In duel battles, the "Panther" tank had advantages over the "thirty-four": the historian about the T-34

194

According to numerous military experts and historians, the best of tanks XX century was the Soviet T-34. This is a truly legendary combat vehicle, thanks to which the Soviet Union achieved the most important successes on the fronts of the Great Patriotic War. It would seem surprising, but some modifications of the T-34 are still used in armed conflicts, including conflicts in the Middle East.

The candidate reflects on the advantages of the T-34 tank in the plot of the "First Tank" from UralVagonZavod historical Sci. Sergey Ustyantsev. According to the expert, he would not extend the characteristics of the best tank to the entire 34th century in relation to the T-20. From the plot:



I would still limit it a little ... The T-34 is the best tank of the Second World War.

According to Sergei Ustyantsev, it is certainly impossible to call the "thirty-four" the most powerful tank of the 40-50s. There were combat vehicles with a larger main gun caliber and more massive armor. But in terms of the general combination of maneuverability, security characteristics, firepower and efficiency, it is the T-34 tank that is seriously different. However, as the expert points out, the T-34 was in many ways (including the combat coefficient) inferior to individual enemy tanks, including the Panther.

From the plot:

The Panther is an excellent tank. Yes, at first it broke, but then the Germans improved it. The T-34 was inferior to him in many ways. But the point is not only in combat characteristics. It is also important to consider costs. And the Germans, producing one "Panther", spent as many resources as we spent on the production of 8-10 T-34 tanks. In duel battles, the Panther had an advantage over the thirty-four.

Release of the "First Tank":

    Our news channels

    Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

    194 comments
    Information
    Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
    1. +39
      22 July 2021 09: 56
      here, damn it, surprised .. it turns out a heavy tank is more powerful than average ... Nobel Prize in the studio !!
      1. +1
        22 July 2021 10: 02
        How many such duels were there during the war ?!
        1. +7
          22 July 2021 10: 42
          that's where the victory lies!
          ! The number of
          1. +4
            22 July 2021 11: 14
            If t34 produced 65 thousand units and panthers 5 thousand units, what is the probability of them meeting face to face on a 3.5 thousand km front?
            1. +1
              24 July 2021 03: 40
              The British are distributing a video that claims the ratio of 1:10 in favor of the Tigers in 'duels' and the operational transfer of their formations to especially important sectors of the front. Those. argue the comparability of these tanks in real conditions, which is of course nonsense if you look at the result.
              1. 0
                29 July 2021 07: 34
                Operational transfer of 60 ton vehicles with track bulkhead is such an occupation.
            2. -1
              28 July 2021 23: 55
              Tanks of mass production were planted, speaking in naval terms, "salag", and "Panthers" were driven by experienced officers, with the appropriate crew.
              1. 0
                10 September 2021 17: 18
                Where did the Germans get "experienced officers" in 44-45? Did they keep them in the refrigerator? There is a good book by Wehrmacht veteran Dieter Noll "The Adventures of Werner Holt". There, the main characters are thrown into the infantry, then the anti-aircraft gunners, then the tankers. One week for training.
              2. 0
                11 September 2021 19: 33
                Quote: EMMM
                Tanks of mass production were planted, speaking in naval terms, "salag", and "Panthers" were driven by experienced officers, with the appropriate crew.

                Et-yes-ah! Experienced, strong pros .... where can we really ... and if the Germans had guessed to release them not 6 thousand pieces, but 600 - how cool it would be! It would be possible to plant a real colonel on each tank ... Wow !!! Then, maybe they would not have lost the war?

                But if you consider that in 1943 Hitler declared "total war", lowering the draft age to 17 years, then the presence of "experienced officers" among the Germans was also far from being "massive." I wonder why it happened so?
        2. -15
          22 July 2021 11: 24
          Quantity doesn't always mean quality. As well as the cost of production.

          No wonder "Panther" is considered one of the best tanks of the Second World War anywhere except Russia.

          “Centurion” was simply late for the war, then the palm would probably have gone to him.
          1. +29
            22 July 2021 15: 47
            The IS-3 was late for the war. The masses are almost equal. (49 tons against 44,5 for the Panther) But the beater is 122 against 75 for the Panther. Forehead armor 110 against 80 for the Panther. Board 90 against 50 at the Panther. What about Centurion?
            1. +4
              23 July 2021 14: 44
              so, they say, seeing not the victory parade of the IS-3 allies and decided not to fight with us
              1. +7
                23 July 2021 19: 47
                Quote: novel xnumx
                so, they say, seeing not the victory parade of the IS-3 allies and decided not to fight with us

                Operation Unthinkable was officially abandoned on June 8, 1945, and the IS-3 parade was held on September 7, 1945. They say not quite the truth ...
            2. +4
              24 July 2021 06: 51
              Is3 in those days was a guest from the future
              1. -2
                24 July 2021 11: 35
                Such was the T-44 and, of course, the T-54.
            3. -2
              24 July 2021 11: 34
              The IS-3 was undoubtedly an impressive tank, but not perfect. Low rate of fire, low ammunition, poor sight and, as it turned out, problems with the rigidity and strength of the hull.
              1. +2
                24 July 2021 12: 51
                Nothing is perfect. By definition. The quality of any product is determined by a bunch of parameters. Major and minor. And in the name of the main ones, they sacrifice the minor ones. A sight is simply an element that can and should be improved. The main thing is the BASIS. We have always had optics, to put it mildly ... Technologies for precision processing of lenses, glass components that make it of the desired quality, and so on ... The very passion for massive, huge plans, stunning projects and neglect of subtleties that make everything QUALITY. Any problems were solved by storm, anguish, revolutions. And it would be necessary to do more work every day, accurate, well thought out. The philosophy of the Japanese is bigger - albeit a small success, but every day.
            4. -1
              24 July 2021 12: 30
              But we are still comparing it with the Panther. Yes, the Is-3 was a decent tank, but the Panther had a better rate of fire, optics, more ammunition, gun accuracy, a smooth ride (suspension) and less weight, naturally mobility. And the gas brake unmasked the Is-3. , and blinded the crew.
              1. -1
                10 September 2021 17: 22
                She had nothing better. And the rate of fire was only at the range, when no one interfered and the platform was horizontal. At 5 gr. tilt to turn the turret and shoot was impossible at all. In reality, in terms of the sum of indicators, our tanks were much better, so the Germans issued instructions on how to avoid dueling situations. 1: 1 they did not know much. We don't need to puff up, the result speaks for us ...
          2. +1
            24 July 2021 09: 35
            “Centurion” was simply late for the war, then the palm would probably have gone to him.

            Is not a fact. Do not forget about the existence of the T-44, besides - and the T-54, after all, was put into service in 1946. Who's a bit late for sure.
            1. -3
              24 July 2021 11: 41
              The first centurions were sent to the front in the 22nd Tank Brigade and went on alert even before the end of the war with Germany. The IS-3 entered service in June 1945.
              Although the T-44 tank was accepted for production and armament in July 1944, and by the end of 1944, 25 vehicles had been produced, the first-stage units armed with T-44 tanks went into combat readiness in June 1945.
              1. 0
                24 July 2021 12: 18
                They did not release it simply because there was no need .. The war was going to a victorious end, and the T-34-85 with the IS-2 and so it seemed like they were coping .. The point to rebuild the conveyor? The situation was much worse for the Naglich people - they had nothing equivalent to oppose the German machines. Well, not Comet and Cromwell? In addition, they were clearly aiming at a possible war with the Union, so they were in a hurry.
                1. -1
                  24 July 2021 13: 13
                  Technical speculations about the tank, dubbed the Centurion, were made by the British General Staff on September 8, 1943, when it was not yet known when the war would end, and before Kotin began working on the IS-3.

                  So your theory about the construction of the A41, taking into account the war with the USSR, to put it mildly, is not true.
                  1. +1
                    25 July 2021 09: 41
                    In September 43, it finally became clear that Nazi Germany had lost the land war. So against whom was the centurion prepared?
              2. 0
                24 July 2021 13: 14
                As I understand it, providing facts and dates (which can be verified) leads to cons because you don't like the facts even if they are true?
                1. 0
                  24 July 2021 15: 05
                  Quote: Constanty
                  leads to disadvantages because the facts are not pleasant, even if they are true?

