Military Review

T-34. Machine by the Soviet rules

125

Everyone wants truth to be on his side, but not everyone wants to be on the side of truth.

- Richard Watley


Contrary to the well-established saying, the truth never lies in the middle. Under the pressure of irrefutable evidence, it shifts in favor of one or another point of view, often dissolving somewhere in the fourth dimension, beyond the limits of our understanding. The path to truth is thorny and ornate, and the achieved result is far from the prevailing ideas about the "good" and "evil" beginnings of this world.

Anyone who undertakes to unravel the phenomenon of the Soviet Thirty-Fours, tightly binds in the armor penetration tables for the F-34 and KwK 42 projectiles, the infinite figures of ground pressure, the armor slope and the maximum height of obstacles to be overcome.

After a comprehensive review of the characteristics and evidence of the combat use of Russian tankas a rule, a completely logical conclusion follows: T-34 is an uncouth steel coffin that does not possess any of the magnificent properties attributed to it.

T-34. Machine by the Soviet rules

Weekdays of the Eastern Front

There is a ridiculous feeling that the Red Army defeated the Germans not thanks to, but in spite of the T-34 tank.
Indeed, in the initial period of the war, when a technical advantage was still maintained behind the thirty-four, the Red Army handed over the cities one after another. Already 25 June 1941, the Nazis broke into Minsk - 250 kilometers from the border in three days! The Wehrmacht did not know such advance rates even in France.

In 1944, when any of the German "Tigers" could flash through a pair of T-34 standing in a line of fire, the T-XNUMX caterpillars joked merrily on the bridge streets of European capitals, rolling a red-brown abomination into the asphalt.

Paradox?

Don't try to find the answer in the mean reference tables. In accordance with the well-known idea of ​​the "best tank" as the trinity of armor, mobility and fire (as well as means of observation and communication, reliability of mechanisms and ergonomics of the combat compartment), the Sherman Fairfly will surely come out on top.

Did you expect otherwise? The British 17-pound cannon punched the Tiger's forehead from a distance of a kilometer, and the platform itself - the American M4 Sherman tank - corresponded to T-34 on the main TTX, surpassing the latter in reliability, mobility and working conditions of the crew.


Fritz in the downed "thirty-three"

If you do not make a breakdown into the “light / medium / heavy” classes, the German “Tiger” will enter the “Best tank of World War II” convulsively with its 700-strong “Maybach” on the pedestal. In a duel situation (T-34, EC-2, Sherman vs. Tiger), the German beast scored any opponent with a probability close to 100%. And he passed where any other tank turned into a sieve - a mad fire of "forty-five" batteries was for the "Tiger" like an elephant pellet. “Ivan throws stones” - smiled German tankers.

Maybe it is necessary to look for the answer in honest English-speaking sources?

The T-34 was the best tank, not because it was the most powerful or heavy, the German tanks in this sense were ahead of them. But he was very effective for that war and allowed him to solve tactical tasks. The maneuverable Soviet T-34 "hunted in packs" like wolves, which did not give chances to the cumbersome German "Tigers". American and British tanks were not so successful in opposing German technology.

- Norman Davies, Professor at Oxford University

Professor Norman Daves would do well to remind you that “hunting in packs of Tigers was not a priority task of T-34. According to the dry statistics of 3 / 4, armor losses on the Eastern Front occur in the fire of anti-tank artillery and explosions in minefields. Tanks are designed to solve other problems than the destruction of their own machines.

In the end, with the same success it can be argued about the “pack hunting” of the German StuG III or PzKpfw IV to the Soviet “Thirty-Four” - the Germans had no less armored vehicles than the Red Army. Modern jokes in the style of “overwhelmed with equipment and showered with corpses” - only the pre-death delirium of the liberal-democratic party




Each downed front line turned tank turned into a potential German weapon


Let us leave the fantasies about the “hunting hunt for the Tigers” on the conscience of the professor at Oxford University and his comrades from the Discovery Channel. These "experts" mutter something about the rational angles of the armor plates and the lesser fire hazard of the T-34 diesel engine. Tales designed for the general public are irrelevant to reality.

The slope of armor plates makes sense, as long as the caliber of the projectile does not exceed the thickness of the armor.
It is known that the 88 mm projectile of the German eight-eight anti-aircraft gun pierced both the foil and the 45 mm T-34 inclined frontal part, and the 50 mm inclined Sherman armor and the vertical forehead of the British Cromwell tank 64 mm thick.



The myth of the extreme flammability of gasoline and the poor flammability of diesel fuel is based on household errors. But in real combat, no one puts out the torch in the fuel tank (a well-known trick with a bucket of diesel fuel and burning rags). In a real battle, a fuel tank is beaten with a red-hot pig, flying at two or three speeds of sound.

In such conditions, the thickness of the armor and the location of the fuel tanks become important. Alas, the armor of the Second World War was not distinguished by a high level of fire safety - often the fuel was stored directly in the fighting compartment of the tank.


And in war as in war


With the "experts" channel "Discovery" everything is clear - their task is to make a bright show, not really going into the details of tank battles. Discovery was unable to indicate the true reason for the popularity of the T-34 tank, however, it stubbornly puts the Russian car in first place in all its tank ratings. Thanks and on this one.

The real American military, those who directly tested the T-34 at the Aberdeen Proving Ground in the fall of 1942, made some ambiguous evidence defaming the honor of the “best tank” of World War II.

The medium tank T-34, after running in 343 km, completely failed, its further repair is impossible ...

In heavy rains a lot of water flows through the cracks into the tank, which leads to the failure of electrical equipment ...

Close fighting compartment. The electric motor turning the tower is weak, overloaded and sparks terribly.

Tank recognized low-speed. The T-34 overcomes obstacles more slowly than any of its American counterparts.
The reason is a non-optimal transmission.

Welding armored plates T-34 rough and careless. The machining of parts, with rare exceptions, is very bad. The ugly design of the backstage gear - I had to disassemble the knot, replacing the backstage with a part of our own design.


The same positive points were noted:

Powerful and reliable gun F-34, wide tracks, good maneuverability, and even such a rare, almost unknown to the general public, fact, as a large height overcome wall. In contrast to the "Sherman" and the German tanks with the front of the transmission, the "thirty-four" transmission and, accordingly, the leading sprocket caterpillars, located in the rear of the tank. This allowed the T-34 to climb the front of the track to a higher ledge (the diameter of the guide sprocket is usually smaller than that of the leading one).

There was also a reverse moment associated with the rear of the MTO - the length of the control rods reached 5 meters. The exhausting loads acting on the driver’s mechanics are low reliability - it’s not by chance that our grandfathers went into battle on one of the previously selected transmissions and tried, if possible, not to touch the capricious T-34 transmission.

How does T-34 appear as a result of this short study? Mediocre "average" with a set of positive and negative qualities. Not the most successful design, incompatible with the loud title "The best tank of World War II."

Strange, very strange. The ugly design of the backstage gear ... Scarlet flag over the Reichstag ... Who are you, the mysterious Russian warrior? How did you manage to go through a difficult path from Moscow to Berlin, defend Stalingrad and clash with the “Tigers” in a fierce fight at Prokhorovka?

How was the Victory gained, if “the welding of the body armor plates is rough and careless. Machining of parts, with rare exceptions, is very bad ”?

Perhaps the answer will be the memories of the German tankers - those who have experienced the triunity of fire, mobility and security of the Thirty-Four?

“... the Soviet tank T-34 is a typical example of backward Bolshevik technology. This tank can not be compared with the best models of our tanks, made by the faithful sons of the Reich and have repeatedly proved their advantage ... "

- Heinz Guderian, October 1941 of the year

“High-Speed ​​Heinz” gave a too hasty assessment of the T-34, after a couple of days he had to take back his words:
“The reports we received about the actions of Russian tanks were especially disappointing. Our anti-tank weapons of the time could successfully act against T-34 tanks only under particularly favorable conditions. For example, our T-IV tank with its short-barreled 75-mm gun had the opportunity to destroy the T-34 tank only from the back side, hitting its engine through the blinds ...
Returning to Orel, I met Colonel Eberbach there, who also reported to me about the course of the last battles; then I again met General von Geyer and the commander of the 4 Panzer Division, Baron von Langerman. For the first time since the beginning of this intense campaign, Eberbach had a tired look ... "

- Heinz Guderian, October of the same 1941 of the year

Funny. Why is it that Guderian changed his mind so radically? And why did the brave Colonel Eberbach have a “tired look”?

October 7 The 1941 of the year near Mtsensk was defeated by the tank team of the Wehrmacht's 4 Panzer Division. Obnaglev from easy victories (or breathing in the Russian air), Colonel Eberbach relied on "maybe" and neglected thorough reconnaissance and other security measures. For which he immediately paid - the T-34 attack from the Katukov brigade caught the Germans by surprise. “Thirty-fours” killed the German armored vehicles crowded on the road and melted away in the evening twilight.



Trying to justify his shameful defeat, Eberbach pulled the dull melody about the technical superiority of the Russians (although the Germans had previously clicked like seeds on the Soviet mechanized corps with hundreds of first-class T-34s and KV). Stung Guderian took the point of view of his subordinates, putting all the blame for the unsuccessful operation under Mtsensk on "T-34 super tanks."

Heinz Guderian was absolutely right! Medium tank T-34 - one of the key factors on the Eastern Front, crushed German military might. But the beaten German general could not (or did not dare) to name the true reasons for which the nondescript T-34 could crush Panzervae’s tank wedges into powder.

Paradoxes of quantum mechanics

None of the German field marshals and false historians from the Discovery Channel mentioned one of the important factors directly related to the success of T-34:
When the European sky lit up the purple sunset of the war, and the indomitable steel T-34s rushed to the West, it turned out that it was easier to drop a heavily damaged tank on the bank of the Danube and order a new car from the factory than transport the damaged T-34 thousands of kilometers to Nizhny Tagil. Russian laziness has nothing to do with it. All because of the economy - the cost of the new T-34 will be lower than the cost of transporting it.

At the same time, the Fritz, drowning knee-deep in mud, evacuated the burnt-out skeletons of the Tigers and Panthers under fire. According to reports from German repair teams, many Tigers on the Eastern Front underwent rebuilding repairs on 10 and more! In simple terms: ten times the Tigr fell victim to Soviet sappers and armored soldiers, and each time the Germans rebuilt a battered metal pile - throwing a super-tank worth 700 000 Reichsmark in the battlefield was considered a crime even if the body without a tower remained and three skating rinks.


"Tiger" licking wounds

Researchers who are talking about the T-34 tank usually overlook this important feature: the “thirty-four” cannot be viewed separately from the Red Army, the conditions of the Eastern Front and the state of Soviet industry as a whole.

"Thirty-four" was created as the best tank in the world. And he was undoubtedly the best in the initial period of the war! The design solutions put into the tank shocked the testers with their boldness from the Aberdeen Proving Ground - the T-34 possessed all that the super-tank in the American view had to possess. The high combat capabilities of the T-34 could not spoil even the poor quality of performance - behind the carelessly treated surfaces of the fighting compartment and the sparking electric motor of the turret rotation, the outlines of a stunning combat vehicle were visible.

