Eight secrets of the success of the T-34 tank according to a Canadian observer

The Soviet T-34 medium tank was one of the most effective tanks similar class in stories... During the Second World War, the T-34 became the most massive tank: in just a few years, 84 thousand of such vehicles were built, which made it the second largest number of units produced in the history of tank building (the first place went to the T-54/55).

The legendary "thirty-four" met with rave reviews even from the enemy. Thus, General Paul Ludwig von Kleist called the T-34 the best tank in the world. But what was the reason for such a success of the Soviet combat vehicle? HotCars' Aaron Spray cites 8 reasons.

Sloped Armor
The T-34 tank had armor with an inclination of 60 degrees, which made it possible to more effectively protect the vehicle from enemy shells, and also made the protection easier and reduced the total weight of the tank.

Wide tracks
One of the most important characteristics of the T-34, which provided it with advantages over many other tanks, was its increased cross-country ability. In this way, the tank compares favorably with the early M4 Sherman with narrow tracks, because of which it would be guaranteed to drown in the mud of the Russian hinterland. The wide tracks of the T-34 made it relatively easy for the tank to overcome impassable mud and off-road terrain.

Powerful engine
Thanks to a relatively powerful engine, the T-34 could move quickly and maneuver, overcome obstacles. The engine ran on diesel fuel, in contrast to the German "tigers" that ran on gasoline.

Ease of production
Since the T-34 was a mass tank, it was necessary to make the production process itself as simple and understandable as possible. Thanks to these qualities, it was possible to establish the production of a tank in a very large number: for comparison, the German Tiger I tanks were produced less than 1500 units, and the Tiger II - less than 500, and the number of T-34s produced was 84000 units.

Continuity of production
The Soviet military industry managed to establish an uninterrupted and regular production of more and more T-34 tanks. Large tank losses on the battlefield were not terrible, since new vehicles were being produced. Germany, in turn, could not afford such a quick renewal and replenishment of the tank fleet. As a result, the USSR, as Aaron Spray writes, won the war of attrition.

Light weight
Another undoubted advantage of the T-34 tank was its relatively low weight. The tank weighed about 26,6 tons. This weight allowed him to develop great speed, successfully maneuver and feel more confident on the battlefield than heavy German tanks.

Constant modernization
The T-34 tank remained unchanged as the main Soviet tank during the war, but at the same time it was constantly modernized. The T-34s of the last months of the war were already more advanced than the first "thirty-fours".

Some errors
The T-34 tank fought throughout the Great Patriotic War, but at the same time it never lagged behind German tanks and even surpassed them. This was due to the constant work on errors, which was carried out by Soviet designers and engineers. Finding out the shortcomings of the first models, Soviet designers immediately modernized new releases of tanks. As a result, the car was constantly being improved.

Aaron Spray concludes that the T-34 was one of the most successful tanks in the history of world tank building. He went through the entire war and met Victory in Berlin. Now, 76 years after the victory over Nazi Germany, the T-34 is still one of the symbols of the power of the Soviet army.

Comments

[Pereira]

For Canada, these are probably fresh thoughts.

[Grandfather]

Quote: Pereira

For Canada, these are probably fresh thoughts.

just, even after 76 years, they cannot understand how our grandfathers broke the back of the most powerful army in Europe. and judging by the situation, they will not understand.

[Kaman]

Dedkastary, I am grateful to our grandfathers, both American and English. The whole world crushed the fascist beast. Thanks to both grandfather Ivan and grandfather John for the victory !!!!

[hrych]

Quote: Pereira

For Canada, these are probably fresh thoughts.