                  “The A41 project was given a“ green street. ”By May 1944, a wooden mock-up was made; according to the results of the evaluation of the mock-up commission, the General Staff ordered 20 pre-production samples. All prototypes were made from ordinary steel, not armored steel; the mass of the experimental tank was 45 tons. The first copy was ready in September 1944, the last in January 1945. In the victorious May, when the preliminary tests ended, six new machines were sent to the continent for running-in units with combat experience. "
                  "During the war, 655 T-44 tanks were produced."
                  Quote: Constanty
                  The first centurions were sent to the front in the 22nd Tank Brigade and went on alert even before the end of the war with Germany. The IS-3 entered service in June 1945.
                  Although the T-44 tank was accepted for production and armament in July 1944, and by the end of 1944, 25 vehicles had been produced, the first-stage units armed with T-44 tanks went into combat readiness in June 1945.

                  How do your "facts" compare with reality?
                  1. -3
                    24 July 2021 15: 11
                    How do your "facts" compare with reality?


                    Nothing you wrote changes

                    In early April 1945, the Centurions entered service with the 22nd Armored Brigade. The IS-3 and T-44 entered service in June 1945. The war with Germany ended in May. Will you deny it?
                    1. +1
                      24 July 2021 15: 17
                      Quote: Constanty
                      In early April 1945, the Centurions entered service with the 22nd Armored Brigade.

                      It was six SIX prototypes sent for testing. 25 IS-3 at the same time were being tested. The T-44 was already mass-produced - 655 by May 1945. What do you think they could not fight?
                      1. -2
                        24 July 2021 15: 27
                        IS-3 and T-44 they were during the probationary period - despite the number of copies produced, none of them were in the units at the front, none of them was in combat units until May 9, 1945, so they could not participate in battles, from the word sovcem - this is probably logical .. "Centurion" yes
                        1. +2
                          24 July 2021 15: 37
                          Are you able to distinguish between testing and adoption? The USSR already had three T-44 corps at the end of the war ...
                          Quote: Constanty
                          so could not participate in battles

                          They were simply "held back" - "we will end the war with the weapons we started with"
                        2. -1
                          24 July 2021 15: 39
                          But this means that there were no combat units - hence my conclusions - especially since the debut of the T-44 took place only in 1956.
                        3. +2
                          24 July 2021 15: 52
                          Quote: Constanty
                          that the debut of the T-44 took place only in 1956.

                          The first "Centurion" Mk.1 entered the troops after the war ... Although it seems to you it makes no difference - a prototype or a combat vehicle ..
                      2. -1
                        24 July 2021 15: 35
                        And for the sake of clarity - I think the T-44 (in the final configuration is a better tank than the Panther - you can even see why in the photo.

                        T-54/55, in my opinion, is one of the most successful (next to the "Centurion") tank of the 20th century until the 70s.
                        1. +1
                          24 July 2021 15: 38
                          Quote: Constanty
                          And for the sake of clarity - I believe

                          You know, I read your comments .... I don't even know what to count ... One TSh-17 sight is worth it ..
                        2. -1
                          24 July 2021 15: 45
                          Height, armor resistance (after eliminating the driver's booth and weight in relation to engine power - this, in my opinion, makes the T-44 better than the PzKpfw V.
                        3. 0
                          24 July 2021 15: 53
                          Quote: mat-vey
                          Quote: Constanty
                          And for the sake of clarity - I believe

                          You know, I read your comments .... I don't even know what to count ... One TSh-17 sight is worth it ..
                2. 0
                  24 July 2021 15: 11
                  Quote: Constanty
                  As I understand it, providing facts and dates (which can be verified) leads to cons
                3. Zug
                  +2
                  25 July 2021 09: 34
                  It's just that some people live in their own little world where the T-34 is more powerful than the T-4 in 1942, etc. Although already near Kerch, the T-4s brought to the east for the first time with a 75 mm gun and thicker armor, even according to our own tankers, turned into a headache and a problem for them. In the transmission, the historian probably did not even get acquainted with the tests of guns in the GRAU and the results of the armor penetration of Sherman with his 76 mm gun, Valentine, etc. And there is something to be surprised at. The historian modestly kept silent that Sherman went to us with diesel engines and to fight as well as to ride them was better than on the t-34 di and calling the 34 ku a "low" tank nothing more condescending grin does not cause. The suspension of Christie to "squat" is not in principle, and there were a lot of attempts to reshape the tank with thicker armor. It did not work. 45mm - "and so it will do "not for them to burn in an iron coffin.
          3. The comment was deleted.
          4. +1
            25 July 2021 00: 02
            War is not one-on-one knightly battles of tanks of opponents. The best tank that allowed victory in total war is the T-34, so it stands on pedestals in the squares of many cities, and the "panther" is gathering dust in museums as an example of an unwise decisions to create a "miracle weapon", to assert the superiority of engineering thought of "supermen" over that of "subhumans" to the detriment of the real needs of the war, while one "panther" successfully destroyed several T-34s, and which was still destroyed, if not by our tanks, then by ours aviation, in minefields or artillery, other T-34s successfully swept away obstacles, crushed field artillery, infantry, pillboxes, Wehrmacht firing points on the battlefields, determining the final outcome of the war.
          5. 0
            11 September 2021 19: 50
            Quote: Constanty
            Quantity does not always mean quality.

            Quantity (neither small nor large) -never does not mean quality.

            And the high market price of wartime means only that the manufacturing company has every right to plunder its own country no worse than the aggressor - foreign countries! And she doesn't care about quality, they will buy it anyway ... The Germans did not make a powerful tank diesel until the end of the war. We went on fire-hazardous-carburetor gasoline. How is it in terms of "quality"? Nothing ?

            So where does quality come from? I suppose, not from a small amount, but from cheap and high-quality raw materials of their own, which allows you to smelt high-quality steel (because it is difficult to make candy out of poop ... even for wise Germans), from technical conditions, talent of developers and strict acceptance requirements. Regardless of the quantity.
          6. Rin
            0
            29 September 2021 16: 44
            Yes, the Centurion was a successful British tank, served in Israel until the 80s and won battles more than once.
        3. +1
          23 July 2021 22: 42
          That's right!
      2. +1
        22 July 2021 10: 08
        Quote: novel xnumx
        .It turns out that the heavy tank is more powerful than the average

        That is, the "heavy" T-34 was superior to the "light-medium" Pz-III and Pz-IV in everything, right?
        1. +8
          22 July 2021 10: 41
          at 41 yes! by the way, the Germans had 4 points for heavy ones, and 34 were considered average all the way
          1. +3
            22 July 2021 11: 31
            Quote: novel xnumx
            we considered the average all the way

            So the Germans NEVER considered the "Panther" heavy ...
            1. +3
              22 July 2021 14: 44
              and what is the weight and armor ??
              1. -3
                23 July 2021 05: 53
                Quote: novel xnumx
                and what is the weight and armor ??

                This is not fundamental for determining the place of the tank on the battlefield ...
                1. +4
                  23 July 2021 09: 10
                  no. but to determine the severity of the tank yes
                  1. 0
                    23 July 2021 11: 49
                    Quote: novel xnumx
                    no. but to determine the severity of the tank yes

                    And a tank is not an easy vehicle at all.
                    Why is no one surprised by the difference in the weight of the IS-2 or IS-3 (46 and 48 tons) with the "Royal Tiger" (68 tons) and these tanks are compared, since they are "classmates"
                    No one is surprised by the difference in weight between modern Russian and Western main battle tanks.
        2. +6
          22 July 2021 10: 52
          and ours, heavy. KV - with whom to compare something ??? and the Germans did not have such before the tiger
        3. Eug
          +3
          23 July 2021 20: 38
          Since April 1942 "long-barreled" "troikas" and "fours" in a duel situation surpassed - alas - our T-34s.
          1. +1
            24 July 2021 18: 05
            Since April 1942 "long-barreled" "troikas" and "fours" in a duel situation surpassed - alas - our T-34s.