Strong armor, enhanced rational tilt of armor plates. Long-barreled gun caliber 76 mm. Heavy duty aluminum diesel. Loose caterpillars. In 1942, this seemed like a masterpiece. Not a single army in the world had such a powerful and perfect tank. Alas, the true glory of the T-34 was due to other, more tragic circumstances.

Each of the warring powers created the technique based on its own conditions.

Overseas, the Yankees set up the production of excellent M4 Sherman tanks. With the beginning of the war, the giants of the American automobile industry in the blink of an eye turned into an assembly line for the production of tanks. Developed industry, multiplied by skilled personnel and an abundance of resources, gave a natural result - 49 234 Sherman tanks launched.

The Third Reich built a great variety of structures representing improvisations based on tank chassis. The Germans had their own specific view on the development of armored vehicles, and, despite all the mockery of the "giantman" and "excessive complexity" of the German "menagerie", the skilled workforce and industrial base of the whole of Europe allowed the Fritz to create really cool cars of no less than the number of Soviet T-34 or SU-76.



The Soviet military-industrial complex was initially at a disadvantage - in the first months of the war strategically important industrial areas and resource bases were lost, huge factories were dismantled and transported thousands of kilometers to a new location. Affected by the lack of qualified personnel and the general lag of the military industrial complex from the German industry.

Tank T-34 was most adapted to the conditions of the Soviet industry during the war years. The T-34 was exceptionally simple, fast and cheap to manufacture. Appear on the assembly line Tankograd any "Sherman" or "Panther" - and the Red Army could experience a serious shortage of armored vehicles.
Fortunately, the main Soviet tank was the T-34 - despite all the difficulties and lack of labor, the factories drove to the front endless streams of the same type of combat vehicles.

Time flowed inexorably. By the end of 1943, the tank was outdated and needed to be replaced (it was not by chance that the development of the T-44 had begun), however, the situation did not allow for the rapid replacement of the T-34 with a new car. Until the last day of the war, the conveyors continued to "drive" the good old T-34 adjusted for T-34-85. He was no longer that dashing guy who exceeded any enemy tank in terms of performance characteristics, but still maintained a solid combat potential in solving the main tasks of armored units. Strong "srednyachok." What you need for the Soviet-German front.


In sandals and with sledgehammers

The USSR could not produce another tank, and the Red Army could not fight with other weapons. The conditions of the Eastern Front themselves spoke in favor of T-34 - a terrible bloodbath, where losses were calculated in numbers with many zeros. Complete slaughter in which the life of the tank was often limited by a couple of attacks.

And let the T-34 be weak against a single “Panther”, but the loss in technology will quickly recover supplies from the Ural Tankograd. As for the lives of tankers ... Losses on the Eastern Front were equally high, regardless of the type of vehicles. People were tragically burned in the Panthers, in PzKpfw IV, in the Lend-Lease’s Shermans and in our Thirty-Fours.


German srednitsa tank PzKpfw V "Panther"
Excessively expensive and complex machine that sucked the last forces out of the Reich

Finally, the Panther and the T-34 rarely met each other in combat. Tanks do not fight with tanks, tanks crush enemy infantry and gun emplacements with caterpillars, break through fortifications, support the attackers with fire, shoot congestion of enemy lines and trucks. When solving such problems, the advantage of the Panther over the T-34-85 is not so obvious. And this is at incommensurable cost, laboriousness of production and service!

All this recalls the inexplicable laws of quantum mechanics, where an attempt to consider a single element of the system will give a deliberately absurd result. Indeed, if we take into account only the calibers of the cannon and millimeters of armor, the Sherman Firefly, the German Quartet and the Panther will rise to the pedestal.
Although the first has no share of military glory T-34, and the last two "vundervafli" blew the war.

The main quality of the T-34 is that it was our tank. Created by our standards, as close as possible to the conditions of the Great Patriotic War.

Simplicity and mass won the gloomy German genius.



Photos provided by Kars
Author:
125 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. bairat
    bairat 14 June 2013 08: 33
    13
    +1 Super!!!
    1. Vadivak
      Vadivak 14 June 2013 08: 57
      11
      Quote: Author Oleg Kaptsov
      Photos provided by Kars


      Thanks to Oleg for the article, and the user for the photo, the symbiosis in my opinion was a success
      1. Papakiko
        Papakiko 14 June 2013 11: 12
        +2
        Quote: Vadivak
        Thanks to Oleg for the article, and the user for the photo, the symbiosis in my opinion was a success

        Respect pattsanchiki, respect.
        Quote: Avenger711
        Even if we take the notorious tank duel, the IS-2 could withstand the KwK-43/71 projectile, and not just the fart on the "tiger", taking into account the real terrain, shelters, etc. dpm measurement does not matter. It even in WoT does not play a special role.

        Well, yes, well, the "tankers" do not like the "tiger". laughing
        But "Fedya" is highly respected.
        1. Avenger711
          Avenger711 14 June 2013 18: 31
          -6
          At 7 ur only amers have normal tanks IMHO.
      2. Explore
        Explore 14 June 2013 13: 12
        14
        I have to disagree with two things:
        1.
        In a duel situation (T-34, IS-2, Sherman versus Tiger), a German beast with a probability close to 100% killed any enemy.

        If the medium tanks T-34 and Sherman, the animal really tore to pieces, then with the IS-2 tank, not everything is so smooth.
        The Soviet IS-2 tank was more armored (120 mm at 30 g in 43 g, and 100-120 mm at 60 g in 44 g) than the Tiger (100 mm at 8 g). His stepped-type VLD could hold Akht-Akht shots from a distance of 1 km, of a 120-mm one, even at point blank range. The tower held shots up to 1 km. In addition, the IS-2 possessed a cannon of increased power. The 122 mm D-25T had a 2-2,5 times higher explosive effect and somewhat surpassed the German in armor penetration. In particular, she carried the Tiger (broke through the frontal armor) from a distance of up to 2,5 km. Its only drawback is a lower rate of fire as a result of separate loading, however, it must be borne in mind that the tank was considered primarily an assault tank (breakthrough tank), and the fight against armored vehicles was a secondary task for him, unlike the Tiger, which was more used as a self-propelled tank. In general, the battle of the Tiger vs IS-2 was unlikely, but if it began, then the Tiger had almost no advantages. For this reason, German tankers were forbidden to enter into an open duel with IS.

        2.
        The slope of armor plates makes sense, as long as the caliber of the projectile does not exceed the thickness of the armor.

        Somewhat wrong. It all depends on the angle of inclination of the armor. The shell has to either go a long distance inside the armor, or ricocheted. The angle of 60g, gave the reduced thickness of the T-34 armor theoretically almost 90 mm, practically - less, but also not a little. Of the 50 mm guns, it was reliably pierced only with BPS, the core diameter of which was just smaller than the caliber.
        And let's say VLD Abrams just 50 mm armoredbut at an angle of as much as 83g. And the angle here plays a decisive role ...

        The rest of the article is credited. +.
        1. Kars
          Kars 14 June 2013 13: 29
          +6
          Quote: Explorar
          along with it you have to either go a large distance inside the armor or ricoche

          There is a third way to normalize
          Quote: Explorar
          Yes, and let's say the VLD Abrams only 50 mm armored, but at an angle as much as 83g. And the angle here plays a decisive role ...

          it’s even a little angle, but how much a projection is it is very difficult to get into it, almost like in the roof of a hull, there’s an angle of 90 degrees and the thickness of the armor is in meters. But there were no such inclinations in the Second World War.
          Quote: Explorar
          His stepped-type VLD could hold Aht-Aht shots from a distance of up to 1 km, of a 120-mm fixed range - even at point-blank range

          Of course I could hold it, but I shouldn’t forget about the impact on the crew even without breaking through, and reducing the chance of an aimed shot. The tiger was very dangerous not to take it from him. Plus optics --- which allowed firing from 2000 meters in normal mode. That's just there were few of them, really few especially considering the repairs on the thousand-kilometer fronts there were several hundred combat-ready vehicles.
          My grandfather ended the war on ISU-122 near Koenigsberg, they were shot down three times during the week of the offensive, and all of them were cannons. And he never even met the Tiger during the war in battle.
        2. Santa Fe
          14 June 2013 14: 30
          -9
          Quote: Explorar
          Its only drawback is a lower rate of fire as a result of separate loading, however, it must be borne in mind that the tank was considered primarily an assault tank (breakthrough tank), and the fight against armored vehicles was a secondary task for him, unlike the Tiger, which was more used as a self-propelled anti-tank gun

          About that and speech
          Quote: Explorar
          Overall battle Tiger vs IS-2 was unlikely, but if it started, then the tiger had almost no advantages.

          Mutually exclusive statements, don't you find?

          8 rds / min against 1,5-2 in the IS-2
          The tiger is highly likely to draw into any enemy tank (if it isn’t ambushed)
          1. Avenger711
            Avenger711 14 June 2013 18: 36
            0
            For those in the tank, the dpm measure does not characterize real battles.
          2. Blackgrifon
            Blackgrifon 14 June 2013 21: 04
            +4
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            8 rounds / min vs. 1,5-2 for the IS-2 The tiger is likely to hit any enemy tank (if it isn’t ambushed)


            Therefore, after the appearance of the IS-2 at the front, the command did not recommend German tankers to engage in battle with Soviet heavy tanks. IS-2 was enough to hit once to disable the enemy BM.
            1. Kars
              Kars 14 June 2013 21: 12
              +2
              Quote: Blackgrifon
              In general, the article "Minus" - a very mediocre idea about the history of the Second World War and about Soviet technology - the author is not far from "Discovery".


              If so, then you are applying for the best knowledge?
              Quote: Blackgrifon
              IS-2 was enough to hit once to disable the enemy BM
              Also, it’s not necessary, there is a rebound. And for example, do you know that the IS-2 did not pierce the forehead of the troika’s case?
              1. Genady1976
                Genady1976 14 June 2013 21: 25
                -1
                according to the German classification IS-2 rather medium tank
                1. Alex
                  Alex 13 September 2013 20: 59
                  +3
                  Quote: Genady1976 (1)
                  according to the German classification IS-2 rather medium tank

                  This, excuse me, how ??? request What classification?
                  If according to the pre-war, then this is an extra-super-purer heavy tank (remember, if you are not aware: in the Wehrmacht, the classification is according to the CALIBER OF THE GUN, and the Pz IV with a 75 mm cannon is already a HEAVY tank) Since 1943, due to the disappearance of the "ones", "twos", "threes", "fours" of the first modifications and "Czechs" into the foggy past, the division into categories has stopped altogether: all tanks weighed 45 tons ("Panther") up to 57 t ("Tiger") and 70 t ("Tiger" -II, "Royal Tiger") and 75-mm ("Panther") and 88-mm ("Tiger" and "Royal Tiger") guns. No other categories of tanks existed in Germany. So it’s not clear what you meant with your strange statement. what .
    2. chaushevski
      chaushevski 14 June 2013 13: 04
      -7
      this tank inside is not at all comfortable yab there reluctantly got into the battle (tankers of that war respect). 34 where just in Korea, Korea, Vietnam, Mozambique, Angola as in Angola, African tankers could not imagine sitting inside.
      1. Grenader
        Grenader 14 June 2013 13: 33
        0
        Quote: Explorar
        Yes, and let's say the VLD Abrams only 50 mm armored, but at an angle as much as 83g. And the angle here plays a decisive role ...