Canadians, of course, in the use of tanks understand how piglets in citrus fruits The only ones who competently used tanks were the Germans and the Russians. And it is incorrect to compare the heavy Tiger and the medium T-34. When the Reich was conducting offensive operations, he worked on breakthroughs with his medium tanks, namely the T-3 (6 thousand) and T-4 (8,5 thousand). As their performance characteristics must be compared with the T-34, so is the production. After the Germans ceased to be able to conduct offensive operations and began to retreat, the Tiger, in fact, is rather a slow self-propelled gun with a powerful weapon, if not funny, but rather a defensive type of weapon. This heresy was inherited by NATO. So they fence heavy tanks, which, in fact, do not pull on a breakthrough, a raid on the rear, to destroy communications. When you make something in between an SPG and a tank - a station wagon, It will be a lousy tank and a lousy SPG. The cunning Germans themselves made the first Leopard medium, like our main tank, but the NATO swamp turned the second Leopard into a heavy turkey. To justify NATO, they initially thought about defense against our tank raids ... up to La Manche ...

[Uncle lee]

The T-34 was one of the most efficient tanks of its kind in history.

And he is also beautiful!

[hrych]

Quote from Uncle Lee

And he is also beautiful!

He is not as handsome as his own Our. And Is-2 is essentially like a larger, well-fed brother. And of course the Is-2 is better in all respects, based on the experience of the T-34, and was created. Where does the figure 84 thousand come from? This is how 35 thousand T-34s and 26 thousand T-34-85s were produced in the USSR. Moreover, this number includes post-war production, right up to 1950. There, under license, less than 5 thousand were made (Poles, Czechs) and already produced until 1958. in total, even with post-war and licensed production, less than 66 thousand were produced. Are the unfortunate and downtrodden Germans shielded? Which type of technology was crushed? It's a lie. They produced tanks under 40 thousand, taking into account light, Czech, etc., unless at the end of the war we got ahead, when they lost production, or rather we smacked them,

[Uncle lee]

Quote: hrych

Is-2 is better in all respects

We have an IS-2 installed near the highway!

[Borik]

grunt (grunt)
Where does the figure 84 thousand come from? Those. in total, even with post-war and licensed production, less than 66 thousand were produced.

So Canadians not only counted T-34 tanks but also self-propelled guns but its base, SU-122 Su-85, SU-100

[hrych]

Well, everything about all 8 thousand, does not beat in any way. Moreover, the Su-100, of which 5 thousand were produced, were produced until 1958, and until May 1945, only 1350 were produced. in total, a little more than 34 thousand SPGs based on the T-4 were produced during the war years. No way. Far from it.

[Mikhail3]

Quote: hrych

Where does the figure 84 thousand come from?

Well, not because these damned Russians won because they were better than the lovely Germans ?! So the damned Russians had tank armada that suppressed the nice Germans, which is fundamentally unfair! We should be glad that I did not write 184 thousand ...

[Piramidon]

Quote: hrych

Are the unfortunate and downtrodden Germans shielded?

Well, the author writes this in fact in plain text.

Germany, in turn, could not afford such a quick renewal and replenishment of the tank fleet. As a result, the USSR, as Aaron Spray writes, won the war of attrition.

They did not win, but simply "exhausted and starved out" the innocent poor things.

[hrych]

We won all 5 great battles of the Second World War (with millions of groups), in all the Russians won. And the retreat was tactical, not disorderly. The factories were evacuated to the Urals, where they forged the Weapon of Victory. The Red Army escaped destruction. Moreover, there are 2 main ones. This is the Belarusian operation (Bagration, when the fate of Berlin was actually decided) and the battle of Moscow, when the Barbarossa Plan collapsed and, in principle, the Germans could no longer win then on December 2, 1941, when the last attack of the Germans was stopped and then the counteroffensive began. The Japanese waited until the last day and on December 7 they attacked Pearl. They took the United States out of the game for a while and seized the wells of Indonesia, holding out not for 2 months (there was enough oil for that much because of the embargo), but for 4 years. And in the Battle of Moscow, the Germans had 2 million and the equipment doubled, and we have a little more than a million. By all accounts, we couldn't have won this battle. Three more battles are Stalingrad, Kursk and Berlin. With all due respect to Stalingrad, it did not have a fateful significance. Yes, their plan to cut us off from the Caucasus and deprive us of oil wells is justified, but questionable. Moreover, by the beginning of the offensive of our troops in the Battle of Stalingrad (November 19, 1942), we had less than 800 thousand, and the Germans had a million. Therefore, who filled up with corpses, it is necessary to look. The opposite is true. We beat them when they were in the majority, and a significant one, we beat them in equal numbers, and even more so when we had a numerical superiority. In the Moscow battle, they could not break our necks, and in the Byelorussian operation, we broke their necks. The Japanese waited for our surrender until the last day and hoped to get oil from the Germans, including the Caucasus, they would have seized land without a fight, etc. But they did not have oil to open a second front and would have spent the rest on the operation. Iron Japanese logic and no mysticism. And I had to attack the United States not because of a good life. Oil however.