            The first use, caught by surprise of our tankers, "long-barreled" T-4 was during the defeat of our Crimean front. In the conditions of the steppe expanses of the Kerch Peninsula, they knocked out not only the T-34, but also easily coped with the KV at distances from which our 76mm gun could not only penetrate the armor, but hit right on target.
          2. Zug
            0
            25 July 2021 09: 44
            The historian has his own "history" - our tankers about the first encounters with the T-4 with a 75 mm gun and more powerful armor had a slightly different opinion. But the historian is not interested in this. As well as the tests of the GRAU for shooting types of weapons of Shermans, Valentines, etc. there is a lot of surprise there, even for the same Valentine with its gun and armor-piercing projectile. It was better than the T-34
      3. +1
        22 July 2021 10: 29
        Nobel Prizes are awarded for achievements in the field of "historical science." This is a big omission. It's time to start awarding, especially in light of the latest "achievements" and "discoveries".
        1. +4
          22 July 2021 11: 25
          Only not the Nobel, but the Shnobel Prize, the author has undoubtedly earned.
      4. +10
        22 July 2021 10: 48
        Quote: novel xnumx
        here, damn it, surprised

        Yes, there is generally a "mind - a ward":

        According to Sergei Ustyantsev, it is certainly impossible to call the "thirty-four" the most powerful tank 40-50-ies.

        He himself invented the statement, he brilliantly "refuted" it. Iksperd of the highest qualification, definitely.
        1. +2
          22 July 2021 10: 50
          IS - 3 smokes modestly on the sidelines .. lol lol
        2. 0
          25 July 2021 22: 43
          The T-34 is not called "the most powerful". They call him "The Best"!
      5. +1
        22 July 2021 11: 21
        Given its use, the PzKpfw V Panther was not considered a heavy tank in the Wehrmacht - the latter were grouped into separate heavy tank battalions, and they were all Tigers.
        1. +2
          22 July 2021 14: 48
          the Germans considered the severity of the tank by its caliber ... tiger - 88 mm heavy panther 75 - medium, and the armor, in fact, identical
          1. +1
            25 July 2021 01: 31
            Not identical, the Tiger was much superior to the Panther in defense, the forehead of the Tiger was 100 mm against 80 for the Panther, the side and stern of the Tiger was 80 mm against 40 mm for the Panther. The Panther's side from close range could even be pierced with a forty-five, a case was recorded when a T-70 hit the Panther in the side of the Kursk Bulge. While the 80-mm sides and stern of the Tiger could not even be penetrated by a 76-mm cannon at close range, the Tiger could only be hit by an 85-mm anti-aircraft gun, 122-mm A-19 or 152-mm ML-20, which, of course, on the front line did not have. Therefore, the Soviet infantry was practically defenseless against the Tigers, since the rifle division simply did not have artillery capable of destroying the Tigers. Divisional artillery and IPTAP, at best, could only damage the hodovka and immobilize the Tiger, or shoot through the gun barrel, making the tank unarmed. But the German repairmen could fix all this damage in a day, and the next day the Tiger could go on the attack again.
            1. +3
              25 July 2021 09: 43
              scrupulously hi respect!
            2. Zug
              0
              25 July 2021 09: 45
              Valentine punched the side of the tiger tower from three hundred meters. He looked at the GRAU test tables.
              1. -1
                25 July 2021 10: 02
                Quote: Zug
                Valentine punched the side of the tiger tower from three hundred meters. He looked at the GRAU test tables.

                The British had a very high production culture, and the shells were very good, in comparison with the British shells, the Soviet shells were very much inferior to them. For example, before the war in 1940, GAU was bombarded with a German three-ruble note, and the forty-five could not be guaranteed to pierce the 300-mm armor of a three-ruble note from 32 meters, although on paper it had to pierce. The reason for this was the low quality of the shells, which were unnecessarily fragile and destroyed when collided with German armor, which, in turn, amazed Soviet specialists with its strength, and at the same time viscosity.
                1. Zug
                  +1
                  25 July 2021 10: 04
                  Yes, everything is clear here, but in 44 and 45, the 76 mm Sherman cannon (not fireflies) in terms of armor penetration was not much lower than our 85 mm gun. There is something to think about.
                  1. +2
                    25 July 2021 10: 13
                    Quote: Zug
                    Yes, everything is clear here, but in 44 and 45, the 76 mm Sherman cannon (not fireflies) in terms of armor penetration was not much lower than our 85 mm gun. There is something to think about.

                    The answer is simple: production culture. The 76-mm Sherman cannon and the 75-mm T-4 cannon were approximately equal in armor penetration to the 85-mm T-34 cannon. 100 mm BS-3, 88 mm KwK-36 and 76 mm QF-17 in terms of armor penetration when using caliber AP shells were approximately equal. With the use of AP shells with a detachable tray, the British gun was generally out of competition. By the way, the British, in my opinion, were the first in the world in practice to widely use sub-caliber BB with a detachable tray. We and the Germans used coils.
                    1. Zug
                      +1
                      25 July 2021 10: 14
                      I absolutely agree and support. wink
            3. +1
              10 September 2021 17: 29
              The tiger could walk again, but did not walk. Their number was decreasing very quickly. Do not forget about PTABs and the seizure of repair bases along with this scrap metal. The Germans nobly did not include such in the list of losses.
      6. 0
        23 July 2021 21: 04
        Well, in general, the Germans somehow considered it average))) and if you measure the calibers, then 34 by 10 mm. more. That's about dueling situations - this is, of course, nonsense. In an open field, one on one, from a distance of 2 km.)))
        1. +2
          25 July 2021 09: 44
          into any projection!
          1. 0
            25 July 2021 10: 00
            Yeah, only you had to first move in like this, and then get there))) even now the distance is 2 km. considered by artillerymen and tankers to be large enough, because there are no perfectly flat surfaces in nature.
      7. 0
        27 July 2021 13: 40
        In duel battles, the "Panther" tank had advantages over the "thirty-four": the historian about the T-34
        Bloody journalists! The title of the article with a swing is like a three-kopeck sensation, but the historian looked at the video - clever! good recomend for everybody!
      8. 0
        31 July 2021 11: 37
        Indeed, I would say, a direct divine revelation.
    2. +5
      22 July 2021 09: 59
      We must not forget such characteristics as the cost of production, maintainability (both in the field and at the plant), the technical possibility of producing 1 unit / number of people / hour, etc. Maybe one panther, given equal combat conditions, is better than the T-34-85. But given the above parameters, she would have to face two or three thirty-fours. And this is already without options - defeat.
      1. +2
        22 July 2021 10: 09
        Quote: Sentinel-vs
        We must not forget such characteristics.

        operational agility
        Quote: Sentinel-vs
        she would have to face two or three thirty-fours. And this is without options - defeat.

        In the case of a duel fight, that's not a fact. But using the best operational maneuverability Two or three T-34s could not meet the Panther at all and win.
        1. +16
          22 July 2021 10: 44
          Quote: svp67
          the case of a duel fight, that's not a fact. But using the best operational maneuverability Two or three T-34s could not meet the Panther at all and win.

          Here, rather, the issue of mobility, the ability to overcome hundreds of kilometers without losses due to the failure of a walker or engine, should be discussed. In this regard, the T-34-85 proved to be quite good in Operation Bagration, and in the Vistula-Oder, the tankers of Katukov and Bogdanov overcame 500-600 km practically without losses (I'm not talking about combat), i.e. the warranty life was exceeded 2 times, at least, or even more, since there were no more than 60% of tanks received directly from the factory. The Panthers could not stand such "races", despite the fact that by the end of 1944 "childhood diseases" were practically eliminated.
          But in the conditions of urban battles, the Pz-VI turned out to be a headache not only for the Red Army, but also for the allies. Both buried literally in the asphalt in the form of bunkers, and plying from intersection to intersection.
          As an example ... My father received his last military award for destroying a Panther on the streets of a suburb of Berlin, as part of 8 Guards, when at the end of April, tankers jumped up to the student who was towing his ZiS-3 - two thirty-fours were already burning at the intersection.
          They unhooked the gun, rolled them around the courtyards to the place where the Panther stood in the street behind the house, holding the road at gunpoint about 500 m from the intersection.
          First, they gouged the walls of the house overlooking the courtyard, and then, rearranging the gun, through the window opening, they burned the Panther into the side with a sub-caliber gun. The Panther was the only serious tank, out of 8, listed under the father's calculation, as part of the IPTAP and in other units. The rest were threes and fours ..
        2. -3
          24 July 2021 14: 32
          The operational maneuverability of the tank was determined by the resource of the engine and other elements.
          German tanks in this regard had a greater resource and could be transferred to different areas on their own. Ours used Shermans for long-distance marches - applications were separately for different types of tanks, Loza writes about this.
          1. +4
            24 July 2021 15: 36
            Quote: Avior
            Ours used Shermans for long-distance marches - there were separate applications for different types of tanks, Loza writes about this.