        You probably meant "Sherman".
        1. malkor
          malkor 14 June 2013 22: 51
          0
          No, everything is right. It's about Abrams. He has it.
      2. Blackgrifon
        Blackgrifon 14 June 2013 21: 16
        +2
        You might think that the Pz. 35, Pz. 38t, T-II, T-III more spacious? More or less there were only "threes". Fours, Panthers and Tigers were more spacious, BUT not much - they were more comfortable.
  2. Canep
    Canep 14 June 2013 08: 38
    +2
    As I understand it, the author wants to say that the T-34 was a bad tank. An interesting opinion, smacks of Rezunovsky distortions of facts. The opinion of both our and Western experts is not taken into account.
    1. Vadivak
      Vadivak 14 June 2013 09: 01
      +4
      Quote: Canep
      As I understand it, the author wants to say that the T-34 was a bad tank.


      Where did you get Sergey? Oleg writes

      "Thirty-four" was created as the best tank in the world. And he was undoubtedly the best in the initial period of the war!
    2. Mikhado
      Mikhado 14 June 2013 09: 04
      +8
      Quote: Canep
      As I understand it, the author wants to say that the T-34 was a bad tank. An interesting opinion, smacks of Rezunovsky distortions of facts. The opinion of both our and Western experts is not taken into account.

      He didn’t write such a thing, all in the case. Extremely objective article.
      And one more moment - about getting from 2 km from German cannons. Yes, they could break through, according to the tables, but get from 2 km without modern SLAs - sorry. Plus, the loss of visibility at times after the first minutes of the battle is smoke, dust, and now the sensible 34 can already realize all its advantages in the MIDDLE battle.
      The realities of Prokhorovka, by the way.
      1. Explore
        Explore 14 June 2013 13: 19
        0
        The fact is that there used to be SLAW tools. With a good sight, high ballistics and normal crew training, you could get from a greater distance.
        Now the tools are SMOOTH. Saves only the MSA and the ultra-high initial velocity of the projectile (or HFM). It's like shooting a Mosin rifle and a gun.

        About the realities of Prokhorovka read the historian Leo Lopukhovsky. He has been dealing with this issue for a long time. There, just the Germans knocked out more than half of our tanks from the ambushes, and moreover, from precisely long distances. Generally not the most successful battle for us was.
        1. Alex
          Alex 13 September 2013 21: 13
          +2
          Explore
          The fact is that there used to be SLAW tools. With a good sight, high ballistics and normal crew training, you could get from a greater distance.

          In real conditions of a real battle at long distances (and not at a training ground, even at a 2 km distance), keeping in sight a target maneuvering in smoke and dust on rough terrain is a task for a true ace and talking about the overwhelming advantage of the Tiger over the T-34 on such distances, at least not professionally. This is not a game or theorizing, this is a place where not only you shoot, but you are also shot. And, by the way, sometimes they do.
      2. Grigory_78
        Grigory_78 14 December 2018 11: 36
        0
        According to the Germans, they lost tanks near Prokhorovka in general about 3-4 units, the remaining German tanks were evacuated from the battlefield. The battlefield remained behind them and their allies, formally under Prokhorovka they won. True, since then, the Wehrmacht for some reason lost the ability to conduct offensive operations - there were not enough tanks. Why would you, huh?
    3. sapsan14
      sapsan14 14 June 2013 09: 15
      18
      The author does not prejudice the dignity of the T-34. He tried, perhaps not entirely successfully, to say that the main thing in a war is not the performance characteristics of weapons, but a whole complex of interdependent events. And the Soviet Union, under the right leadership, managed to create a SYSTEM that won. It was our SYSTEM, with three-line aircraft, plywood aircraft, partisans, underground workers, forty-fives, T-34s, 12-year-old boys in factories, girls-schoolgirls in medical battalions, etc., that turned out to be more viable. Therefore, in the West, for hundreds of years, they cannot understand: how "bastard" Russia, with enviable constancy, digests the vaunted civilizations.
      And the T-34 - just a tank, good or bad - our grandfathers decided on the fields of the Second World War.
      1. Denis
        Denis 14 June 2013 10: 05
        +4
        Quote: sapsan14
        T-34 - just a tank, good or bad - our grandfathers decided on the fields of the Second World War
        In any case, they were in Berlin. Although the tiger, which they so foolishly compare with, was in Moscow, too. True, like a trophy in Gorky Park
    4. anip
      anip 14 June 2013 09: 31
      +3
      Quote: Canep
      As I understand it, the author wants to say that the T-34 was a bad tank. An interesting opinion, smacks of Rezunovsky distortions of facts.

      In my opinion, the author wanted to say that the T-34 was not a great tank as a combat unit itself, in comparison with the tanks of other countries, and the T-34 was a great tank in the aggregate of all qualities and in the situation that developed then (production, operation, combat operations, repairs, the cost of all this, etc., etc.).
      For example, when the amers in Aberdeen tested the T-34 and noted that after a run of just 343 km the tank became completely unusable, then we can assume that this is bad (in principle, this is the case), but taking into account the fact that in while the tank at the front wound less than kilometers in its life, this cannot be a drawback.
      By the way, by the end of the war many of the tank design flaws were eliminated and the T-34 mileage was increased (tank breakthroughs and marches by hundreds of kilometers).
      1. baltika-18
        baltika-18 14 June 2013 22: 44
        +2
        Quote: anip
        when the amers in Aberdeen tested the T-34 and noted that after a run of just 343 km the tank was completely unusable,

        The "Tiger" track resource was only 200 km. Each weighed 3 tons, it was impossible to change in the field. So the "Tiger" failed after 200 km of run.
        1. v.nosov100
          v.nosov100 April 20 2015 19: 35
          0
          Americans love to praise themselves and what they have done. And if you take reality, then their "Shermans" generally beat are not adapted to conduct hostilities on the eastern front. This is evidenced by history and eyewitnesses, i.e. veterans of that terrible war. And at the moment, taking into account the latest events in the east of Ukraine, and the introduction of sanctions against us, the American State Department feeds through all the media trying to rewrite the history of V.O.V. and take credit for this war. Contrary to history, they believe that it was America that won the war. Although, according to military experts, we could do without the Americans, the war lasted for six months, maybe a year. And what about the T-34 is the best tank of the 20th century. We must proceed from the cost, cost, effectiveness in battle, survivability and maintainability in the field. Comfortable conditions are not for war (these are Americans without Coca-Cola and toilet paper, they cannot fight. They have not won more than one battle in their entire history. Only fingers bend). a tank lives in battle for 5-7 minutes. No wonder the Fritzes, who captured the T-34 in the first period of the war and tested it at their training grounds, could not figure out the phenomenon and the grandiose invulnerability of the "thirty-four". And this is very simple T-34 plus RUSSIAN CHARACTER
    5. albi77
      albi77 14 June 2013 09: 46
      +4
      In my opinion, the author tried to say that in any war there is such a component as money, which also has a significant role in the result.

      The damaged Panther and the surviving crew will wait for repair of their tank for 2-3 weeks, for 34k, the surviving crew received a new tank in 2-3 days and immediately replenished the warhead.
      and it cost 2-3 times cheaper for the USSR than Panther repair for Germany.
      maybe roughly but something like that ...
      1. dustycat
        dustycat 15 June 2013 09: 58
        +2
        Well, why wait for 2-3 days.
        Rimbat at the ready for the third line of trenches.
        If the car is not in dust and the engine is not hit and alive - in the morning again in battle.
        In an extreme case, from two or three one car will be assembled.
        PFP - a trailer on a wheeled chassis with an autonomous diesel generator and with a turning and milling and drilling machine, and an arrow with a lifting capacity of 3-5 tons - this is enough to repair the T34 in the field at the factory level.
        With the T-IV and the panther it was more difficult - repairs were required only in the factory. First of all, due to the high saturation with electrics and the precision of manufacturing a large number of chassis and mechanics. Although the Germans had PfP and Rembats. But purely for routine maintenance. Maximum breach a hole in the armor. But if Tirga or panther burned - only to the factory.
        And the T-34 in the field, in the presence of spare parts, can be brought into operation. The simplicity of the device solved the matter.
  3. Denis
    Denis 14 June 2013 08: 40
    11
    I’m disavowing in general for a person, even the semblance is not worth it, they are very dreamy
    Compare the T-34 with a tiger and a panther, smarties, what else to say. And what is not with BT or T light, nothing that the classes are different?
    it turned out that it was easier to drop a heavily damaged tank on the banks of the Danube and order a new car from the factory than to transport a damaged T-34 thousands of kilometers to Nizhny Tagil
    And about maintainability, i.e. how many cars were repaired by the crews and the crews in the frontline, these baboons are modestly silent. Western tanks did not shine with maintainability
    They remembered the quality, but somehow they suddenly forgot that the skilled workers retreated with the battles, and did not drag on to Dyukerk and beyond, they collected tanks who could
    Less to our TV editions, they lose the information war, and the MO should take care
    1. Vadivak
      Vadivak 14 June 2013 09: 03
      +4
      Quote: Denis
      I’m disavowing in general for a person, even the semblance is not worth it, they are very dreamy


      Who is the Discovery?
      1. Denis
        Denis 14 June 2013 10: 00
        +2
        Quote: Vadivak
        human discoverer
        This is not a man at all
        How the Glory of the CPSU from a joke
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 14 June 2013 10: 08
      +2
      Quote: Denis
      I’m disavowing in general for a person, even the semblance is not worth it, they are very dreamy

      Well, yes, but still the best tank for Discovery is T-34 :)))
      1. Denis
        Denis 14 June 2013 11: 18
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Well, yes, but still the best tank for Discovery is T-34 :)))
        Just how reluctantly they recognize it and how many reservations
        And a comparison with the tiger ...
        they would have compared this
        1. Blackgrifon
          Blackgrifon 14 June 2013 21: 08
          +1
          Quote: Denis
          Just as they are reluctant to admit it and how much a reservation is the comparison with the tiger ...


          Given that the Allies considered the Panthers a heavy tank, what else can we expect from them?
          And already in the Korean War, our T-34-85s at the initial stage of the war showed the pin-up well: why the Nazis respected our T-34s.
    3. datur
      datur 14 June 2013 21: 35
      +3
      By the way, even from the discovery I remembered that the bush in Normandy did not allow them to allegedly effectively use Amer's super tanks! laughing so what kind of armored cabbage are they not letting through amer shermans? belay and what kind of super tanks fearing the bushes ?! wink
  4. svskor80
    svskor80 14 June 2013 08: 42
    +7
    The author is a big plus. And one more small remark - whatever tanks, planes, etc. the most important thing is the people who manage them. T-34 made the best tank of World War II by Soviet tank crews.
    1. Blackgrifon
      Blackgrifon 14 June 2013 21: 10
      +2
      I would like to add that another reason why the T-34 is the best is the production conditions - children, the elderly and women assembled these tanks for the front in terrible conditions. They also fought and WIN.
      1. Santa Fe
        14 June 2013 21: 47
        -1
        Quote: Blackgrifon
        children, old men and women gathered in terrible conditions these tanks for the front.