[Alf]

Quote: hrych

They produced tanks for 40 thousand, with

In general, the figure of 53 thousand appears everywhere.

[hrych]

Well, the Panther (for some reason undeservedly forgotten), which is currently a medium tank, produced in the amount of 6 thousand pieces. For some reason, our answer is that the Is-2 is called heavy, although it is average in weight and corresponds to the Panther and the T-80. Is-2 produced more than three thousand. For example, according to the experience of the war, it was the Panther and Is-2 that became promising and our post-war evolution of the main tank from the T-54 to the T-72 and its derivatives went on their parameters. I repeat, the first Leopard from the parameters of the Panther and galloped.

[rotfuks]

always thought that the panther is a self-propelled gun. And the article is not about self-propelled guns.

[hrych]

The Panther is of course a medium tank. They had about 17 thousand self-propelled guns. Moreover, 10 thousand Sturmgeschütz III and 3 thousand Czech "Hetzer". Well, the rest are more than 3 thousand. Previously, the tank differed from the SPG with a rotating turret, now the SPG is also turned with its head (Akatsia, Msta-S).

[Alf]

Quote: hrych

The Panther is of course a medium tank.

At 45 tons of weight?

[hrych]

According to Western classification, a medium tank is up to 50 tons.

[Alf]

Quote: hrych

According to Western classification, a medium tank is up to 50 tons.

Which country? And what time is it? And where, in this case, are the T-34, KV, IS-1, IS-2, IS-3?

[hrych]

If we compare Is and Panther, then we need to go to the same coordinate system. Moreover, now our tanks are also considered according to the western classification. KV-2 went into heavy ones. The rest are average. How to equalize the 46-ton Is-2 and the 68-ton Tiger-2, calling them classmates? I think the Western classification is more correct, it reflects more general, world tendencies. And in the Red Army during the Second World War, they classified only their tanks.

[Alf]

Quote: hrych

If we compare Is and Panther, then we need to go to the same coordinate system.

So let's add the T-34, KV-1, IS, like the Panther, to the middle ones.

Quote: hrych

How to equalize the 46-ton Is-2 and the 68-ton Tiger-2, calling them classmates?

You should at least read my post more closely, which says that tanks weighing up to 60 tons were heavy according to our system. Where did I call ISA and KT classmates? You don’t need to attribute to me what I didn’t say.

Quote: hrych

Moreover, now our tanks are also considered according to the western classification.

Generally a masterpiece. What is the western classification of our tanks? I dare to remind you that it was in the USSR that a new class was introduced - Main tanks, to which almost all the world's tanks now belong.

Quote: hrych

And in the Red Army during the Second World War, they classified only their tanks.

And in the United States, the system was exactly the same.

I think the Western classification is more correct, it reflects more general, world tendencies.

What are the trends? Can I get more details?

[hrych]

Quote: Alf

What are the trends? Can I get more details?

Must not 50 tons border between medium and heavy and point. The main tank is not tied to weight classification.

[Alf]

Quote: hrych

Quote: Alf

What are the trends? Can I get more details?

Must not 50 tons border between medium and heavy and point. The main tank is not tied to weight classification.

That is, there is nothing to say ...

[hrych]

I have to do with it, since ours have adopted such a classification. In the Second World War, up to 30 tons were considered average, then the T-34 pass, they began to count up to 40, and when our "main" tanks exceeded 40, they agreed with the West. Here is now 50 tons and a recognized limit of gravity. All this is, in principle, conditional and not a subject of dispute.