            Can you imagine the scale of the Red Army's operations in the second half of the war? And during the war with Japan?
            This is where our T-34 finally showed all its best sides, and precisely in terms of operational maneuverability.
            And there were not so many Shermans in the Red Army. And they had their drawbacks.
            Quote: Avior
            German tanks in this regard had a greater resource.

            In the first half of the war, yes, but not in the second. All German tanks, at that moment, turned out to be overweight, and the new ones were also technically unreliable.
            1. -2
              24 July 2021 16: 25
              That is why, according to Loza's memoirs, they were planned separately with an indication of the type.
              Including in the Far East, Sherman was transferred there. The Shermans had a great resource.
              The Germans also had a large resource in their T4s, which made it possible to quickly transfer them along the front line from sector to sector and gave the impression that there were much more of them than there actually was.
              1. +2
                24 July 2021 16: 52
                Quote: Avior
                The Germans also had a large resource in their T4s, which made it possible to quickly transfer them along the front line from sector to sector and gave the impression that there were much more of them than there actually was.

                But not the latest modifications. These did not run much, due to the overload of the front rollers ...
                Quote: Avior
                That is why, according to Loza's memoirs, they were planned separately with an indication of the type.

                And how you wanted. Well this is a different type of tank, which requires different parts and ammunition.
                1. -2
                  24 July 2021 17: 14
                  No, initially, when planning the operation, they allocated how much 34ok was needed, and how many - Shermans
                  1. +2
                    24 July 2021 17: 33
                    Quote: Avior
                    No, initially, when planning the operation, they allocated how much 34ok was needed, and how many - Shermans

                    ?????? And this is where you read this from Loza? The Shermans were reduced to one mechanized corps, into which neither the T-34 nor our other tanks were supplied, so as not to overload the logistics.
                    With her, during the Manchurian operation, there were already problems, since the tank units of the Far Eastern Front had a large percentage of old light tanks T-26 and BT-5,7. Before the operation itself, they received only one battalion set of T-34s in each brigade or regiment, and the rest remained on old equipment, the combat readiness of which was raised due to "technical cannibalism" from the equipment removed from the combat crew.
                    And here are the data on the number of combat-ready tanks on August 05, 1945 in this direction.
                    Tanks - 5548 (including 4841 fix)
                    IP - 19 (6 fix)
                    HF - 77 (47)
                    T-34 - 1899 (1794)
                    M4-A2 - 250 (250)
                    BT-7 - 1030 (797)
                    BT-5 - 190 (101)
                    T-26 - 1461 (1272)
                    T-60-70 - 46 (14)
                    MK-3 - 81 (78)
                    M-3s - 1
                    M-3l - 1
                    T-38 - 325 (304)
                    T-37 - 52 (52)
                    T-27 - 56 (56)
                    It is not difficult to calculate that the M4 "Sherman" accounted for 4,5% of the total and 5,2% of the serviceable ones. So that, with all their desire, they could not play a decisive role, on such an extended front
                    1. -2
                      24 July 2021 17: 47
                      Towards the end of the war.
                      It is clear that the Shermans were not everywhere, but Loza fought on the Sherman, he faced this situation and therefore mentions it
                      1. +1
                        24 July 2021 17: 59
                        Quote: Avior
                        but Loza fought on Sherman, he faced this situation and therefore mentions it

                        I read his book. And he describes the situation through the eyes of a "tanker in a foreign car"
                        1. -2
                          24 July 2021 18: 11
                          That is how
                          It is clear that not every headquarters had the opportunity to specifically envisage the Shermans in the plans due to the relatively small number of Shermans against the background of 34. He faced this precisely because he fought on the Sherman.
            2. Zug
              +1
              25 July 2021 09: 47
              The march on the Shermans in the Japanese, as I read Loza, as it is, on the contrary, the Sherman's reliability turned out to be an order of magnitude higher, on the sleepers on them they reeled off immeasurably, along the railway. That's exactly the T-34 there broke down, unlike the Shermans.
              1. 0
                25 July 2021 14: 37
                Quote: Zug
                The Sherman turned out to be an order of magnitude taller, they were reeled off along the sleepers without measure, along the railway. It was exactly the T-34 that broke down there, unlike the Shermans.

                Where did you read this?
                ... It will be doubly difficult for units of the second echelon of the army to move, that is, for us, "foreign cars", along a fairly broken embankment of a steel highway. There was no doubt that the rigid undercarriage of the 32-ton "T-34" would leave us just that way.
                In such difficult cruising conditions, the speed of movement will not exceed 5-6 kilometers per hour, which means an increased consumption of precious diesel fuel, and we can be hit from the air. The 46th Brigade was in Tongliao for only a few hours. The crews managed to carry out maintenance of the Shermans before the difficult and long journey. I must say that this eleventh day of the operation turned out to be very productive. The 21st Guards Tank Brigade of the 5th Corps captured the city of Zhangu by the morning of August 19. The landing forces captured the large cities of Changchun, Jirin and Mukden. Units of the 9th mechanized corps had to hurry.
                South of Tongliao, the brigade's tanks climbed the railroad embankments. The march on the sleepers began, which lasted two days. From the first meters, we felt the charm of moving along the sleepers, the ends of which were badly dented. They left deep marks from the ridge grips of the T-5s of the 34th Panzer Corps. "T-500", having a smaller track width than the "Sherman" (34 mm for the "T-584" versus XNUMX mm for the "Sherman"), moved, letting the rails pass into the inter-track clearance. Emcha could not do this. I had to direct one caterpillar between the rails, and the second to the gravel bed of sleepers. At the same time, the tank had a large lateral roll. In such a recalcitated position, under the feverish shaking on the sleepers, I had to move more than one hundred kilometers ...
                ... By the morning of August 20, trouble came. The suspension of the undercarriage could not withstand the huge overloads - the buffer springs of the road wheels began to deform, and then burst. It happened so far on three Shermans. We were forced to dump the gas and go to the "snail's step" ...


                Where did you read about the "breaking" T-34s, I do not know.
                1. Zug
                  0
                  25 July 2021 22: 45
                  I read Loza.
                  1. 0
                    26 July 2021 01: 09
                    Quote: Zug
                    I read Loza.

                    I've read it for a long time, that's why I am surprised at many words of commentators ... Where do they get these fantasies from?
                    1. Zug
                      0
                      27 July 2021 09: 25
                      Yes, read it Tankman on a foreign car. He describes the trip on sleepers there. In full detail.
                      1. 0
                        27 July 2021 12: 56
                        Quote: Zug
                        Quite detailed.

                        And where did I put the fragment above? Where is it about the breaking T-34?
      2. +3
        22 July 2021 10: 43
        in an open field - not a fact
      3. +1
        24 July 2021 03: 35
        Quote: CastroRuiz
        The Panther tank is the best tank of WW2.

        And the suspension was soft, although the plates were clogged with mud in the frost.
        1. -1
          24 July 2021 15: 06
          Try to find evidence of this.
          There is none. In the memoirs of German tankers, there is not a word that they were clogged with mud in the frost.
          This is an out of nowhere originated invention, wandering from one source to another according to different sources.
          1. +1
            25 July 2021 23: 03
            A little bit wrong during the day they got clogged with wet mud, and at night, if it was not cleaned and frost, it froze and, due to the large area of ​​adhesion with the rollers, did not allow the chassis to move.
      4. 0
        10 September 2021 17: 31
        Panther is not equal to 3 T-34, but 10. In terms of standard hours and currency - 20.
    3. +3
      22 July 2021 10: 02
      It is more logical to compare with the T-4 ...
      1. +3
        22 July 2021 10: 45
        since modification F2
    4. +2
      22 July 2021 10: 02
      It would be interesting to find data on the net weight of the T-34 hull and the "Panther", that is, how much more cast iron was spent on booking these tanks. And compare.
      1. 0
        22 July 2021 10: 57
        Armor steel is not cast iron.
    5. +8
      22 July 2021 10: 05
      PPC, genius! By the end of the war, panthers weighed 47-48, and some specimens stepped over 50 tons. T34-85, this is the heaviest 34, weighed 32 tons. The difference is 15 tons, mostly spent on armor and chassis.
    6. wow
      +15
      22 July 2021 10: 06
      I still don't understand why both our and foreign researchers of the technology of that war compare our MBT (in a modern way) T-34 not with a "classmate" of the T-IV type, but with a Panther and a Tiger! ??? These are cars of completely different weight categories. For example, our "heavy" IS-2 had a combat weight equal to the "average" T-V Panther, and the T-VI Tiger came very close to 60 tons! Our main one is the T-34, the German one is the T-IV in various modifications, both from the first to the last day of the Great Patriotic War and the Second World War in general.
      1. +3
        22 July 2021 10: 37
        I would like to add: - it's not just about tanks. The T-34 initially had a very small engine resource, so the mechanics rarely had more than 5 hours behind the levers. The training took place on BT !!!. Tank radio stations were in extreme shortage at the beginning of the war, the commanders controlled platoons and companies with flags, sticking out to the waist from the hatch. Therefore, they suffered heavy losses from bullets and shrapnel. What is a unit without a commander? Logistics was lame, especially given the lack of air supremacy. Many tanks were simply abandoned due to lack of fuel and breakdowns. That is why tank crews began to be sent to tank factories where they participated in the assembly and testing of vehicles, and only then they left for the front. Also read about the lack of armor-piercing shells. Even in the western direction, by the beginning of the war, entire districts did not have armor-piercing shells for the T-34. And the scopes? Of course Karl Zeiss was much better, which made it possible to increase the range of fire.
      2. +5
        22 July 2021 10: 58
        Quote: yo-mine
        Our main - T-34, German - T-IV in various modifications