        Why were tanks collected by children, old people and women ??

        Where did the men go?


        The population of the USSR in 1941 - 196,7 million people (for comparison: the population of the Third Reich - 90 million people in 1941)

        ~ 45 million remained in the occupied territories
        In total, we have 150 million people, even 30% of them are men of working age (18-60 years old)

        FIFTY MILLION PEOPLE !!! Did everyone go to the front ???

        The strength of the Red Army
        On 22 June 1941 years - 5 080 977 people.
        By July 1, 1941 - 10 380 000 people.
        By the spring of 1942 - 5 500 000 people (Army and Navy).
        Since the spring of 1942 - 5 million people (active army and navy).
        By the summer of 1942 - about 11 million people.
        By the beginning of 1945 - 11 365 000 people.
        By May 1945 - 11 million people.
        Those. constantly on the fronts was no more than 20% of the number of Soviet men of working age *

        * In the Red Army served not only men, but also millions of women
    2. Alex
      Alex 13 September 2013 21: 17
      +2
      T-34 made the best tank of World War II by Soviet tank crews.


      For which they once again bow deep and Eternal glory to those who have not come home.
  5. Avenger711
    Avenger711 14 June 2013 09: 08
    +5
    If you do not make a breakdown into the classes “light / medium / heavy”, the German “Tiger” will drive on the podium of the “Best World War II tank” frantically rumbling with its 700-strong Maybach. In a duel situation (T-34, IS-2, Sherman versus Tiger), a German beast with a probability close to 100% killed any enemy.


    Even if we take the notorious tank duel, the IS-2 could withstand the KwK-43/71 projectile, and not just the fart on the "tiger", taking into account the real terrain, shelters, etc. dpm measurement does not matter. It doesn't even play a special role in WoT.

    The real American military, those who directly tested the T-34 at the Aberdeen Proving Ground in the fall of 1942, made some ambiguous evidence defaming the honor of the “best tank” of World War II.


    The modification of 43 with a 5-speed gearbox is still remembered with gratitude by veterans and the last period of the War was held under the slogan: "the armor is bullshit, but our tanks are fast." And the reliability of the equipment made it possible to pass hundreds of kilometers without leaving half of the tanks on the sidelines.

    How does T-34 appear as a result of this short study? Mediocre "average" with a set of positive and negative qualities. Not the most successful design, incompatible with the loud title "The best tank of World War II."


    What options are being compared? The first, or the technically reliable T-34-85? Indeed, the Germans did not have a similar tank in the 41st, the Pz IV received a long barrel a little later, the Sherman also appeared only in the 42nd. And millimeters, kilograms, etc., SI inventions are sometimes solved.

    despite all the ridicule about the "gigantomania" and "excessive complexity" of the German "menagerie", the skilled workforce and industrial base of all of Europe allowed the Fritz to create really cool cars, numbering no less than the number of Soviet T-34 or SU-76.


    And what then is the war in Berlin over? Or maybe we still admit that some difference in performance characteristics usually does not matter, especially when the means of destruction are much ahead of the defense (which is easier, take a more powerful gun, or alter the entire tank to raise the armor?) And the most complex equipment can instantly become a pile of metal. In this regard, the "Panther" has no advantages over the T-34-85. Again, it took time to fine-tune the German TT. And before that, the same breakdowns.

    Indeed, if we take into account only the caliber of the gun and millimeters of armor, the Sherman Firefly, the German Quartet and Panther will climb the podium.


    In terms of dealing with unarmored targets, Firefly nervously smokes on the sidelines. The latter amazes me most of all, neither the allies nor the Germans have ever created a tank with adequate weapons, sculpted some birds, or outright trash. The "groove" by millimeters will not go anywhere, slow, a gun more powerful than 75, in principle, will not stick in. But for the title of a strong middle peasant, he can claim even more than the T-34. In general, praising the "Sherman" is a very new trend even in English-language literature, but the same Max Hastings in "Operation Overlord" gives completely different assessments on this matter, in particular, it is emphasized that instead of trying to create a new tank, it would be much more logical to create a new tools.
    1. Snoop
      Snoop 14 June 2013 09: 49
      +1
      I read Max Hasting, he has one. Yankee tankers smoked nervously, fearing a meeting with German tanks :) The Americans burst out trying to create a Sherman successor. But the British acted correctly and pragmatically, stuck their anti-tank gun on Sherman :) Here you have the Sherman superfairflay. In principle, like ours, creating the T-34-85.
      1. bairat
        bairat 14 June 2013 11: 19
        0
        Here is also an interesting memory book from an American tank repairman. If not the complete superiority of aviation in the air, the allies in the landing zones would die.
      2. Avenger711
        Avenger711 14 June 2013 12: 21
        0
        Only 85 mm increases the power of the land mine, and for a long barrel with the same caliber, the power of the land mine decreases due to the increase in the thickness of the shell walls. It was because of this that the Yankees did not immediately switch to the 76 mm cannon on the Sherman, and in Normandy there were not enough such modifications.
        1. mansur
          mansur 14 June 2013 20: 41
          +1
          Good evening everyone, I myself saw this program on this Diskaveri, in short, they procrastinated both the Tigers and the Leopards, and the new ones, and Abrams and Merkava, and our t-55s to 72, but won the t-34, believe me, everyone was teasing, but everyone admitted that the tank doesn’t fail but oh handsome - this tank is Victory!
          1. Alex
            Alex 13 September 2013 21: 26
            +2
            Quote: mansur (1)
            this tank doesn’t fail, oh oh beautiful - this tank is Victory!

            I agree completely. Forgive me for the sentimentality, but when I see 34 on a pedestal, I just want to admire this quiet grace of a formidable machine. Even my mother - a person who is infinitely far from the military theme - once said: "It seems that right now he will jump off the spot and rush forward. And God forbid, to be in his way."
  6. Alikovo
    Alikovo 14 June 2013 09: 41
    +4
    “... in November 1941, prominent designers, industrialists and weapons control officers came to my tank army to familiarize themselves with the Russian T-34 tank, which is superior to our combat vehicles. Directly on the ground, they wanted to clarify to themselves and outline, based on the experience gained in military operations, measures that would help us again achieve technical superiority over the Russians. The proposals of front-line officers to produce exactly the same tanks as the T-34 did not meet with any support from the designers. The designers were confused, by the way, not with aversion to imitation, but with the impossibility of releasing important parts of the T-34, especially the aluminum diesel engine, with the required speed. In addition, our alloy steel, the quality of which decreased with the lack of the necessary raw materials, was also inferior to the alloy steel of the Russians ”-Guderian.
    1. Kars
      Kars 14 June 2013 09: 50
      +2
      Well, here it is completely incomprehensible that))))
      Quote: Alikovo
      In addition, our alloy steel, the quality of which decreased with the lack of the necessary raw materials

      and this is in
      Quote: Alikovo
      in November 1941 years

      When all the resources of Germany were in peak conditions and the robbery of the occupied territories of the USSR was just beginning.
      Quote: Alikovo
      especially aluminum diesel engine.

      The Germans produced diesel engines in a multitude, while this detail was not particularly important - if the USSR produced T-34 tanks with gasoline engines, when there were interruptions with diesel engines.

      So here is a simple pull by the ears.
      1. Vadivak
        Vadivak 14 June 2013 10: 27
        +3
        Quote: Kars
        Germans produced diesel engines in many

        Including successful aviation
        1. Santa Fe
          14 June 2013 14: 24
          +2
          There was a fact that the entire German solarium went to the needs of Admiral Doenitz

          Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe drove on synthetics, because of this, the orientation on gasoline engines
          1. postman
            postman 14 June 2013 19: 37
            +1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            that the whole German solarium went to the needs of Admiral Doenitz

            for Erich Raeder is more true
            Bismarck, Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, Count Spee, Scheer, Lutz (formerly Deutschland), Prince Eugene, Hipper and Blucher
            He (Raeder) was not allowed to turn to the fullest, and even submarines on synthetics would crawl
            In February 1939, Raeder completed the preparation of his plan Z for the reconstruction of the German Navy. According to this plan, the German fleet was supposed to have:
            six battleships of 56 tons each;
            two battleships of 42 tons each (Bismarck and Tirpitz);
            two battleships of 31 tons each (Scharnhorst and Gneisenau);
            three battle cruisers of 31 tons each (with six 000-inch guns);
            three pocket battleships;
            two aircraft carriers;
            cruisers, destroyers and 126 submarines.
            All of the above should have been ready for the winter of 1944/45.



            Karl Dönitz stopped this disgrace in 1943, and Friedeburg was no longer up to it
            1. Santa Fe
              14 June 2013 21: 11
              -1
              Quote: Postman
              Karl Dönitz has stopped this disgrace since 1943

              but what about wolf packs?
              1. postman
                postman 15 June 2013 01: 40
                0
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                but what about wolf packs?

                Tyk and I about the same:
                Warm up the Tirpitz boilers (163 hp) = access to combat duty for the U-026 division (47 hp) several times, moreover
                Here he (Karl) and stopped, this disgrace

                Well, if you seriously write nonsense (about diesel fuel and synthetics)
                What would I know:
                process of Bergius - PIR OR Fischer - Tropsch - synthetic gasoline or LOW SULFUR DIESEL FUEL (Shell and Sasol perfectly drive diesel fuel in Malaysia and South Africa, respectively)

                GTL technology spends about 13% of methane energy (for coal, this figure is about 19%) to convert it into synthetic oil, which can be sold for about twice the price of natural gas. Example "Gazprom" spends about 12% of the energy of Yamal gas for pumping it through pipelines.

                and 3rd REICH RELEASED THAT so 6 000 000 TONS A YEAR at the peak.
                25 REX mark per 100 kg GUARANTEED (MIN) PRICE FOR 10 YEARS / “Lane Verka”.
                For kriegsmarine (before 1944?) Diesel fuel was bought ABROAD / remember how much diesel fuel cost in the USSR, well, at least when you were born? and gasoline?)

                /I wonder why those 2a minuses were screwed? Not motivating anything, SEEKING FOR SYNTHETICS! wink /
                really, you’re watching the general! T-34?
                1. Santa Fe
                  16 June 2013 00: 19
                  +1
                  Quote: Postman
                  Bergius - Peer OR Fischer - Tropsch process - synthetic gasoline or LOW SULFUR DIESEL FUEL

                  Before that, he was never interested in synthetics production technology. read, read.
                  Conclusion: any set of hydrocarbons depending on the catalyst
                  Quote: Postman
                  For kriegsmarine (until 1944?) Diesel fuel was bought abroad

                  from whom?
                  Quote: Postman
                  Do you remember how much diesel fuel cost in the USSR, well, at least when you were born? and gasoline?)

                  Price list No. 083, approved on November 29, 1968 under No. 882 by the State Price Committee under the USSR State Planning Committee.

