrie sanders 29 August 2020 22: 46 New
    +3
    German 75-mm and 88-mm guns this time became the real kings of tank battle: they accounted for up to 81% of Soviet tanks from the number of destroyed ones. In total, 7942 tanks participated in the Oryol-Kursk operation, of which the Wehrmacht knocked out 2738 vehicles.
    yeah, again from the series "under Prokhorovka, the Wehrmacht lost 3 tanks" @ hartman-karius-rudel (ugh on them). Only a month later, the fighter Chonkin washed footcloths in the Dnieper, and the invincible ubermensch pulled together raw unfinished goods from all the undershoots, as well as French tanks mod 38-40.More than 50% of the T-34's losses were due to technical breakdowns in battle - gearbox breakdown, engine wedge due to excessive consumption of oil or overheating, fractures of the gear teeth, etc. This is about half the fault of the factories where hungry women and adolescents worked, half - on the prohibitively low technical culture of operating the tank, due to the technical lack of education of the rural population, since mainly collective farm tractor drivers or their assistants were sent to the mechanized drivers. On the pages of waste paper, they destroy our tanks by the thousands, but in fact, these unreliable and hard-to-drive vehicles with shitty optics and a 1940 model cannon with mediocre armor penetration, beat them continuously, starting with the same Kursk-Orlovskaya, Panzerwaffe were beaten always and everywhere , gloomy and irresistible. And this despite the fact that it was the T-1944-34 that fought throughout 76, new tanks with 85 mm and a good Lend-Lease (Sherman) went widely only from the beginning of 1945.
    1. Zum
      Zum 30 August 2020 11: 37 New
      +1
      A lot of pathos ... in your comments ... most of the losses of tanks from the Wehrmacht and the SS, this is ......... detonation on a mine or artillery fire following from self-propelled guns ..... meager the percentage falls on tanks .....
      1. Corrie sanders
        Corrie sanders 30 August 2020 22: 05 New
        0
        I completely agree, so medium tanks mainly served to combat sheltered infantry and light field fortifications, according to which the T-34 ammunition consisted of only 19 BB rounds (BR-350AAP), but as many as 53 HE rounds (F- 354)
    2. pmkemcity
      pmkemcity 31 August 2020 07: 00 New
      0
      I will repeat my post from 18.05.19/XNUMX/XNUMX. So, for coloring ...

      pmkemcity (paul)
      4
      18 May 2019 08: 21
      0
      Soviet and German tank losses in 1942 year. Be careful with the statistics!

      I read it. Smiled. So, for seed author. Military History Journal No. 11 of 1985. Article "Technical Intelligence in Armored and Mechanized Forces during the Great Patriotic War" (Colonels Ivanov EV and Panov Yu.A.). A couple of passages:
      .... suffice it to say that if a failed tank (self-propelled gun), for some reason, was not found on the battlefield or along the route of troop deployment, then with good reason we can assume that from the category of reconstructed it went into the number irrevocably of the lost.
      ... On the 3rd Baltic Front in the operations of 1944 .... technical intelligence revealed 1216 tanks and self-propelled guns requiring repair. Of these, 947 were repaired by means of the front and returned to service, the rest were sent to the repair plants of the Center.
      ... During the Great Patriotic War, repair units and formations restored more than 400 thousand tanks and self-propelled guns. Most of them were repaired in the immediate vicinity of the combat formations of the troops. Thus, the restoration of tanks and self-propelled guns was the main source of maintaining a high level of combat readiness of tank units and formations.
      ... Each repaired tank (self-propelled gun), except those that arrived at the repair site on their own, i.e. about 300 thousand units, was first reconnoitered by technical intelligence agencies, and then evacuated or repaired at the site of failure of the repair team sent to it. Bodies of technical intelligence from 1943 until the end of the war scouted 27 thousand tanks and self-propelled guns that could not be restored. They were removed from serviceable aggregates and units with a total weight of more than 80 thousand tons, an average of 3 tons from each tank and self-propelled guns irretrievable losses.
      Real scales simply overshadow all your guesses ...
  13. Zum
    Zum 30 August 2020 11: 33 New
    0
    Tank .... tank ..... so much has been written about thirty-fours that you can't count ...... it was a tank ..... but there was NO normal ammunition ... well, they didn't know how we make shells and are still lagging behind in this area .....
    There were simply no skilled workers, which could not be said about the Reich ...
  14. certero
    certero 30 August 2020 11: 47 New
    0
    Some historians put forward the opinion that those T-34s, which are described by the Germans as thick-armored and indestructible, are actually KV-1.
    In XNUMX, the Germans still knew very little of our technology, so such mistakes are not surprising.
  15. NF68
    NF68 30 August 2020 16: 07 New
    0
    Moreover, every tenth projectile of such a large caliber (105 mm) did not penetrate the T-34's forehead. But the 88-mm cannon in 100% of cases hit a domestic tank in this projection.