        This is what we need to compare! And then, German means the best ... Tired of it!
        1. 0
          24 July 2021 20: 16
          > This is what we need to compare

          The 5-ka replaced the 4-ku in its niche in exactly the same way as the T-34-85 replaced the older Teshka.
      3. 0
        22 July 2021 11: 29
        The PzKpfw IV version G was a good tank - a completely versatile enemy of the T-34 - it had a better gun, not least better shells, and much stronger armor on the front.

        Only from January 1944, when the T-34/85 appeared, can we talk about a significant advantage of the Soviet tank - the main German tank produced at that time was the Panther, hence the comparison of the T-34/85 and PzKpfw V
        1. +1
          23 July 2021 06: 24
          Didn't they stop producing IV?
          And it was not because of "poverty" that various "yagdpanzers" and "hetzer" went into production.
          Simply making "crazy tanks" was easier and cheaper.
          So much for quality and quantity.
          1. 0
            23 July 2021 10: 00
            Yes, production of the PzKpfw IV did not stop until the end of the war (although Hitler ordered it to stop production in July 1944), but it is worth remembering that about 1938 of all IVs were produced in 9170. 1945, of which about 6700 in versions 1943-1945. H and J
            6000 Panther were built between 1943 and 1945.
            The latter was to become the main battle tank of the Third Reich.

            On the one hand, its technical efficiency and parameters were growing, on the other, the shortage of precious metals caused a deterioration in the quality of the armor steel, which meant that, despite the thickening of the armor, its resistance did not increase at all.

            On the other hand, we must not forget that the T-34, if in 1941 against the PaK 35/36 and even the KwK24 was a very well-armored tank, then from 1943 the armor was very weak and could not withstand the confrontation with the PaK40, KwK40, I will not mention KwK42 and KwK36. Attempts to increase the thickness of the T-34's armor were unsuccessful.
            1. +3
              23 July 2021 10: 19
              "Four" tried to "close" three times!
              And they produced it until the end of the war.
              "Panther" is much "fat" in comparison with the terms of reference. German designers "could not" keep within the weight limits.
              All tanks at the beginning of the war were very different from the tanks at the end of the war.
              The thickness of the T-34-85 armor was increased on the turret. The increase did not help the body any more. You can gossip a lot about the F-34 gun, about the quality of the shells, about the thickness of the armor. To grieve about the upgrades not carried out! But we should not forget that the T-1943 became the main tank in the tank brigades of the Red Army only in XNUMX. The front demanded tanks!
              And before that, the brigades had a mixed composition. T-60/70 and T-34.
              We have established a mass character. Improved quality. And they got the (bloody) experience of managing large tank units. There was no other way.
              The Germans throughout the war tried to get by with "little blood" in all spheres. From the supply of the army and the production of military equipment to the civilian sector.
              So, from a certain stage of the war, they began to rely on various "impenetrable" tanks, the first RPGs and other "unparalleled" "vundnrwafli"! They missed the time ...
              1. 0
                23 July 2021 10: 50
                Agreement.

                However, the words
                You can gossip a lot about the F-34 gun, about the quality of the shells, about the thickness of the armor. To grieve over the upgrades not carried out!

                or especially those from the article:
                But in terms of the general combination of maneuverability, security characteristics, firepower and efficiency, it is the T-34 tank that is seriously different. However, as the expert points out, the T-34 was in many ways (including the combat coefficient) inferior to individual enemy tanks, including the Panther..

                It is difficult to logically combine with the repeating mantra "T-34 is the best tank of the Second World War."

                Undoubtedly, it was a Victory tank and made a huge contribution to it, but in my opinion it was not the best.
                1. +1
                  23 July 2021 11: 15
                  But there is no doubt - He is the best for Us. For Russians!!!
                  I repeat - the T-34 at the beginning of the war is not the same thing as the T-34 in 1945.
                  And after the war, that was used by other countries - the Soviet T-34-85, the German-Czechoslovak "fourth panzer" and the American M4 "Sherman".
                  Neither "Tigers" nor "Panthers" (only the French and those not for long). The British Commonwealth "skated" on "American-British armor".
                  There were just a lot of them and they were available!
                  As in the autumn and winter of 1941, several hundred T-30 / T-60s with DShK or TNSh are better than several "semi-assembled" T-34s.
                  1. +1
                    23 July 2021 11: 24
                    But there is no doubt - He is the best for Us. For Russians!!!


                    Well, this approach is not conducive to an objective assessment.

                    And this is true - T-34 mod. 1940 is a completely different tank than the T-34/85, but some of its inherent features could not be significantly improved.

                    It was the same with the PzKpfw IV - a tank from 1937, and since 1944 they were completely different vehicles - with different weapons and armor, or with the Sherman - M4A1 and M4A3E8 - also an abyss.

                    And the war was de facto won by the Soviet artillery. hi
                    1. +1
                      23 July 2021 15: 18
                      What's a bad approach?
                      The Israelis consider their Merkova tanks to be the best. For them. And the area where they are used!
                      And there is also a "little nuance" - we and the Americans have replaced the towers with weapons on our tanks. The Germans made tanks of different designs, but the same purpose !!!
                  2. -1
                    24 July 2021 05: 51
                    But there is no doubt - He is the best for Us. For Russians!!!

                    It is not necessary to tie technology to nationality.
                    The reality is less romantic: and there was nothing else. They fought as best they could.
                    Having at the beginning of the war there were big problems with visibility on the T-34 and a number of other problems. For example, with precise aiming of a gun in a maneuvering battle, an "oak" gearbox ..
                    By the way, there are interviews with Soviet veteran tankers who fought on the Shermans, and the reviews are very positive.
                    1. 0
                      24 July 2021 11: 21
                      I have no doubts about the good reviews about the M-4 tank. But our industry could not produce a tank like this. Maybe the English could have done it, but the British tank industry was "very specific".
                      We made what we could. The gearbox was changed, the observation devices were improved, the turret turning mechanism was altered to be more convenient. All this had to be done after testing an experienced tank. But it turned out how it happened.
                      1. 0
                        25 July 2021 18: 37
                        The turret turning mechanism did not become much better: coarse aiming by an electric motor and precise - by mechanics. Controlling all this from one place is very bad, you had to switch the lever to another position, which made you waste precious seconds in battle.

                        1. 0
                          25 July 2021 19: 56
                          Compared to the turning mechanism of the first T-34s, this was better. And many cars did not have turret rotation motors at all. The Germans, their "four" model J, were also deprived of the electric turret rotation.
                          And the hydraulics on the "Panther" and "Tigers" worked only with a "live" engine.
                          With the engine inoperative, the gunner probably had to make decent efforts, especially if the tank was not in an upright position.
                        2. 0
                          25 July 2021 20: 11
                          And the hydraulics on the "Panther" and "Tigers" worked only with a "live" engine.