                  Brand of gasoline ... ..GOST, TU .............. Price

                  А-66………………ГОСТ 2084-67……0-60
                  А-72………………ГОСТ 2084-67……0-70
                  А-76………………ГОСТ 2084-67……0-75
                  АИ-93…………….ГОСТ 2084-67……0-95
                  АИ-98…………….ГОСТ 2084-67……1-05
                  Shale .......... RTU ESSR 268-63 ... 0-60
                  Extra ................... VTU NP 67-60 ....... 1—00
                  Авиационный Б-70..ГОСТ 1012-54……1-20
                  Топливная смесь…ВТУ 30-8-63…….0-80
                  1. postman
                    postman 16 June 2013 01: 01
                    0
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    from whom?

                    1.Till the end of June 1941 and Joseph Vissarionovich. But this is NOTHING!
                    2. Until the end of January 28, the United States - Tarbell "History of the Standard Oil Company", via ... via the Canary Islands and Spain
                    and the same oil from Aruba (20%)
                    On June 23, 1941, FBI Director Edgar Hoover wrote to Treasury Secretary Morgenthau: “In the course of an audit of foreign deposits at Chase National Bank, large transfers to American oil companies were discovered on account of the supply of fuel overseas. According to our information, Standard Oil of New Jersey "received money from Germany for oil supplies at the behest of the German Reichsbank."
                    American Ambassador to Madrid Carlton Hayes declared on February 26, 1943 that "per capita in Spain significantly more petroleum products than currently for each of the residents of the Atlantic coast of the United States ".
                    3.Rumnia
                    4Vengriya
                    5. Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland, France, Greece and Yugoslavia
                    6. Latin American countries
                    7.Austria and Czechoslovakia, as well as Poland and Alsace occupied by Germany.

                    Reich - The total approximate data for 1941 on light fuel (diesel fuel + gasoline) excluding the refueling of submarines at the bases of Latin America.
                    The need for 15 -16 million tons

                    Strategic reserve 10 million tons
                    Own production of synthetic fuel 5 million tons
                    Imports from satellites (Romania and Hungary) 6 million tons
                    Import from S.Africa via the Mediterranean ports of 3 million tons
                    Import through the channels "Standard" and "Davis" 6 million tons

                    Pro Ammonium Tetraethyl Sulfate Cotton Continue?
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Price List No. 083

                    thank you and diesel? 0-38?
                    Diesel fuel =
                  2. Alex
                    Alex 13 September 2013 21: 33
                    +2
                    Conclusion: any set of hydrocarbons depending on the catalyst

                    Chemists-technologists dealing with the issues of organic synthesis have a catch phrase: "From a mixture of CO and H2, you can get anything you want, except for an ingot of gold. The only question is about conditions." lol
  7. Argon
    Argon 14 June 2013 09: 50
    +3
    In my opinion it is not objective, some facts are distorted, in general, the article wasted time.
  8. anip
    anip 14 June 2013 10: 05
    +1
    Quote: Argon
    Each landed tank remaining behind the front line turned into a potential German weapon

    It is not clear, and what is the second photo above the cited signature? On the first - trophy T-34, but on the second - quite a German chassis.
    1. Kars
      Kars 14 June 2013 11: 22
      +3
      Quote: anip
      And the second photo over the cited signature?

      Here, most likely, my not finalization. This photo is not clear photo shop or not Although there is a description of this machine.
      1. Kars
        Kars 14 June 2013 11: 23
        +3
        Or you can replace it with
        1. anip
          anip 14 June 2013 11: 36
          0
          Yes, these two photos would no doubt fit in as the second (and the third too).
          And then the chassis resembles Pz.Kpfw. VI Tiger.
    2. dustycat
      dustycat 15 June 2013 10: 15
      0
      Despite the fact that a Russian 88 mm anti-aircraft gun is welded on the Ferdinand chassis, it is very effective against the T34-85
      1. Kars
        Kars 15 June 2013 10: 23
        +2
        Quote: dustycat
        Russian 88 mm anti-aircraft gun is welded

        Did the USSR have 88 mm anti-aircraft guns? Or are you talking about the ones that Germany set before the war?

        And Ferdinand's chassis didn’t fall into this article.
  9. sevtrash
    sevtrash 14 June 2013 10: 37
    +5
    Toward the end of the war, technologically, the T34 seemed to have worked out and some of the minuses that the Americans pointed out were removed.
    The article is not bad - although it seems that a little more and a child will splash out with water.
    1. Gato
      Gato 14 June 2013 13: 31
      +2
      Naturally, the T-34-76 and T-34-85 are not at all the same thing.
      As for the child - I also had such a feeling.
  10. Standard Oil
    Standard Oil 14 June 2013 12: 10
    +3
    T-34 is a good tank, let critics do better and defeat the Third Reich, and then come back and teach life.
  11. stasdolgov
    stasdolgov 14 June 2013 12: 13
    +3
    According to the author about the unpopularity of sending our wrecked equipment to the rear, due to the high cost, it is worth adding that if echelons with destroyed tanks were pulled to the rear, across the whole country, this could at times undermine the spirit of our people. And we know how necessary the propaganda of our valor was. Sometimes the loss of iron was more beneficial to endure than the loss of morale.
    1. dustycat
      dustycat 15 June 2013 10: 33
      0
      The last damaged T34 came to the Kostroma excavator equipment factory (later in 1955 the Strommashin factory was founded there) back in March 1945. So there was a reason to carry it for repair. And they drove. And what they found in the cars from the crew was buried. The cars that rushed - blown up in the trash. They were immediately taken to scrap beyond the Urals.
  12. deman73
    deman73 14 June 2013 12: 27
    +2
    Now that so many years have passed since the war, many see themselves as visionaries and geniuses without having been in the shoes of a soldier. At that time, he was the best tank and he will remain, which gave a good reserve for the design of other combat vehicles. And let the amers want to write that their tanks are better, and so on, because they learned a lot of good from the T-34.
  13. Colonel
    Colonel 14 June 2013 12: 32
    +4
    What is the article for? Again "filled up with corpses"? In any "hardware" you can find your pros and cons and, depending on the order, stick out one thing or the other. I'm not a tanker, a thirty-four I just like how beautiful the car is
  14. Kars
    Kars 14 June 2013 13: 30
    +2
    add a couple of photos, ____________
    1. Kars
      Kars 14 June 2013 13: 31
      +1
      ________________
      1. Kars
        Kars 14 June 2013 13: 32
        +2
        ______________
        1. Kars
          Kars 14 June 2013 13: 32
          +1
          ___________________
  15. Gato
    Gato 14 June 2013 13: 51
    +2
    Until the last day of the war, conveyors continued to “drive” the good old T-34, adjusted for T-34-85.

    Wow correction! Again, the T-34-76 and T-34-85 are two big differences:
    - 76-mm "long-barreled" gun cannot be compared with a really long-barreled 85-mm
    - commander's cupola, more spacious "nut" turret with two hatches
    - a new gearbox instead of the extremely unfortunate old
    - more or less reliable radio station
    - good scope and normal surveillance devices
    - And a lot of technological improvements
    IMHO, it is the 85th that can be considered optimal in terms of the combination of characteristics (i.e. the best) 2MV tank.
    1. Santa Fe
      14 June 2013 14: 15
      -3
      Quote: Gato
      - 76-mm "long-barreled" gun cannot be compared with a really long-barreled 85-mm
      - commander's cupola, more spacious "nut" turret with two hatches
      - a new gearbox instead of the extremely unfortunate old
      - more or less reliable radio station

      Despite a number of very serious improvements to the T-34, its combat characteristics in the second half of the war cannot be called completely satisfactory amid the improvement of German tanks and anti-tank weapons.

      What is the 45 mm forehead with which the "thirty-fours" ran until the end of the war?
      Quote: Gato
      it is the 85th that can be considered optimal in terms of characteristics (i.e. the best) 2MV tank.

      This idea has already been expressed in the article, it remains to repeat again:

      an attempt to present the T-34 as the best tank, based only on its performance characteristics, is deliberately senseless: there will immediately be many T-34 peers who surpassed the T-XNUMX in literally all characteristics.
      The strength of the T-34 was different. This article was written about
      1. Avenger711
        Avenger711 14 June 2013 19: 24
        0
        Nevertheless, the water drivers survived the most, the shells hit the tower more often, and it eventually dipped up to 80-90 mm.
        1. Santa Fe
          14 June 2013 21: 13
          0
          Quote: Avenger711
          Nevertheless, the water drivers survived the most, shells more often hit the tower

          tales of grandfather Remus


          Most of the hits were on the hull (50,5%), on the forehead there were more than half the number of hits (22,65%), and only 19,14% of the shells hit the turret

          statistics on the wrecked "Panthers", Kursk Bulge
          A total of 22 tanks counted 58 hits. 10 hits fell on the forehead of the tank, all ricocheted. 16 shells hit the tower, all reached through penetrations. On the sides of the tank counted 24 shells, in all cases pierced through the armor

          Source - Antisuvorov. Ten myths of the Second World War. Author Alexey Isaev
      2. postman
        postman 15 June 2013 12: 49
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        What is the 45 mm forehead with which the "thirty-fours" ran until the end of the war?


        There were attempts to increase armor, at the end of the war they made 2 (!) T-34-85m with 75 and 60 mm forehead, but the weight distribution of the T-34-85 ......
        Also in 41-42 tanks were shielded up to 60-65 mm, sometimes they were shielded with 45 mm sheets (FOR MY SUCH IN KIROVSK at the Neva it costs), but there were few of them.

        and yes, it’s the same:
        1. Kars
          Kars 15 June 2013 12: 55
          +1
          ___________________
          1. postman
            postman 17 June 2013 15: 22
            0
            Yes.
            But on the T-34-85, I saw a "weld" on the entire VLD, probably this was done in Leningrad.
            It is a pity that the T-44 did not make a rustle.
            The best option:
    2. svp67
      svp67 15 June 2013 12: 09
      0
      Quote: Gato
      ... a more spacious nut tower with two hatches

      This item does not apply to T34-85
  16. Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 14 June 2013 14: 25
    +4
    Thanks to Oleg for the article, and to Andrey for the photo.
    Very grateful.

    I will add one more skill and ingenuity to the piggy bank of legends about T-34:

    In addition to the fact that the mechanics tried not to shift gears in the attack, the gunners wedged the gun vertically at the range of a direct shot.
    A “direct shot" allowed guaranteed to hit the target at a whole distance, and not from a certain point.
    Thus, the tankers got the hang of shooting at once on a relatively flat surface and literally bombarded the enemy (the same tigers) with a hail of shells with the proper training of the entire crew.

    A deep bow to T-34 and its creators.
    1. svp67
      svp67 15 June 2013 12: 12
      +1
      Quote: Aleks tv
      gunners wedged the gun vertically at a direct range.