    This is when the Germans fired the OFS or the howitzer fired. Armor-piercing projectile 105 mm. field gun was much more powerful than the 88 mm. an armor-piercing projectile at any distance.
  16. Alex koch
    Alex koch 30 August 2020 18: 04 New
    +1
    Quote: Vovk
    but it was the highest military leadership of the USSR that hacked this plan and demanded to be replaced with ATTENTION !!! on polished steel surfaces

    Perhaps the top military leadership was aware of how things were in the optical industry, and reasonably hesitated to leave tanks without optical devices at all?
  17. Private SA
    Private SA 30 August 2020 18: 06 New
    -2
    Quote: Zum
    There were simply no skilled workers, which could not be said about the Reich

    Only tank diesel engines for the Panzerwaffe could not be produced in the required quantity until the end of the war. And in the USSR they did it.
    Only girls-drillers in factories quickly lost their sharpness
    vision.
    1. NF68
      NF68 30 August 2020 18: 26 New
      +2
      Quote: Private SA
      Quote: Zum
      There were simply no skilled workers, which could not be said about the Reich

      Only tank diesel engines for the Panzerwaffe could not be produced in the required quantity until the end of the war. And in the USSR they did it.
      Only girls-drillers in factories quickly lost their sharpness
      vision.


      Instead of tank diesels, the Germans needed diesel engines for submarines and torpedo boats. Tanks, albeit with a creak, could do with simpler and cheaper carburetor engines.
      1. truck driver
        truck driver 31 August 2020 00: 39 New
        +2
        Maybach simply rolled out his gasoline engines on tanks, the Fritzes had no problems with diesel engines for tanks, as well as with diesel fuel.
        1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
          Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 31 August 2020 15: 54 New
          +2
          Quote: LKW Fahrer
          the Fritzes had no problems with diesels for tanks


          I am amused by the very admission that the Germans could have some problems with a diesel engine of any format and purpose)
        2. NF68
          NF68 1 September 2020 16: 56 New
          0
          Maybach himself developed diesel engines

          http://alternathistory.com/razrabotka-tankovih-dvigatelei-firmy-maybach-v-1930-1940-e-gody/



          Daimler-Benz by the beginning of 1941 developed the MV-809-17,5 liters, 360 hp. and MV-507-440,5 liters, 750 hp. at 1950 rpm. But by this time, the development of the German Air Force was constrained by the lack of aircraft engines produced in the country. It is enough to compare how many aircraft engines were produced by the USA, BI and Germany during WWII:



          In addition, the Germans needed to produce a large number of diesel engines for submarines and torpedo boats, and the possibilities of the German industry were limited. So we had to produce gasoline Maybachs, although the MB-807 would not be a very bad replacement for gasoline Maybachs for 3 and 4, and the MB-507 would very well fit the Tigers, Panthers, Elephants and Jagdtigram with Jagdpanthers.
  18. Private SA
    Private SA 30 August 2020 18: 09 New
    0
    Quote: Zum
    well, we did not know how to make shells and are still lagging behind in this area ...

    What, are depleted uranium cores required? Buy tungsten for lamps
    incandescence practically does not go. Enough of the feathered armor-piercing sabot.
    From 125-mm smoothbore on the T-90 S.
  19. Private SA
    Private SA 31 August 2020 01: 06 New
    -1
    Quote: NF68
    Tanks, albeit with a creak, could do with simpler and cheaper carburetor engines.

    Here are just the mobility of the PZ-VI c "Maybach" on rough terrain and the range ...
    And gasoline since 1944. after the start of the bombing, Ploiesti was no longer enough.
    synthetic oil shale, when these factories were bombed.
    1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
      Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 31 August 2020 15: 50 New
      0
      Quote: Private SA
      And gasoline since 1944. after the start of the bombing, Ploiesti was no longer enough

      and what have the tanks to do with it? Panzerwaffe drove exclusively on low-octane synthetics (Fischer Tropshe)
      The oil was distilled into high-octane C2 aviation gasoline. And even then, 90% of all categories of aviation gasoline accounted for hydrogenation.
      Quote: Private SA
      Even synthetic shale


      and what kind of slurry is this - "synthetic shale"?
    2. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
      Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 31 August 2020 15: 59 New
      +1
      Quote: Private SA
      Here are just the mobility of the PZ-VI c "Maybach" on rough terrain and the range ...