                          On the contrary: where did the electricity come from to turn the T-34 turret? The engine is dead - turn it by hand ..
                          I focused specifically on the controls:
                          on the Panther, rough aiming of the tower was carried out by the gunner's left swinging foot pedal (the turning speed varied from the pressing force), and fine - by a separate (!) manual gate. The release of the cannon is on the vertical aiming handle.
                          By the way, on the T-34 there was no rotating floor of the tower, there was a risk of injury to the loader's legs.
                          Imagine yourself in the shoes of both gunners.
                          (Watching from 6:30)

                          (Watching here from 3:40)
                        3. 0
                          25 July 2021 20: 24
                          Look ...
                          If you are not satisfied with the T-34. That is your personal opinion based on afterthoughts!
                          Or did you fight in a Panther or an M4?
                          Then give them a T-34 with a Matilda or Valentine. And best of all with the Crusader family.
                          Everything is relative. Especially when comparing the industrial capabilities of a country that participated in the Second World War.
                          The Americans lost 5 Shermans for one Panther. Does this make the M4 worse? For the American army?
                        4. 0
                          25 July 2021 20: 28
                          Or did you fight in a Panther or an M4?

                          He fought on the M4 to the same extent as on the T-34.
                          There are interviews with Soviet veterans who fought on the Shermans. Very positive, especially about the 76mm version.
                          Especially in comparison of industrial possibilities

                          The device of the aiming controls is rather the level of engineers and the presence / absence of feedback from those who operate this tank.
                        5. 0
                          25 July 2021 20: 41
                          So, in your opinion, the level of engineers is not related to the ability of the industry to master what these engineers "invented".
                          As an example, the establishment of the production of steel belts for machine guns. Or "everlasting" sleeve with a rim (welt) of a domestic rifle cartridge.
                        6. 0
                          25 July 2021 20: 49
                          Making separate control of "fast" electrical and "precise" mechanical turret rotation is not a problem for the industry.
                          Just make two "buttons" - pedals for the gunner for left-right quick turn of the turret. And the hands are on the mechanical aiming / firing organs.
                          This is precisely the drawback from the designers and their poor feedback from the tankers.
                        7. 0
                          25 July 2021 21: 08
                          You know - you and I were not present at the tests of the T-34 prototype. Otherwise, we would have driven Koshkin and Co. into the tank and forced them to manage what they "projected".
                          The military dashed off a whole "papyrus" of claims and complaints.
                          But perhaps they decided that "either checkers or go." There is a tank with problems. Nothing like this has ever been produced.
                          It is necessary to put it into production, or if you take up modifications and changes, there will be no tank by the beginning of the war.
                          And after the start of the evacuation, with the loss of factories and workers, they lost quality and began to "get out in their own way" at each factory. Again - either the tanks are "raw" in the troops or revision, but the army is without tanks!
                          Or checkers or go ...
                          You can remember the observation device MK-4. They wanted to "copy" it from Polish trophies in 1939. Yes, only the "industrialists" resisted and did not engage in this device. And in 1943, the military had to "shout loudly" so that the production workers would "delight" them with this device only already "copied" from British tanks.
                          Sometimes the military wanted, but did not want the production workers.
                          And sometimes the industry could not produce what the army wanted.
                          Unless from the good life, they delivered light tanks TNSh. It's just that DShK was not produced in the required quantities. And VYa was not suitable for this. But ShVAK came up. And we got TNSh.
                        8. 0
                          25 July 2021 22: 47
                          here you and I were not on tests of the prototype of the T-34

                          Unfortunately, or fortunately (for us). The times were gloomy, one of the dissatisfied would have dashed off a denunciation, and we would have confessed to working on a couple of intelligence agencies at once request
                          But perhaps they decided that "either checkers or go." There is a tank with problems. Nothing like this has ever been produced.

                          There are fundamental problems that require significant changes, and there are much more easily solvable.
                          From the electromechanical unit, leave only the working mechanics, no turns of the lever and contact groups, transfer the wiring (only 3 single-core wires) to 1 swinging / 2 separate pedals.
                          Question: how many tanks / crews were lost due to the difficulty of targeting?
                          The trouble is that there was no one to invent / demand from the constructors.
                          Unless from the good life, they delivered light tanks TNSh. It's just that DShK was not produced in the required quantities.

                          Stop: DShK is a 12,7mm machine gun?
                          They differ greatly in capabilities with the 20mm cannon.
                          Sometimes the military wanted, but did not want the production workers.

                          It means that the work and interaction were poorly organized.
                        9. 0
                          25 July 2021 23: 16
                          Alas and ah ... DShK did not lag behind TNSh in terms of armor penetration! But it was more developed for work "on the ground". And the "heavenly" ShVAK converted into a TNSh turned out to be susceptible to earth dust and poor maintenance. Aviation gunsmiths were nevertheless more technically competent in terms of servicing such automatic low-caliber guns.
                          Our knowledge and technical skills are ours alone. And they cannot be transferred either in 1904 or in 1939 or 1941.
                        10. 0
                          10 September 2021 17: 54
                          And Karius just believed that one Russian is worth six Americans ...
                        11. 0
                          10 September 2021 18: 01
                          Carius knows better ...
                          But he was a noble storyteller, like Baron Munchausen!
                        12. +1
                          10 September 2021 17: 52
                          Do not forget about the maximum tilt of the "crampons" body for the rotation of the tower at 5 degrees. and the obligatory fixation of the tower during movement and shooting. This negated the advantage in rate of fire in maneuverable combat.
                        13. +1
                          1 September 2021 13: 21
                          Quote: 3danimal
                          The turret turning mechanism did not become much better: coarse aiming by an electric motor and precise - mechanics


                          At the tank range, I had a chance to wield the T-34 turret drive mechanism manually - it was hard.
              2. +1
                24 July 2021 00: 06
                "The increase did not help the body anymore" ///
                ---
                The frontal armor of the T-34 hull could not be increased - the front rollers could not withstand.
                The T-34 started the war with 45 mm frontal armor and finished it in 1945.
                The T-IV's frontal hull armor was increased until 1943, and then faced the same problem - the rollers could not support the weight.
                Therefore, they made the Panther.
                1. +2
                  24 July 2021 11: 51
                  In 1944, 2 T-34-85M were manufactured.
                  With 75mm frontal armor. Mechanical drive hatch 100mm.
                  The chassis was reinforced.
                  But shelling from German tank guns showed that these measures to strengthen the frontal part of the hull were already "late". The armor penetrated KvK43 from 2 km.
                  And they came to the conclusion to throw all their forces into strengthening the armor of the tower.
                  The turrets of the first T-34-85s had 75mm frontal armor, 52mm side and stern armor.
                  Since August 1944, the towers began to be made with 90mm frontal armor, 75mm side, 52mm rear.
                  1. +1
                    24 July 2021 12: 10
                    thanks for the info drinks
                    1. +1
                      24 July 2021 12: 31
                      If and to strengthen the armor of the hull, then this should have been done in 1942.
                      But at that time it was about setting up production, increasing the production of tanks.
                      And our afterthoughts are not "quoted" against the background of knowledge of the situation of those who lived at that difficult time
      4. -2
        24 July 2021 20: 17
        > I still don't understand why both our and foreign researchers of the technology of that war compare our MBT (in a modern way) T-34 not with a "classmate" of the T-IV type, but with a Panther and a Tiger! ???

        Because if you put the MBT globe on the T-34-85 for its intended purpose, the panther is also an MBT.
    7. +2
      22 July 2021 10: 31
      But in terms of the general combination of maneuverability, security characteristics, firepower and efficiency, it is the T-34 tank that is seriously different. However, as the expert points out, the T-34 was in many ways (including the combat coefficient) inferior to individual enemy tanks, including the Panther.
      In general, it is not a secret. But, thirty-four, this is a victory tank !!! and her merit is no less than that of all our people.
    8. +3
      22 July 2021 10: 54
      Somehow imperceptibly the well-known expression "the best MEDIUM tank of the 2nd world war" was transformed into "the best tank of the 2nd world war" !!! negative This is the whole snag. hi
    9. +4
      22 July 2021 11: 07
      Always interferes if only, if only. But history does not like self-respect. But if you look at what would have happened if our people would have met the Nazis in deployed orders, with deployed rear areas. And deployed and raised aircraft. It would be a completely different war
    10. +2
      22 July 2021 11: 08
      The comparison is not entirely correct .... The Panther is in fact a heavy tank with a specific anti-tank gun ...... if you send it to the attack aircraft of the operation, it will not pull. And so - excellent optics, a rangefinder, a 70-caliber cannon ... you can not bother with the tower
    11. +5
      22 July 2021 11: 13
      Quote: URAL72
      the commanders controlled the platoons and companies with flags, sticking out to the waist from the hatch. Therefore, they suffered heavy losses from bullets and shrapnel.