      Well, let's say not guns, but the installation of the sight - on 800 meters and adjustment was made not by changing the sight, but by taking out the aiming point ...
      1. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 17 June 2013 00: 59
        0
        Quote: svp67
        Well, let's say not the WEAPON, but the installation of the sight - on 800 meters


        Thanks for the amendment, Sergey. A plus.
        I wrote it incorrectly, I agree. In a hurry.
  17. sergey158-29
    sergey158-29 14 June 2013 14: 58
    +1
    Any technique, let alone military, consists of compromises! T-34 in this regard, at least in the 41st, was the best for wartime - optimal !! Of course, together with Soviet workers and tankers ... !!!
  18. WIN969
    WIN969 14 June 2013 15: 04
    +2
    T-34 is the best tank. Yes, amers with Britons recognized, if not for the USSR and T-34, then all of Europe would speak German.
    In the ranking: 2nd place in abrams, 1st place in T-34
  19. Nik
    Nik 14 June 2013 15: 07
    +2
    Glory for the T-34 was won by a Russian soldier.
    with German quality and technical diversity, Soviet industry could not compete.
    Of course, the calculation of the cost of the product, because they did something that was not time-consuming, and naturally in a large series, like riveting a ZIS-3 cannon, and the SU-76 is generally an ersatz product, like the T-60 and 70.
    (these masterpieces are not compared with the Shtugs, T-3, and others, but the T-34 is something that can be somehow compared, well, if you won, then it turns out that 34 is the best tank, but how else do you justify it?
    that the soldier won, fighting what will have to be done, but this cannot be said, although the liberal tradition permits blaming on the punitive system, barrage units .... in short, bloody regime, slaves and 34.
  20. Kovrovsky
    Kovrovsky 14 June 2013 15: 16
    +1
    The article is normal, but this phrase jarred: "although earlier the Germans snapped like seeds, the Soviet mechanized corps with hundreds of first-class" thirty-fours "and KV" KV "was a" tough nut to crack ", especially at the beginning of the war. And the mech. Corps, destroyed at the beginning of the war, mainly consisted of light tanks.
    1. Nik
      Nik 14 June 2013 15: 31
      -3
      at the beginning of the war in KrA, T-34 900 units, KV 500 units, KV2 300 units. au Wehrmacht, what is called only 1200 tanks, the rest - 3000 actually lightly armored vehicles, of which the Red Army then had 20000 units.

      ps and KV, a tank in general, is a marriage, it was abandoned at the beginning of the war, ... all the myths, like the T-34 ... by the way, the Shermans preferred tankers, it was a great success to serve in a foreign car.
      1. Avenger711
        Avenger711 14 June 2013 18: 39
        0
        Yeah, "Good tanks. Only not suitable for war."
      2. Alex
        Alex 13 September 2013 23: 46
        +2
        Quote: NIK
        ps and KV, generally a tank, is a marriage, it was abandoned at the beginning of the war, ... all the myths, like the T-34 ... by the way,

        Oh, oh great and incomparable, wise wisdom of the wise.

        But seriously, such nonsense and comment something in scrap.
      3. Grigory_78
        Grigory_78 14 December 2018 13: 11
        0
        There was a statement by the front-line soldiers - "it is better to serve on the Sherman, and go into battle on the T-34." Tanks of the western school are more comfortable for service, this cannot be taken away.
    2. Santa Fe
      14 June 2013 16: 13
      -6
      Quote: Kovrovsky
      KV was a tough nut to crack, especially at the start of the war

      Then why the hell did the Germans stand on the outskirts of Minsk on June 25, 1941?
      250 kilometers in 3 days. The rate of advance of the Wehrmacht in the summer of 1941 was many times higher than the French campaign
      Quote: Kovrovsky
      And the mechanized corps destroyed at the beginning of the war mainly consisted of light tanks.

      In 1941, the Panzerwaffe consisted entirely of light tanks.
      So what?

      The situation in the summer of 1941 is explained very simply - the Russians betrayed Joseph Vissarionovich. Bad, vile folk who did not appreciate the brilliant leader
      1. Avenger711
        Avenger711 14 June 2013 19: 24
        0
        No, just someone doesn’t know the story.
      2. dustycat
        dustycat 15 June 2013 10: 41
        0
        Because most KV and T34 rushed not because they were knocked out, but because there was no supply. And the crews themselves were forced to blow up their cars because there was no elementary fuel or ammunition.
        Not just because the Germans did whole divisions of captured vehicles.
    3. Avenger711
      Avenger711 14 June 2013 18: 39
      0
      How many of these mechanized corps were taken by the Deutsche Soldier would also be nice to take into account.
    4. svp67
      svp67 15 June 2013 12: 14
      0
      Quote: Kovrovsky
      And the mechanized corps destroyed at the beginning of the war mainly consisted of light tanks.

      And about TWO THOUSAND tanks of a new design - such as the T34, T50, KV and KV-2, are such an easy addition ... recourse
  21. vomag
    vomag 14 June 2013 15: 40
    +3
    the article leaves a double feeling, like all the rules, but it seems like all the fucking !!! start with the “Sherman Firefly.” the Germans called it a bell tower on a caterpillar for 1 wounded panther, as a rule there were 5 Shermans! there’s not a single memory where the Germans enthusiastically say if they remember the American tanks in passing (yes, maybe it’s cool there and you can drink coffee or beer inside and you can play the button accordion .... but it’s not really pulling on the best one. about shooting ranges and is2 ( according to is2 it can be said that the Germans issued a circular on troops at a meeting with is2 the tigers were ordered to immediately leave the battle, and here they assure us that they say they’re really the bottom against the tiger! so the author either misunderstands or deliberately introduces us into trouble
    1. Kars
      Kars 14 June 2013 15: 50
      +1
      Quote: vomag
      Let's start with the “Sherman Firefly.” The Germans called it a bell tower on a caterpillar track for 1 black panther; as a rule, there were 5 Shermans!


      Sherman Firefly and just Sherman are two big differences.
      Quote: vomag
      ! there is not a single memory where the Germans enthusiastically talk about American tanks


      Well, the Germans encountered the Sherman after the rearmament of their anti-tank artillery, and against them with a 37 mm mallet did not go out))
      Quote: vomag
      according to is2, it can be said that the Germans issued a circular on troops when meeting with is2 tigers were ordered to immediately leave the battle

      only under adverse circumstances, and not necessarily.
    2. Santa Fe
      14 June 2013 16: 01
      -2
      Quote: vomag
      as a rule, there were 1 Shermans per 5 black panther!

      Where does the data come from?
      Fantasy children again. Amer with German tanks didn’t stand on ceremony - they smashed the columns of tankers from the air and in a day the Fritzes threw their Panthers along the roads

      Rare clashes - when a panther from an ambush shot a Sherman company ... sometimes the Germans were lucky. But this does not say anything about the characteristics of the tank

      An ambush is a delicate matter, pure luck. On March 26, 1944, the light T-70 tank, having noticed two approaching German PzKpfw V Panther tanks, disguised itself in the bush and took them into the sight. After the Panthers approached 150-200 meters and set them under attack, the T-70 suddenly opened fire from an ambush and destroyed the Panthers faster than they could detect it. The crews could not get out of the Panther. T-70 commander junior lieutenant A. Pegov was introduced to the title of Hero of the Soviet Union

      Padded Panthers

      Quote: vomag
      according to is2, it can be said that the Germans issued a circular on troops when meeting with is2 tigers were ordered to immediately leave the battle

      Can you learn more about the circular?
      And why immediately Tigers and IS-2? It's still about medium tanks that decided the outcome of the war.

      ps / there is no mention of tank battles IS2 vs Tiger (mb exception - shooting from the ambush of the Royal Tigers near Balaton)
      There are three reasons for this - tanks rarely fight with tanks, a tiger is an extremely rare beast, and the IS is an attack machine

      American Panzerwaffe extermination method
      1. vomag
        vomag 14 June 2013 22: 14
        +2
        the data as usual from open sources, partly from memoirs, is struck by another ignorance of seemingly elementary things that usually 5 Shermans paid for the patter, so even Amers do not deny it (reports on their losses and wrecked German tanks) and about the circular about leaving the battle of tigers when IS2 appeared soooo even children probably know ...... it strikes another why you are so special about this do not know ??? but about tigers and is2 there the topic surfaced who whom and how ....
        1. Santa Fe
          15 June 2013 00: 05
          +1
          Quote: vomag
          As a rule, 5 Shermans paid for the pater, so even Amers do not deny

          In the open duel, Panther was many times stronger than Sherman and T-34 - all the same, these are tanks of different weight categories and different generations
          But there were practically no "open tank fights". The reason is listed just below
          Quote: vomag
          about the circular about leaving the battle of tigers when is2 appeared

          I would like you to read the original text of this dispatch
          without allegories and Russian epithets "immediately, urgently, etc."

          secondly, the circular "on the prohibition of battles with IS2" is meaningless, just as the algorithm "what to do if a UFO has landed" is meaningless
          the chance of meeting the Tiger with the IS2 was vanishingly small.

          for comparison:
          - IS2 produced <3500 units.
          - anti-tank guns of caliber 45, 57 and 100 mm produced ~ 60 000 units.
          - and the production during the war years of the divisional 76 mm gun ZIS-3 exceeded 48 units
          - approximately the same numbers calculate the output of corps artillery

          Another interesting fact: in 1944, the annual consumption of 57 mm anti-tank ammunition for the ZIS-2 guns amounted to 460 pieces !!!

          Now compare these facts and see how great the Tiger had a chance to meet with IS. By that time, the German beast had already three times blown up on mines or died from a well-aimed shot from the ZIS-2 cannon (projectile speed 1000 ... 1300 m / s - this is serious)
      2. Misantrop
        Misantrop 14 June 2013 23: 40
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Amer with German tanks didn’t stand on ceremony - they smashed the columns of tankers from the air and in a day the Fritzes threw their Panthers along the roads
        And at the beginning of the war there were exclusively tank dueling, were there no German air attacks?
        1. Santa Fe
          16 June 2013 00: 03
          0
          Quote: Misantrop
          were there no German air attacks?

          wrong scale

          at 1944-45 the Yankees had tenfold air superiority
          1. Alex
            Alex 13 September 2013 23: 53
            +2
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN (1)
            Quote: Misantrop
            were there no German air attacks?


            wrong scale

            at 1944-45 the Yankees had tenfold air superiority


            So the security and survivability of equipment became higher. Or "Panther" with "Tiger" and BT with T-26 - comparable machines?
  22. Crang
    Crang 14 June 2013 17: 07
    0
    Battles of IS-2 and "Tigers" during the war were more than
    1. Kars
      Kars 14 June 2013 17: 21
      +2
      The first recorded IS-85 clash with the “tigers” occurred on March 4, 1944 in the vicinity of Starokonstantinov in Ukraine during the Proskurov-Chernivtsi offensive operation. The 1st Guards Heavy Breakthrough Tank Regiment (commander Lt. Col. N. I. Bulanov) entered the battle with the Tiger heavy tank company of the 503rd Heavy Tank Battalion. During a shootout in conditions of poor visibility from a distance of 1500-1800 m, one of the ISs was hit and three were damaged but were subsequently repaired. In response, IS fires at one Tiger damaged a cannon, and at the other a running gear. On March 16, the Tigers, having opened fire from an ambush, shot down four ISs, two of which burned down along with the crews. A little earlier, on March 8, two ISs from 150–200 m were shot by masked 75 mm assault guns. One tank received 8 hits, the other 4.