[Alf]

Quote: hrych

In the Second World War, up to 30 tons were considered average, then the T-34 pass, they began to count up to 40,

Initially, it was up to 40 medium, up to 60 heavy.

Quote: hrych

and when our "main" tanks exceeded 40, they agreed with the West.

What did they agree on? The T-64, the first tank in the main class, weighed 37 tons.

Quote: hrych

Here is now 50 tons and the recognized limit of gravity.

And what tank is up to 50? And after ?

Quote: hrych

All this is, in principle, conditional and not a subject of dispute.

I understand that when there are no arguments, verbiage begins.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Alf

At 45 tons of weight?

They fed me. It all started with 20 tons.
If you do not squeeze the fighting compartment to the maximum, then with acceptable armor protection, the tank is just over 40 tons and crawls out. The Yankees at the same time were making a medium tank of 43 tons.

[Alf]

Quote: Alexey RA

It all started with 20 tons.

From 30 and 35 tons.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Alf

From 30 and 35 tons.

Nope, it all started with a promising medium tank of 20 tons.

Work on the creation of a promising 20-ton class tank to replace the "three-ruble note" and "four" began in 1938. In particular, the VK2001 (III) project of a 20-ton tank to replace the "three-ruble note" was presented by Daimler.

At a meeting on September 15, 1939, Wa Pruef 6 instructed Krupp to design a 20-ton VK2001 (IV) tank as a follow-up to the Quartet project. By December 1940, the VK2001 (IV) project was renamed BW40 and on February 15, 1940, submitted to Wa Pruef 6. The first prototype was expected to be produced by the end of 1940, but on May 16, 1940 Wa Pruef 6 notified Krupp that due to the current state of affairs on the fronts, the BW40 project is on hold. Krupp began developing his own project VK2001 (K) (50-mm hull forehead, 30-mm hull sides, armament with a 50-mm 42-caliber cannon). On November 12, 1940, Krupp was awarded a contract for the manufacture of 12 pre-production VK2001 (K) samples. By November 1941, the first prototype was delivered to the test site.

In early 1940, the representative of Wa Pruef 6 Baurat Kniepkamp, ​​having received refusals from Daimler and Krupp to deal with torsion bar suspension, turned to MAN. By October 10, 1940, the VK2001 (M) project was presented. Wa Pruef 6 suggested further development. By August 18, 1941, the body of the VK2001 (M) prototype was assembled, but the transmission for the prototype never arrived. The design of the improved VK2002 (M) prototype was complete, with three prototypes and 12 experimental chassis in various stages of assembly.
By November 25, 1941, the body of the VK2002 (M) prototype was redesigned and took on a form that later migrated to the Panther project unchanged.

It was only in December 1941 that it was recognized that a 20-ton tank was unpromising in the current realities - and the promising ST moved to the 30-ton class.

On December 17, 1941, representatives of Wa Pruef 6 notified all three firms that further development of the 20-ton tank was deemed unpromising and the project "migrated" to the 30-ton category. Krupp, referring to the workload of other works, refused to further participate in the development, Daimler and MAN expressed their readiness to process 20-ton prototypes into 30-ton ones. By this time, Rheinmetall had prepared a turret design for a 75mm 70-caliber cannon intended for the VK4501 (H).
March 3, 1942 Wa Pruef 6 reviewed projects VK3001 (D) and VK3002 (M).

© D. Shein. "The origin of" Tiger "and" Panther "-" short sketch ":-)"

[Alf]

Quote: Alexey RA

Nope, it all started with a promising medium tank of 20 tons.

Well, you can't argue against such arguments ... +.

[Alf]

Quote: Alexey RA

The Yankees at the same time were making a medium tank of 43 tons.

Is this Pershing? And after the end of the war, it was quickly rewritten as heavy.

[Piramidon]

Quote: rotfuks

always thought that the panther is a self-propelled gun. And the article is not about self-propelled guns.