      On the contrary, Otto Carius in his memoirs called the Thirty-fours blind and deaf, because they always fought with battered hatches. And the German platoon commander was constantly sticking out of the hatch with binoculars, which made him much more aware of the battle.
      1. -1
        23 July 2021 20: 34
        There were 5 Germans in a tank with a comm turret ...... our turret appeared only in the T-34-85
        1. +2
          24 July 2021 12: 58
          Really? Look at the T-34 with a 43-year-old nut turret ... What is it that rises above the turret?
          1. -1
            24 July 2021 17: 24
            4 people didn't care ....
            1. 0
              26 July 2021 07: 19
              But there was a commander's cupola! And you said that they were not on the T-34-76 ...
              1. 0
                26 July 2021 07: 59
                The T-34-76 had more than one turret and turrets ..... But the main jamb is the lack of distribution for the Commander and the shooter. The French had a better Mechvod-shooter ...
    12. +2
      22 July 2021 11: 14
      Lord, the Motherland is waiting for Heroes, and the "historians" of the Ustyantsevs appear.
      Doesn't he want to compare anything else?
    13. +2
      22 July 2021 13: 08
      And I am convinced that it is incorrect to compare the Panther with the T-34-85, the Panther should be compared with the T-44 or Pershing. The analogs of the 34 are Pz.IV and M4 "Sherman", and it is necessary to compare with them for three reasons: firstly, the machines of the ONE generation; secondly - plus or minus are close in performance characteristics; thirdly, all three vehicles in their armies were "workhorses". Why is it "incorrect to compare the T-34 with the Panther" - because, according to the German classification (by the caliber of the gun), you can put a large barrel on some thread of a caterpillar tractor and call it a "heavy tank" or even put a turret on the Maus hull with just automatic cannon and call this Frankenstein "light tank". And yet - according to the German classification, the T-34 is "heavy" from the very beginning - don't you think it's nonsense that a "medium" tank turns out to be STRONGER than a "heavy" one? laughing
      1. +1
        23 July 2021 20: 35
        With IS2 in fact
      2. -2
        24 July 2021 15: 14
        In terms of production volume, the Panther is comparable to the T4, at the end of the war it is superior.
        A medium or heavy tank is not a weight, but a purpose.
        1. 0
          26 July 2021 08: 00
          On the Su100 gun somewhere nearby (if we take chassis 34ki)
      3. 0
        24 July 2021 20: 12
        > yes, because according to the German classification (by the caliber of the gun)

        "German gun caliber classification" does not exist in nature. It is based on the purpose of the machine, and here the panther is mirrored to the 1944 teshkas.
    14. 0
      22 July 2021 16: 15
      .dog 5491 ylarwef to only amu odd panther Panther is an excellent tank. Yes, at first it broke, but then the Germans improved it
      1. 0
        22 July 2021 16: 53
        Again I got caught on a graphics editor.
    15. -1
      23 July 2021 16: 53
      If my grandmother had a dick, she would be a grandfather)))
    16. +1
      23 July 2021 17: 52
      One thing can be said, but does another expert know that the kinetic energy of the T-34-85 armor-piercing projectile and the Panther are equal, but the T-34 projectile was superior to the Panther projectile in terms of high-explosive effect, the same in terms of power reserve. speed over rough terrain and repair and those. service. The advantage of the Panther over the T-34 was based on the quality of armor-piercing shells and the thickness of the 85 mm front plate with a slope, but the side armor of the first releases was 40 mm, versus 45 mm for the T-34. Therefore, the use of the Panther did not make much of an impression, unlike the Tiger. The T-44, created in 1944, was superior to the Panther in all respects.
      1. 0
        24 July 2021 20: 14
        >, but the high-explosive effect of the T-34 projectile was superior to the Panther projectile

        Throughout the war, Teshka fought with a fragmentation grenade instead of an OFS, so everything is not so obvious.
      2. 0
        26 July 2021 08: 04
        The Panther was better in terms of the range and quality of the FCS ....... but if you take the battles where you need the HE action of the projectile, then, of course, the 85mm projectile is better. Here is the situation, as with the T72 and Leo2A5 and the Abrams, which did not have HE shells at all.
        And in design, the FCS and the Panther and Tiger are comparable to the tanks of the post-war period.
    17. +3
      23 July 2021 19: 08
      The T-34-85 is not the most powerful, it is the best! It could be produced (produced) in sufficient quantities, provided with spare parts, ammunition and crews. No tigers, panthers and others provided such opportunities. Collected by half-starved, half-literate teenagers, women and old men, 34 flew from the Vistula to the Oder with a stop in Pomerania, and then they took Berlin too! This could only be 3-ki and "Prague", but they were always lacking and they were collected by well-fed, qualified and hefty men, and were managed and commanded by professionals with many years of training. And they could not ... And 34 made it possible to win. T-34-85 is the best tank of all times, peoples and wars. If we talk about it as a combat unit, and not as a modern cart with a cannon and a machine gun.
      1. -6
        24 July 2021 06: 15
        If Germany had not fought on 2 fronts (not counting Africa) and had Britain and the United States (the main world factory of that time) as allies, she would have surely won the Union. Despite any heroism.
        But it was the other way around: Hitler unleashed a war with Britain, the USSR, the United States joined, providing support to the first two and from 1943 directly participating in the war.
        The USSR suffered colossal losses exceeding all other countries, this, among other things, is interconnected with the cheapness of equipment.
      2. Zug
        0
        25 July 2021 10: 05
        ammunition and crews- I especially liked it))))
    18. 0
      23 July 2021 20: 07
      In the film "T-34" one thirty-four can easily endure the heels of panthers. From this we will dance.
      1. +2
        24 July 2021 06: 15
        There is a lot to see in fantasy good
      2. 0
        24 July 2021 15: 23
        The tactics of the T34 duel battle with the Tiger can be seen in the film The crew of the combat vehicle

        https://youtu.be/xg4jSmLUakU

        From 41 minutes
      3. 0
        26 July 2021 08: 07
        Both the Panthers and Tigers were mostly hit by Aviation and artillery. And the success is not only iron, These units were manned by trained and experienced crews, SS Panzer divisions were generally elite panzer units. Therefore, I shot the appropriate one. Not only Soviet tanks, but also American ones.
    19. +1
      23 July 2021 22: 19
      Running rubbish, engine rubbish, powerful low-quality armor, good cannon, very good optics - the assessment of the Soviet tanker who fought on the Panther - the seal of mentality, the Germans were going to shoot, and in Russia, first of all, it was necessary to get to the shooting, and many did not reach , and when the "Panthers" arrived, then - yes, there were some advantages, all this was even more related to the Tigers, our people did not even try to exploit them.
      1. +1
        26 July 2021 08: 09
        T-34 cannon and optics of the type like the Americans and the British on the Sherman of later versions to put, it would radically solve this issue.
    20. -8
      23 July 2021 23: 20
      The Panther tank is the best tank of WW2.
      1. 0
        24 July 2021 08: 31
        When in Germany there is a museum wink
      2. 0
        25 July 2021 18: 35
        For disputes on forums and exhibitions. In battle, 10 34-rock is more practical. As shown by the result of the war.
      3. 0
        26 July 2021 13: 47
        Quote: CastroRuiz
        The Panther tank is the best tank of WW2.