      As a result of these battles, the conclusion of the GBTU about the mismatch of the IS-85 armament and its reservation with the similar indicators of German heavy tanks appeared


      Collisions of IS-2 with tigers were quite rare. In any case, in the descriptions of the combat route of the German heavy tank battalions, such facts are found no more than ten, and with the participation of "Tiger II". Of great interest in this regard is the combat route of the 71st separate guards heavy tank regiment equipped with IS-122 tanks of the first release. In August 1944, the regiment’s personnel, together with the tankers of the 6th Guards Tank Corps, participated in the defeat of the “Royal Tigers” battalion on the Sandomierz bridgehead. Here is what this is said in the "Report on the military operations of the regiment from 14.07.44/31.08.44/13.08.44 to 289/97/7": "In the morning of 272,1/700/800, the regiment, in cooperation with the XNUMXth infantry regiment of the XNUMXth infantry division launched an offensive in the direction of to Oglenduv. The enemy tanks on the outskirts of Oglenduv blocked the path of the advancing infantry with their fire. Then a platoon of tanks of the guard of senior lieutenant Klimenkov, having advanced forward, opened fire on enemy tanks from pre-prepared positions. As a result of a short battle, Klimenkov burned one tank and knocked out one (these are the first destroyed tanks of the enemy of the new type “Royal Tiger”). After which the infantry, not meeting strong resistance, burst into Oglenduv. At the same time, XNUMX enemy tanks, the Royal Tiger, attacked our positions from a height direction of XNUMX. The ambush tank of the senior lieutenant Udalov’s guard in the bush east of Mokre let the enemy’s tanks go XNUMX-XNUMX m and opened fire on the main one. With several well-aimed shots, one tank was burned and the second was shot down.



      But of course you can give your confirmation
      Quote: Krang
      more than heh **
      Or are you confused with Wot?
      1. Crang
        Crang 14 June 2013 17: 26
        0
        Kars are you plotting something?
        1. Kars
          Kars 14 June 2013 17: 50
          +3
          Quote: Krang
          Since the appearance of the IS-2, they have fought the Tigers and Panthers all the time. As well as the IS-85 and KV-85. And what else is there to fight the Germans? T-34-76 or what? They were already at war by that time


          Well, you blurted out)))) The T-34-85 is the workhorse of the Soviet army, and the Germans, to our happiness, did not have so many tigers and panthers))

          But will there be confirmation?
          Quote: Krang
          The battles of the IS-2 and Tigers during the war were more than before he **.

          Or did he say so?
          1. Crang
            Crang 14 June 2013 22: 40
            0
            Quote: Kars
            Well, you blurted out)))) The T-34-85 is the workhorse of the Soviet army, and the Germans, to our happiness, did not have so many tigers and panthers))

            There are not many "Tigers", but there are many "Panthers". The T-34-85 appeared in the 44th and took part in battles along with the heavy weights, but against the "Tigers" and "Panthers" - it was still not very good, although it burned them. Affected by the weak armor and lack of training of the crews (on the ropes they were all officers). But the IS-2, with all its shortcomings ... I just saw and did not care what distance. At least 3 km away the "Tiger" tower will be demolished.
            Quote: Kars
            But will there be confirmation?

            Bring it yourself. And take my word for it.
            Quote: Kars
            Or did he say so?

            I thought what you were up to.
            1. Kars
              Kars 14 June 2013 22: 55
              +2
              Quote: Krang
              "Tigers" - not many, but many "Panthers"

              Panther 5 thousand with a trifle since 1943, minus losses and minus under repair, there are a little more than tigers. And the main weapons of the Germans are fours and sau)))

              Quote: Krang
              Weak armor and unlearned crews affected

              Well, yes, by the end of the war the crews were very poorly trained)))))
              Quote: Krang
              (on the strands they were all officers).

              Really? And you know, they were formed in separate regiments as they were called heavy breakthrough regiments, and acted in certain areas.
              A feature of the crew of the heavy IS tank was the presence of two officers in it - the tank commander and the senior driver mechanic and two sergeants - the gunner and loader (he is also the junior driver). Such a composition of the crews speaks of the importance of the task that was assigned to the new vehicles and the guards regiments armed with them. Unfortunately, only a small part of the crews had previously fought on heavy KB and Churchill tanks and had combat experience. Basically, the personnel arrived from schools, sometimes after additional training at the ChKZ. When sent to the front, representatives of the GBTU were seconded to the regiments to monitor the use of new tanks

              Quote: Krang
              Bring it yourself. And take my word for it.

              I bring it, but believe you by the word - you constantly lie and tell tales, until now there is not even a plate on the T-90 modifications))))
              Quote: Krang
              I thought what you were up to.

              Neighing with you)))

              Quote: Krang
              Just saw and do not care what distance. At least 3 km away the "Tiger" tower will be demolished.

              Well, do not care what distance - when at a distance of more than 1 km to get, and even in a moving target from a hull gun with a low initial speed, the chances are minimal, and then there is still little ammunition.

              The weaker frontal armor of the "Tiger" was struck from a distance of 1200 m, but only well-trained experienced gunners could get into a German tank from such a distance.
              1. Crang
                Crang 15 June 2013 08: 04
                0
                Quote: Kars
                Well, do not care what distance - when at a distance of more than 1 km to get, and even in a moving target from a hull gun with a low initial speed, the chances are minimal, and then there is still little ammunition.

                The weaker frontal armor of the "Tiger" was struck from a distance of 1200 m, but only well-trained experienced gunners could get into a German tank from such a distance.

                Bullshit. How many hits and at much greater distances. There is a known case of the complete defeat of the "Panther" by the first shot from an IS-2 tank from a distance of 3000m.
                Quote: Kars
                , until now there is not even a modification of the T-90 plate))))

                What interests you from my nameplate?
                1. Kars
                  Kars 15 June 2013 09: 32
                  +1
                  Quote: Krang
                  Bullshit. How many hits and at much greater distances. There is a known case of the complete defeat of the "Panther" by the first shot from an IS-2 tank from a distance of 3000m.

                  Who is known in the world of tanks?
                  Quote: Krang
                  What interests you from my nameplate?

                  its presence, you lied when I posted my table from an armored car 2011 03
  23. Crang
    Crang 14 June 2013 17: 27
    0
    Since the appearance of the IS-2, they have fought all the time with the "Tigers" and "Panthers". As well as the IS-85 and KV-85. What else is there to fight the Germans? T-34-76 or what? They had already fought by that time.
  24. Balash
    Balash 14 June 2013 17: 53
    +1
    What kind of phrase at the very beginning? - rolling red and brown filth into the asphalt .....
    1. Kars
      Kars 14 June 2013 20: 36
      +2
      Quote: Balash
      rolling red and brown filth into the asphalt ....

      fascism in the form of German infantry
      1. Balash
        Balash 14 June 2013 23: 22
        +2
        Balash Kars (y) - Red-brown, this is, in fact, a white-tape meme.
        1. Kars
          Kars 15 June 2013 09: 35
          +1
          Quote: Balash
          it’s actually a white-tape meme

          you know better
          1. Balash
            Balash 15 June 2013 11: 38
            +1
            Red Brown - Wikipedia

            Red-brown is a propaganda cliche, implying the unification of communist and far-right forces and / or ideologies. It is used by politicians and journalists of a liberal-democratic orientation to indicate the totality ...
            1. Kars
              Kars 15 June 2013 12: 59
              +1
              Quote: Balash
              propaganda cliché, implying the union of communist and far-right forces and / or ideologies



              What are the colors on German swastika flags?
              1. svp67
                svp67 15 June 2013 13: 02
                +1
                Quote: Kars
                What are the colors on German swastika flags?
                It’s famously you, at the expense of colors ... Only stupid.
              2. svp67
                svp67 15 June 2013 13: 08
                0
                Quote: Kars
                What are the colors on German swastika flags?




                These are different versions of the Moroccan flag - what are the "colors of the sheriffs of Mecca."
                1. Kars
                  Kars 15 June 2013 13: 44
                  +1
                  And what did the T-34 fight against Morrocco?

                  And why is it stupid? Are the colors wrong?
                  1. svp67
                    svp67 15 June 2013 13: 51
                    0
                    Quote: Kars
                    And why is it stupid? Are the colors wrong?
                    Yes, those, but I'm showing you that many more countries have flags of the same colors and it is not rational to draw conclusions based only on the color of the flag. The same Moroccans in the 30s with a red flag fought against "red" Spain.

                    Quote: Kars
                    And what did the T-34 fight against Morrocco?
                    In any case, he was in their arsenal.
                    Morocco - at the beginning of the 1970's. received several units, apparently from the Arab allies.
                    1. Kars
                      Kars 15 June 2013 13: 55
                      +1
                      Quote: svp67
                      but I show you

                      WHAT FOR?


                      In 1944, when any of the German "Tigers" could flash through a pair of T-34 standing in a line of fire, the T-XNUMX caterpillars joked merrily on the bridge streets of European capitals, rolling a red-brown abomination into the asphalt.


                      Do you assume the Moroccans?
                      Quote: svp67
                      In any case, he was in their arsenal.
                      from 1940 to 1945?
                      1. svp67
                        svp67 15 June 2013 14: 05
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        WHAT FOR?

                        Yes, at least in memory of the feat of these people ...

                        Medium tanks T-34, made by superplan for the Ural Volunteer Tank Corps. The stamped turret for the tank in the picture was released at the Ural Heavy Engineering Plant named after Ordzhonikidze (UZTM) in Sverdlovsk.

                        Tank T-34-85 on Berlin street in May 1945 of the year. Tank with a gun ZiS-S-53 late releases 1944 year.
                      2. Kars
                        Kars 15 June 2013 14: 57
                        +1
                        Quote: svp67
                        Yes, at least in memory of the feat of these people ..

                        And where is the price
                        Quote: Kars
                        red brown abomination

                        So the question is why it remains.
                        Quote: Kars
                        In 1944, when any of the German "Tigers" could flash through a pair of T-34 standing in a line of fire, the T-XNUMX caterpillars joked merrily on the bridge streets of European capitals, rolling a red-brown abomination into the asphalt.

                        So who were the Moroccans or Germans rolled into the asphalt?
                      3. Balash
                        Balash 15 June 2013 15: 20
                        0
                        Actually, I didn’t want to troll. But the red-brown is a fairly well-known meme, and I was just wondering if this is a reservation, or the author was unnoticed by himself.
                      4. svp67
                        svp67 15 June 2013 16: 29
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        So who were the Moroccans or Germans rolled into the asphalt?

                        If you take the history of the 20th century, then our tanks, with our tankers, practiced in this process and over both. I would just ask you not to mix "colors". In World War II, these colors ended up on different front lines and the "red" side, not just some kind of abstract country, but my Motherland, in the battles for which my relatives died ...
                      5. Kars
                        Kars 15 June 2013 16: 37
                        +1
                        Quote: svp67
                        If we take the stories of the 20th century, then our tanks, with our tankers, practiced in this process both on those and others


                        And this can be drawn up and think about them from this particular phrase?
                        Quote: Kars
                        In 1944, when any of the German "Tigers" could flash through a pair of T-34 standing in a line of fire, the T-XNUMX caterpillars joked merrily on the bridge streets of European capitals, rolling a red-brown abomination into the asphalt.