With "Ferdinand" beguiled?

Pz Kpfw V Panther

ACS "Ferdinand" (Elephant)

[novel66]

With "Ferdinand" beguiled?

cool ...

[Machito]

Quote: hrych

Well, the Panther (for some reason undeservedly forgotten), which is currently a medium tank, produced in the amount of 6 thousand pieces. For some reason, our answer is that the Is-2 is called heavy, although it is average in weight and corresponds to the Panther and the T-80. Is-2 produced more than three thousand. For example, according to the experience of the war, it was the Panther and Is-2 that became promising and our post-war evolution of the main tank from the T-54 to the T-72 and its derivatives went on their parameters. I repeat, the first Leopard from the parameters of the Panther and galloped.

The T-54 is derived from the T-44, which is derived from the T-34-85.

[Al_lexx]

Quote: Bearded

The T-54 is derived from the T-44, which is derived from the T-34-85.

Not certainly in that way. Or rather, not at all. But yes, it was the 44th that became a breakthrough in tank building.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Bearded

The T-54 is derived from the T-44, which is derived from the T-34-85.

The T-34-85 is the latest in a line that began with the BT-2.
The T-44 was considered a fundamentally new tank by its designer.

[novel66]

among the Germans, the average or heaviness of the tank was measured by the gun, the tiger -88, the panther 75, and although the panther is rather a heavy tank, according to our classification, it is stubbornly recorded in the average

[Al_lexx]

Quote: hrych

Here, for example, according to the experience of the war, it was the Panther and the Is-2 that became promising and our post-war evolution of the main tank went on their parameters.

Generally, from the T-44, with its transverse engine. Isa is not at all in business here.
...no offense.
The Panther is, of course, an interesting tank. Would be ... if the nemchura had time to bring it to mind. The non-combat losses of the panthers exceeded the combat ones. So chtaaa ... the idea is great, in every sense, but the execution was already like that of a swordsman, who had the tendons cut off, on both arms.

[hrych]

Actually, I do not argue, I mean the T-72, to which the evolution from the T-54 / T-62 / T-64 to the T-64A is also leading, when gradually the mass and caliber of the gun practically repeated the Is-2. And as a result, the mass of the Is-2 of 46 tons coincided with the mass of the T-80U, and its 122 mm caliber is practically the same as the 125 mm of our main tanks. Those. roughly speaking, we came back to the mass and caliber of the Is-2 for the main tank. And so, of course, all tanks are related to each other by origin.

[Alf]

Quote: hrych

Is-2 is called heavy, although it is average in weight

The 46-ton tank is heavy. According to the Soviet classification, tanks weighing from 20 to 40 tons were considered medium, from 40 to 60-heavy.

[Reserve buildbat]

Here the question is in gradation. We have "Medium", "Heavy", "Light" was determined by the mass, and the Germans by the power of the gun, as far as I remember.

[Alf]

Quote: stock buildbat

Here the question is in gradation. We have "Medium", "Heavy", "Light" was determined by the mass, and the Germans by the power of the gun, as far as I remember.

If you take a comparison, then you need to introduce some kind of general classification. It can be ours, in terms of mass, it can be German, in terms of armament. In any case, a wild picture emerges.
If, according to ours, the Panther is a heavy tank, although it is average in terms of armament and armor.
If according to German, then the T-34 is heavy. And then the IS-2 is generally super heavy.

[hrych]

Quote: Alf

If you take a comparison, then you need to introduce some kind of general classification.