        Maybe the best in Germany, but they lost the war in Russia, and there are other conditions.
    21. 0
      24 July 2021 08: 30
      None of the home-grown experts remembered the basic formula for calculating military equipment "cost / efficiency"! It was used then and is used now. Will the 8xT-34 be "overwhelmed" at the meeting of the T-V? Yes, I love you! Yes, and 4 will overwhelm, a specific task at a specific place of the theater of operations, 8 thirty-fours will definitely perform better than one panther, and they will reach the point of execution more easily, that's all your chatter is empty - to zero!
      1. 0
        26 July 2021 08: 12
        Here it is necessary to recall the successes of the Germans in the first half of WWII, when the Paner and the Tigers were not there .... and the Wehrmach reached Moscow with tank wedges. And from Pz they had 1-2-3-4 ....... and clear coordination with artillery and Ju-87. And by the end of the war, the Red Army was no longer a whipping boy in terms of tactics.
    22. 0
      24 July 2021 09: 01
      When creating the T-34/85, they wanted to increase the armor of the upper frontal sheet of the hull from 45 to 60 centimeters, but steel products of this thickness were not produced at that time. And think if a frontal sheet of such a thickness did appear on the T-34/85. How many tankers and the tanks themselves would be alive.
      1. Zug
        0
        25 July 2021 10: 09
        Yes, it would not have done anything. In 43-44, the Germans had barrels of 75 and higher, and with an initial projectile velocity of 900 m. -45 corpse. And by the way, they tried and did with the armor, but the tests just showed that the German projectile did not care what to make holes. 60 or 34. PAC45 pierced the forehead, passed the T-60 and pulled out the engine with the aft armor plate.
        1. 0
          25 July 2021 16: 33
          Do not confuse the testing of the IS-122 with the 122mm cannon when firing at the Panther's hull with the Panther. There, indeed, a 122mm projectile pierced the Panther's frontal armor, went right through and tore off the stern sheet, throwing it 1,5 meters away. This is the test report for the 122mm cannon on the IS-2.
          1. Zug
            0
            25 July 2021 22: 41
            I'm not confusing anything.
    23. +2
      24 July 2021 10: 04
      While the Panther heroically overcomes the thirty-four in a one-on-one duel, a dozen T-34s break communications, crush the infantry, burn fuel and ammunition depots, and smash the rembases. And the winning Panther remains naked ...
      1. 0
        26 July 2021 08: 15
        The Panther, unfortunately, fired 10 tanks in the area ... and its release was fully justified in terms of the number of its shots ....... The Reich ran out of resources, armor, steel, gasoline, experienced tankers ... The armored fist of the Red Army only grew and the crews were trained.
    24. 0
      24 July 2021 11: 55
      The Panther repeated the mistakes in the design of the T-34. I will express an unpopular opinion. Due to the enthusiasm for the slope of the armor, the T-34 became very cramped for the crew, and when the 45-mm was installed in the tower intended for the 76-mm cannon, it became very crowded in the tower, which was gotten rid of only in the 44th. The Panther was much more spacious, but because of the "rational" angles of inclination, it had impressive dimensions, comparable to the Tiger, and even more in height. Projectile resistance compared to the Tiger was significantly less, especially from the side projection, although the Panther weighed only 7-8 tons less than the Tiger. Comparing the Panther and the T-34 is not entirely correct, the Panther is an anti-tank, and the T-34 is a breakthrough tank. Here is where to compare the T-34 and KV-1, which is better, it turns out that the KV-1 is much better than the T-34, as the Tiger is better than the Panther. Especially in terms of operational reliability. And by the slope of the armor ... by that time there were already armor-piercing shells with a soft ballistic tip, which did not interfere with the slope of the armor and they pierced the sloped armor along the normal.
      1. 0
        26 July 2021 08: 16
        I think that the ACS based on the Panther was not much worse than the Panther itself ... and this and that tank destroyer, in fact.
    25. The comment was deleted.
    26. 0
      24 July 2021 12: 59
      Quote: fa2998
      But we are still comparing it with the Panther. Yes, the Is-3 was a decent tank, but the Panther had a better rate of fire, optics, more ammunition, gun accuracy, a smooth ride (suspension) and less weight, naturally mobility. And the gas brake unmasked the Is-3. , and blinded the crew.

      Loading speed 75 mm and 122. Unitary cartridge and split-case. You will not be able to get all the advantages at the same time without getting the disadvantages. Nobody. The brake is not worth a good life. And about blinding the crew. We got very excited. They did not learn how to make transparent armor either then or now. Unmasking when fired, yes. The danger of finding the infantry accompanying the tank from the side. To extinguish the recoil either by adapting the weapon itself, or by strengthening the chassis, both are bad.
    27. 0
      24 July 2021 18: 13
      1 .. The Germans in general were full of advantages in everything. Only Guderian wrote in his memoirs that these advantages were the result of the throwing of Germany after the defeat near Moscow. It turned out to be impossible to win a long-term war without its own cheap raw material base, and even paying fabulous money to each manufacturing company at market prices (even by wartime standards).

      2. So I had to contrive ..... and hope for techno miracles. The Reich's feverish attempts to create more weapons were the result of the failure of Barbarossa's plan. They simply had nowhere else to go in the post-1941 conditions.

      3. As a result, Panthers produced 6 thousand, Tigers - 1400. And in the USSR - 33 thousand T-34 tanks and more than 6 thousand heavy. tanks.

      4. If Aloizych knew in advance that he would have to import raw materials by sea for years, he would have postponed such a stupid war. What were they fighting for? For the most important and expensive, for the raw material base.
      5. However, these plans have now been completely successful for the West .... we let them down without a war all that we have. For "sneakers". Nano condoms and Snickers outperform Junkers and Panthers. Savages themselves will sell all the wealth of their country for beads. So it was, is and will be. The Anglo-Saxons turned out to be an order of magnitude wiser than the straightforward Germans.
      1. 0
        26 July 2021 08: 17
        Success in tactics does not compensate for mistakes in strategy ...
    28. 0
      24 July 2021 20: 13
      Quote: novel xnumx
      here, damn it, surprised .. it turns out a heavy tank is more powerful than average ... Nobel Prize in the studio !!


      They have never been a heavy tank.
    29. +1
      24 July 2021 20: 56
      Some want so much to prove that the USSR did not win the war, that it was a lime tree, that the judge was playing along. And a dozen times he was allowed to shoot a penalty when he was not there. In addition, in the USSR, the players were changed incorrectly, even among the mast and the referee did not pay attention to this. You can say and still do the Red Army, the USSR won the war wrong and the gold medals must be given to the United States, and the silver to Nazi Germany. Early Hitler shot himself. He could still lead his Europe and even NATO. But thanks to the Ukrainian fronts and Cossack associations, it can still be considered if their fronts are considered that Ukraine won the war. Ukraine fought on all fronts and on one side and on the other, from the Pacific Ocean from the west of the United States to the Atlantic Ocean, the east of the United States, where they left off.
      1. 0
        26 July 2021 08: 20
        The USSR definitely won the war. But there is only one question - the huge defeats of 1941-42 ... with a manned army, with the experience of wars in Manhuria and Finland. And in general, the situation in Europe is not entirely peaceful.
    30. 0
      25 July 2021 18: 28
      So compare 10 T-34s with one Panther ...
      1. 0
        26 July 2021 08: 20
        If the distance is from 1,5 km ... she will shoot them all like partridges. And they won't get into it.
    31. 0
      27 July 2021 11: 05
      Quote: Avior
      Try to find evidence of this.
      There is none. In the memoirs of German tankers, there is not a word that they were clogged with mud in the frost.
      This is an out of nowhere originated invention, wandering from one source to another according to different sources.

      Then the question is different: if the suspension is so successful, why after the war no one repeated it, not even the Germans?
    32. 0
      1 September 2021 13: 20
      Sherman M4 and T-34
      Uralvagonzavod employee praises his tank.
      And the Shermans M-4 went to the guards units exclusively. 5 Guards TK
      "Tankman in a foreign car" Dmitry Loza
    33. 0
      5 September 2021 14: 01
      But here on the Narva isthmus in 44, for 7 months, the namts burned our T-34 and IS with grenade launchers. There were no more than a dozen panthers.
      1. 0
        22 September 2021 14: 15
        Didn't they burn with their members? The use of "faustpatrons" in Finland proved to be a failure, causing damage only in cities, there was little sense in the field. Can you tell us how the Germans burned ISs before August 10, 1944, how many and where?
        On the Narva bridgehead, TIGERS acted against ours, and so they burned ours decently (T34, Sherman, KV1), but we didn’t seem to have ISs there.
    34. 0
      6 September 2021 11: 38
      So it is necessary to compare not with the T-34, but the Is-2. Tanks comparable in weight and armor.
    35. 0
      22 September 2021 14: 00
      Well, about 8-10 T34 for 1 Panther comrade bent, maybe a couple, three yes. Tanks do not fight with tanks, for this there are self-propelled guns and anti-tank vehicles. A duel is stupidity and rarity, more often they work from ambushes. Task T34: go into the breakthrough created by the infantry and forward, surround enemy units. And the one who is more fortunate will win the duel, taking into account the conditions of the battle.
      The main advantage of the T34 is its manufacturability and mass production.
    36. Rin
      0
      29 September 2021 16: 46
      The T-34 turned out to be a successful tank, by which it shows the long service of the post-war world.

    "Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned), Kirill Budanov (included to the Rosfinmonitoring list of terrorists and extremists)

    “Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"