      but what's the problem?
      The tiger has the same highway range as the IS-2, and a third more on rough terrain.
  20. Omskgasmyas
    Omskgasmyas 31 August 2020 05: 51 New
    0
    In 40, under an agreement with Germany, the USSR received samples of German weapons, including the T-3 tank. The results of his tests discouraged the leadership of the Red Army and the country. So, the maximum speed of the T-3 (with a 6-speed gearbox) turned out to be 0,4 km / h higher than that of the BT-7: 69,7 km / h against 69,3. 30-mm armor with a hardened surface layer at a distance of 500 m was not penetrated by the armor-piercing shells of the 45-mm anti-tank gun 53-K. Although in the passport for the 53-K gun, the armor penetration of 42 mm was drawn. Hence, it went into the instruction on the fight against German tanks to allow them to "dagger fire", that is, at 150-200 m. What the German tanks did with our anti-tank crews during the approach to the dagger distance, you can guess.
    And further. Mass production of 76 mm armor-piercing shells by the beginning of the war was not possible. At first, the GAU of the Red Army did not order them at all, and then the industry drove a continuous marriage. And at the beginning of the Second World War, the T-34 and KV-1 tanks went into battle without armor-piercing shells. Then we somehow set up the release of a simple tool steel blank with a tracer instead of a projectile without a bursting charge.
    And about the sights on the T-34 and KV. The sights were of an outdated design and, with increasing distance to the target, they rose along with the gun barrel. So, at a distance of more than 800 m, the gunner stopped seeing the target and saw the air above it. Therefore, our tankers fired only with direct fire, either at tanks, or at guns and infantry. This is 500-600 meters. So our T-34 and KV-1 tanks simply could not use the advantage of the "long arm" compared to German tanks.
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 31 August 2020 10: 08 New
      0
      Pz-III with a speed of 70 km / h? That's it, don't write anything further.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 31 August 2020 14: 11 New
        +1
        Quote: EvilLion
        Pz-III with a speed of 70 km / h? That's it, don't write anything further.

        In fact, it was like that - it needed "three" EG models with a ten-speed gearbox. smile
        You just need to take into account that this is the maximum speed obtained during tests on a flat straight section of the road. In combat units, there was a ban on acceleration over 40 km / h when using 9 and 10 gears - they took care of the motor and rollers (destruction of rubber tires at speeds over 40 km / h - hello BT-7).
        They write that the "three E" was originally made under 70 km / h:

  21. EvilLion
    EvilLion 31 August 2020 10: 06 New
    0
    Quite strange about the low frequency of hits in the tower. The T-34 has a rather high hull, the T-44 was lowered by 300 mm, but it is precisely hits in the turret in the post-war period that are considered the most probable.
  22. Vovk
    Vovk 31 August 2020 18: 43 New
    0
    Quote: Jager
    Proofs about scopes in the studio! And it smells like blatant nonsense a la Suvorov-Rezun. In the last days of the STZ operation, already under fire, the tanks were not painted, were not equipped with spare parts, and often there was no electric fan for suction of powder gases in the tower. But about scopes, this is generally game, it was not so!

    I met about this in the memoirs of those few tankers who survived 1941-1942, as well as in the memoirs of tank factory workers. This is what stuck in my memory. I need to refresh my mother exactly where I read it.
    And about the fact that it was not, here is the closest example ...

    "Vladimir Pershanin - Stalingrad meat grinder."
    At the end of April, I finished the courses and, in the rank of junior lieutenant, went with a group of commanders to the city of Gorky to receive tanks. We are stuck there. The Thirty-fours intended for us had been assembled, but the 76mm guns and sights were missing.

    In Gorky, these guns were not fired, but 45-mm anti-tank guns were made. Moscow was strictly asked for the plan, and 45-millimeter cannons were installed on some T-XNUMXs. Of course, less powerful than the required "three-inch". In addition, there were no scopes for them. Many guys refused such tanks, although they tried to convince us that the guns were good, and we would get the sights “on the spot”. In what place is unclear.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 31 August 2020 19: 16 New
      +1
      Quote: Vovk
      In Gorky, these guns were not fired, but 45-mm anti-tank guns were made. Moscow was strictly asked for the plan, and 45-millimeter cannons were installed on some T-XNUMXs. Of course, less powerful than the required "three-inch".

      On the T-34. To the tower designed for Ф34. We installed anti-tank 53-K. belay
      Yes, there is such a volume of alterations that these tanks would not have been handed over in a month. It is necessary to redo the mask, gun mount, etc. And to do this in parallel with the serial production of conventional T-34s. And yes, by releasing CD and TD on it. smile
      Moreover, the F-34 was the only system that was always available (Grabin tried to make the most technologically advanced weapon). And they did it at the Gorky plant number 92.
  23. 123456789
    123456789 5 September 2020 22: 25 New
    0

    With the advent of the Tigers and Panthers, the T-34 has exhausted its modernization potential