So he himself came to this, i.e. equalize the severity of the severity and to the general, western (American) classification. If our Geniuses figured out the armor plates to tilt and that allowed us to have large calibers without a significant increase in weight, excuse me. In principle, of course, the Russians are to blame for everything. T-3 and T-4, during breakthroughs and going to the rear, coped well, but they were stopped near Moscow with armor-piercing guns. Also, KV surprised them like walking pillboxes. In a narrow place, the T-3/4 were too tough. So the Panther was born with a T-4 caliber, but resistant to guns and a competitive T-34. And already the first attempt to make a walking pillbox / pillbox. It is logical. Ours against the Panthers increased the caliber of the T-34-85. Again it is logical. Then they could no longer advance, but retreated and acted from defense. The Tiger appeared, more likely already a walking bunker / bunker, to the detriment of breakthrough abilities (the main one for a tank) with a loss of speed and maneuverability. So they were planned a little. Again it is logical. We have our own logic, to leave all the properties of the breakthrough tank, and the combat power is equal to the Tiger of the T-34-85. Well, the development of their own walking pillboxes / pillboxes IS, and even with the super-weapon 122. So again, the tilt of the armor plates allowed the Panther to remain in the mass and the breakthrough properties did not suffer much. Therefore, against the background of artful Germany, that the T-34, that Is are simply masterpieces. And they completely surpassed the enemy. And when they are talking about "they have filled up" they are a blatant lie. The USSR in the economy competed not with Germany, but with the whole of Europe. These bastards are silent that the Germans captured ready-made French tanks, all Czechoslovak ones. all Polish. after the treacherous attack, they captured many of our tanks. Italian tanks took part in the fight against the USSR. Near Stalingrad destroyed Romanian armored vehicles and so on. Poor things. In the battle for Moscow, we had half the number of soldiers, half the tanks and aircraft, half the guns, and we filled them with corpses and tanks. Few of them fought back, they also threw them back from Moscow with a counteroffensive. So who, who and what has filled up? The frost got them, and ours are ice giants. On the contrary, the frost, which fettered the swamps and the ground, helped the Germans. Rokosovsky wrote that because of this, on the contrary, we were in trouble, but we managed.

[Alf]

Quote: hrych

and to the general, western (American) classification.

When this classification was introduced in the USSR, American tanks were generally incomprehensible. So the championship in this classification is for the USSR.

[hrych]

There is logic, with an increase in caliber, the mass grows, but again the Panther and Tiger-1 have the same caliber.

[Reserve buildbat]

Only the "Panther" has a 75mm cannon, and the "Tiger" has 88))) At the same time, the mass of the "Panther" is much less than that of the "Tiger", and the engine is the same.

[hrych]

Panther -2 was planned for the Tiger's gun, it didn’t fuse, it would have gone into the heavy, the question is open.

[Reserve buildbat]

Judging by the planned characteristics, I would have left. And by mass and by gun and by inactivity

[hrych]

Found a way to slightly refute you We compared the Tiger with the Panther, but we must compare it with the T-34-85. These numbers 85 are caliber. Those. without question, while remaining a medium tank, the caliber of our tank was almost equal to that of the heavy Tigers. 85mm versus 88mm. Although it was just a thirty-ton T-34 with a 76 mm gun, it was armed like a 45-ton Panther-1 with a 75 mm gun. It is clear that due to the inclination of thinner armor plates. their armor-piercing required to penetrate as much as twice the armor. Duc is our genius. However, the mass of the T-34-85 increased against the T-34 only from one to several tons.

[Reserve buildbat]

But the power of the German guns with approximately the same caliber turned out to be much higher due to the longer barrel length, which means the initial velocity of the projectile, and due to the better quality of the projectiles.
And this is confirmed by the results of tests in the USSR.

[hrych]

I do not argue. Although in the Tiger and T-34-85, the difference in barrel length is still insignificant. The ammunition capacity is one and a half times larger, Duc is a conditional advantage. It is still necessary to live to develop the ammunition load. I have not heard about the poor quality of our shells. Well, a small number of Tigers say that Panther and T-3 / T-4 fought against us

[Alf]

Quote: hrych

Panther -2 was planned for the Tiger gun,

Under the gun of the Royal Tiger, and this is a slightly different weapon.

[Alf]

Quote: hrych

And it is incorrect to compare the heavy Tiger and the medium T-34.

Dear Hrych! You haven't read the article itself in the original yet ...

The T-34 tank was endowed with special armor, which was located at an inclination of 60 degrees. This allowed the tank to be practically invulnerable to the enemy.

Oh how! The armor is "special" and the tank is impenetrable ...

During World War II, the T-34 became the most demanded heavy vehicle.

What does the term "heavy machine" mean for me personally, this is a great mystery.

[novel66]

The Tiger is, in fact, rather a slow SPG with a powerful weapon, no matter how funny, but rather a defensive type of weapon

Yes, and Karius confirms this

[bartman555]

Let's compare the performance characteristics of the T-34 and the German T-3 and T-4 ... It will be clear that the T-3 was never a medium tank, and the T-4 does not reach the average in comparison with our T-34 ... Combat weight of T-34, 26,5 tons, engine power, 500 hp. diesel, speed over rough terrain 36 km / h, cruising range over rough terrain 230 km, overcome ditch, 3,4 m, gun 76 mm ... German T-3, respectively, combat weight 15,4 t, power 250 gasoline , cross-country speed 15 km / h, cross-country cruising range 95 km, passable ditch 2,2 m, gun 37 mm .... T-4 is not far from these characteristics, for example, combat weight 18.4 t, passable moat 2,3, 75 m, the gun is really XNUMX mm, but short-barreled ... The characteristics of the mass and guns are given for the earlier versions, then they increased the mass, the guns were put better, but they did not turn from this into medium tanks ...

[Aleksandre]

There is such a wonderful habit: when you write an abstract - give a link to the original article.

[prior]

If the T-34 were made in the same quantities as the SU-57, would it be the best?
So that the best it was made by people, engineers and workers, who made it in the quantities necessary for the Victory.

[hrych]

Quote: prior

in the same quantities as the SU-57

Those. a spoonful of feces must be inserted into a barrel of honey The Su-57 was originally not a mass-produced aircraft, but a small-scale aircraft for special operations.

[prior]

Whoever wants what he sees.
I was talking about people, not about iron.
The people who created it, made it, fought on it made it the best.

[hrych]

Quote: prior

Whoever wants what he sees.

Did I dream about the Su-57?

[prior]

It was about the number of SU-57, not about its qualities.
One, ten - twenty fine airplanes will not make the weather.

[Aleksandr97]

The cost of the SU-57 is 60 billion rubles !!!!
The cost of the T-34 in 1945 at Uralvagonzavod -136 rubles
It would be, well, a little more correct to compare the IL-2 - worth 250 rubles or the B-000 Superfortress - $ 29 or the US Navy battleship "Arizona" - $ 605

[Undecim]

There is such a wonderful habit: you write an abstract - give a link to the original article
https://www.hotcars.com/secrets-to-soviets-t34-tank-success/

[olezenka1]

Posted by: "... 84 thousand of these machines were built, which made it the second largest number of units produced in the history of tank building (the first place went to the T-54/55). "
Something is bad with me or him with arithmetic - built T-54 - 20 pieces, T-375 - 55 pieces. Somehow no more than 23 pieces. Is this something wrong in Canada, or me? ))

[yehat2]

there is an inaccuracy - the T34 first, until the year 43, caught up with the German tanks in terms of the level of completion of the components - communications, engine, gun, turret and much more. The cost of production of t34 during the war fell significantly.
and from 42 years old he also had to catch up on performance characteristics. After the Germans had a Pz IV v2 with an 80mm forehead and a 75mm tank version of the Pak40 gun, the T34 felt a lack of protection until the end of the war.
t34-85 actually appeared in marketable quantities only by the end of 43 years.

[Aleksandr97]

You can also add maintainability and ease of maintenance.
Vietnam, Yemen, Guinea are still in service! The latter seem to have been bought out from Laos.

[xorek]

Recently, literally, I read the memoirs of a WWII tankman (he fought on an ACS and on a T-34 ..) All the listed advantages of our tanks, he recognized and agreed with them .. But against the newest heavy and medium tanks of the Germans, our tanks still lost and in armor and in the range of destruction of their guns.
The Germans could hit our tanks already from a distance of 1500 m, while ours could only from a distance of 500-800 m, at 42-43 the Germans already had subcaliber and cumulative shells, ours did not have a lot of our tanks, but due to maneuverability, speed and massiveness (and of course the motivation and strength of the fighting spirit) We smashed their tanks and nothing and no one could save the Nazis ..
And what's more interesting ... German tankers could leave the tank damaged, but not burning, and even if the crew was simply stunned by a direct hit from an armor-piercing ... But ours were allowed to leave the tank, if only it was already on fire, and so remained in the tank until the last fired back and most often died .. (the order was otherwise in cowardice could be accused.)
Eternal memory to Soviet tankers, they smashed the Germans, only there was fluff, but it was already at 43-45 m Do not kick me too much, I am not a specialist in tanks, I just wrote that I read from a veteran tanker .. It was very interesting.

[Reserve buildbat]

It would be nice to compare the mass of tanks, their weapons and tactics of use.

[xorek]

Quote: stock buildbat

It would be nice to compare the mass of tanks, their weapons and tactics of use.

There are a lot of news .. And our tanks, due to their speed, used the tactics of surprise attacks in zigzags from the flanks, but only at short distances .. In the open field and frontal attacks, our tanks were burned for nothing .. alas. There were such commanders.
And yet, despite the performance characteristics of the superiority of Nazi tanks in many respects (in 45 they even had night sights and they pointed a shooter, but then this grouping of tanks was gouged)))
Ours were the best and especially their crews !!!! They did not fight for awards, but simply rushed to Berlin to end bloody Nazism ... We could have jerked further, sweeping away everything in our path, but ...

[niksfromru]

The truth? Excuse me: the design of the "Panther" is such that it is practically a "piece" tank, manufactured not on an assembly line, but on stationary slipways, between which the factory brigades wandered. Therefore, less than 6000 of them were produced. Was that enough? Not at all, because in parallel, the production of the T-IV medium tank continued until the end of the war, which, despite constant modernization, did not fully meet the requirements of the time. Moreover, the repair units of the Wehrmacht's tank units constantly complained about the complexity of repair and maintenance, as well as the low interchangeability of the Panther's spare parts. After all, a tank is not a Formula 1 car that is created for one race.

[niksfromru]

The main "secret" of the T-34 is that it came out pretty much ... by accident. Evolving from the BT line of light wheeled-tracked tanks (BT-20 project, A-20 experimental tank), the future T-34 (A-32) "discarded" a purely wheeled transmission, due to which it became possible to increase the mass of the tank, which made it possible to improve booking. As a result, a medium tank appeared almost in the dimensions of a light BT, which had a positive effect on mobility and survivability, but caused known problems with habitability.

[Konnick]

The T-34 turned out according to the terms of reference of the armored department, which was commanded by Pavlov, a participant in tank battles in Spain. After that civilian, they decided to develop tanks with anti-cannon armor, and then the V-2 diesel engine arrived, without which the T-34 and KV, and all the following tanks, would not have taken place. And there was no smell of evolution.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Konnick

The T-34 turned out according to the terms of reference of the armored department, which was commanded by Pavlov, a participant in tank battles in Spain. After that civilian, they decided to develop tanks with anti-cannon armor, and then the V-2 diesel engine arrived, without which the T-34 and KV would not have taken place, and all the following tanks

EMNIP, GABTU required a medium tank with anti-cannon armor, a cannon with the ballistics of a divisional 3 "gun and a diesel engine.

Quote: Konnick

And there was no smell of evolution.

Everything was complicated there. In 1937 the plant, according to the information received from ABTU TTT, began to make a light wheeled-tracked tank (BT-20). In 1938, the TTT was adjusted in terms of strengthening the armor (protection against 12,7 mm bullets), and the plant was given a task for two types of tanks - wheeled-tracked and tracked (A-20 and A-20G, the future A-32 ). According to the test results of the A-20 and A-32, a requirement was made to strengthen the armor protection.
As a result, the light A-20G with bulletproof armor turned out to be a medium T-34 with anti-cannon armor.