                        ?
                      6. svp67
                        svp67 15 June 2013 17: 23
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        rolling red-brown filth into the asphalt.

                        And what color are these "heroes" for you?
                      7. Kars
                        Kars 15 June 2013 17: 38
                        +1
                        Quote: svp67
                        And what color are these "heroes" for you?

                        and who is it? Do their leaders have flags under which flags? And then ring the protective color of field uniforms as it’s not very bright.
                      8. svp67
                        svp67 15 June 2013 22: 49
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        and who is it? do they have leaders flying what flags?
                        Alone under Romanian
                      9. svp67
                        svp67 15 June 2013 22: 51
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        and who is it? do they have leaders flying what flags?
                        The second under the Hungarian ...
                      10. Santa Fe
                        15 June 2013 23: 57
                        0
                        Well you and bores

                        In the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s, the Nazi paramilitary organization the Sturmabteilung (SA) wore brown uniforms and were known as the brownshirts. It was often said of members of the SA that they were like a beefsteak - "brown on the outside, and red on the inside"—Because many of them were former Communists. The color brown was used to represent the Nazi vote on maps of electoral districts in Germany. If someone voted for the Nazis, they were said to be "voting brown". The national headquarters of the Nazi party, in Munich, was called the Brown House.
                      11. Apollo
                        Apollo 16 June 2013 00: 13
                        +1
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Well you and bores


                        Oleg hi laying out could translate.
                      12. Balash
                        Balash 16 June 2013 00: 33
                        0
                        About bores.
                        What politicians we have spread. For the "red-brown abomination" must be presented. If this is just a reservation, I’m ready to apologize for the empty molestation, if this is a position, you need to know this. Nothing personal here. But this definition is concrete and unambiguous. He has no double interpretations.
                  2. Kars
                    Kars 16 June 2013 08: 42
                    +1
                    Quote: svp67
                    Alone under Romanian

                    Quote: svp67
                    The second under the Hungarian ...

                    And under whom did the Romanians and the Hungarians go to WWII
                  3. svp67
                    svp67 16 June 2013 09: 40
                    0
                    Quote: Kars
                    And under whom did the Romanians and the Hungarians go to WWII
                    So I wonder when our T34s were "rolling" them into the asphalt - what color was this abomination?
  • Avenger711
    Avenger711 14 June 2013 18: 41
    0
    The article is generally ridiculous, the author himself did not understand what he wanted to say. Although everything is formulated simply, a tank that, with comparable performance characteristics, is several times cheaper than any analog, is by definition the best.
    1. igordok
      igordok 14 June 2013 19: 01
      +1
      The author tried to convey to readers that T-34 should not use the BEST epithet, but use SUCCESSFUL.
      1. Avenger711
        Avenger711 14 June 2013 19: 21
        0
        Pz IV is also successful. Even more.
      2. Misantrop
        Misantrop 14 June 2013 23: 44
        +1
        Quote: igordok
        T-34 should not use the BEST epithet, but use SUCCESSFUL.

        Well, yes, suddenly it just flooded, and neither the soldiers nor their equipment seemed to have anything to do with it. It's just that the suit fell ... Not a war, but a type of game "Guess". "There is such a letter, you won the main prize - victory in the Second World War! ..." request lol
        1. igordok
          igordok 15 June 2013 08: 36
          0
          The term successful means balanced performance characteristics. But last but not least, people bring luck: crew, infantry, repair and restoration brigades, and many others.
  • uzer 13
    uzer 13 14 June 2013 19: 32
    0
    The author is absolutely right that during the war the economy of war operates. It is necessary to fight on the equipment that is available, and not build unrealizable projections. The T-34 tanks, especially the first releases, had problems with gearboxes and transmissions, they improved with time, but in in war conditions there is no time and money to create new designs. But critics forgot about the engine, and there is something to brag about. A year before the start of the war, Hitler was informed about a new Russian tank superior to the German T-3 and T-4. But they came to the conclusion that the production should be launched similar The engine can be no earlier than two years and there is no time for it. The Panther and Tiger tanks, of course, exceeded the thirty-four, but their cost was very high and this limited their production. There is such an expression-Panther ravaged the Third Reich-and for this there are grounds. It is better to have a sufficient number of tanks that are not very sophisticated, but quite suitable for military operations, than a small number of technically advanced vehicles, in case of loss of which the army remains without the support of armored vehicles.
    1. igordok
      igordok 14 June 2013 19: 45
      0
      Czech plants producing Pz-38 were not converted for the production of something more powerful, but produced equipment based on it: Marder III, Grille, Hetzer. The economics of war.
  • duchy
    duchy 14 June 2013 19: 59
    +1
    Interesting article +. And probably there is no point in breaking spears. I am sure that, unlikely, any of the participants in the discussion fought a tanker in that war. We will pay tribute to those who fought against them, those who created them, who restored them after the battle. THIS IS THE TANK OF VICTORY. he was the most massive, technologically advanced in manufacturing in those difficult and difficult conditions. Those who are sitting across the ocean will never understand us, the heirs who won the war. And we must be proud of the victory of our grandfathers, fathers, brothers.
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 14 June 2013 23: 47
      +1
      Quote: duche
      it is unlikely that any of the participants in the discussion fought a tanker in that war

      My father-in-law went through ALL of them. Including the rout of the Kwantung group
      1. Kars
        Kars 15 June 2013 09: 37
        +1
        Quote: duche
        , it is unlikely that any of the participants in the discussion fought a tanker in that war

        Then the Napoleonic wars probably can not be discussed in principle.

        Grandfather was a self-propelled gun. ISU-122 and even a little on captured German 15 cm self-propelled guns, I guess that is on Hummel.
  • Genady1976
    Genady1976 14 June 2013 20: 10
    +1
    T-34-85 is not a parade or a museum
  • pavelk
    pavelk 14 June 2013 20: 10
    0
    In my Discover, he rated the T-34 very positively. Gave maximum protection patency and ease of assembly.
    Here is the original of their video:
    http://military.discovery.com/tv-shows/combat-countdown/videos/top-ten-tanks-t-3
    4.htm
  • Genady1976
    Genady1976 14 June 2013 20: 19
    0
    Self-propelled gun with a 122 mm D-30 gun based on the T-34-85
  • Genady1976
    Genady1976 14 June 2013 20: 24
    0
    A 34 mm M-130 cannon with marine ballistics was also installed on the T-46 chassis
    long-range guns.
  • Genady1976
    Genady1976 14 June 2013 20: 26
    +2
    A-1 medium tank is the only museum exhibit.
  • Genady1976
    Genady1976 14 June 2013 20: 49
    0
    this is what kind of beast picture there is no description what
  • Chern
    Chern 14 June 2013 20: 58
    +2
    "Simplicity and mass character have won over the gloomy German genius."
    Truly so!
  • chehywed
    chehywed 14 June 2013 21: 35
    0
    In a duel situation (T-34, IS-2, "Sherman" versus "Tiger"), a German beast with a probability close to 100%, scored any opponent

    When the IS-2 appeared on the battlefield, the pipelines did not immediately realize that this was not a modernization of the T-34 and quickly paid for it. A special order soon came out in which the Tigers commanders were strictly forbidden to engage in open battle with the new Russian tank, but only act out of ambush. Is tigers chopped the Tigers like nuts from 2500 meters, and Tiger Is (a) got only on 1800.
    And at the other end of Europe, Lieutenant Wittmann, on his Tiger-I, destroyed 26 tanks during the day of the battle, not counting other equipment, and delayed the advance of the British armored division for a day.
    50? (I don’t remember exactly) - the tank battalion of the 16 Royal Tigers held the front in 30 km! During the day, more than 2300 sorties took place at the battalion's position. Having lost 7 vehicles, the battalion retreated. Well, the Ardennes operation is generally a disgrace for Anglo-Americans.
    Well, and what Discovery objectivity can we talk about?
    1. Kars
      Kars 14 June 2013 21: 51
      +4
      Quote: chehywed
      IS-2, tiger
      During the Second World War, the understanding that the most effective anti-tank weapon is a tank was fully revealed and finally determined. To combat German tanks, the 100 mm gun or the 85 mm gun with an increased initial projectile speed (1050 m / s) was most suitable. The large range of the hull cannon for the tank was of no fundamental importance, since tank duels, as a rule, were conducted at a distance of a direct shot, not exceeding 1000 m. At a closer distance, the powerful armored IS protection ceased to play a decisive role - it easily penetrated from 75 and 88-mm cannons of the Panthers and Tigers. Such a parameter as rate of fire turned out to be more important, and with it the IS-2 was very bad - the Panther answered three with one shot, which means that the probability of being hit, all other things being equal (the quality of the sights, the level of training of gunners) German tank was three times higher. In addition, the Panther ammunition consisted of 82 unitary cartridges, and the ISa consisted of 28 separate loading rounds.

      As for the Tiger, the IS-2 had an advantage over him in armor protection, but was 10 tons lighter. Both tanks could penetrate each other's armor from a distance of 1000 m. At long distances, everything depended on the crew's training and battle conditions. As in the case of the Panther, the Tiger’s ammunition was three times higher than the IS-2’s ammunition and again consisted of 88 mm unitary cartridges, which ensured a high rate of fire


      Quote: chehywed
      ittman on his Tiger-I, destroyed 26 tanks during the day of the battle

      It’s you who are still a victim of the Nazi propaganda. The fight at Willer’s box has already been dismantled for spare parts.
      Quote: chehywed
      50? (I don’t remember exactly) - a tank battalion of 16 Royal Tigers held a front line of 30 km!

      Right alone, without infantry, with difficulty.
  • Genady1976
    Genady1976 14 June 2013 22: 47
    0
    **************
  • Sunscorpion
    Sunscorpion 14 June 2013 22: 50
    0
    Sumptuously. keep it up
  • Genady1976
    Genady1976 14 June 2013 22: 55
    0

    ******************************
  • svp67
    svp67 15 June 2013 17: 11
    0
    The USSR could not produce another tank, and the Red Army could not fight with other weapons.

    A very controversial statement by the author. The USSR not only could, but also produced other tanks, it was just that the T34 was "in the right place at the right time" ...
    And how could the Red Army not fight with other weapons? That is, our heavy tanks were not used for their intended purpose, and imported vehicles, especially "Shermans" supplied to equip only guards units, too?
    1. Santa Fe
      15 June 2013 23: 59
      0
      Quote: svp67
      especially "Shermans" coming to equip only guards units too?

      were there many of them? in% relation to thirty-four
      1. svp67
        svp67 16 June 2013 11: 42
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        were there many of them? in% relation to thirty-four

        According to Mikhail Baryatinsky "Lend-Lease tanks in battle"
        Many domestic publications claim that tanks delivered by the Allies made up only 10% of the 103 thousand tanks produced in the USSR during the years of World War II. Such a comparison looks not only incorrect, but also illiterate. In the USSR, starting from the 2 half-year of the 1941 of the year (from the 1 of July) and the 1 of June of the 1945 of the year, 97 678 tanks and self-propelled guns were produced (according to other sources - 95 252), but it was accepted by military acceptance from industrial plants from the 1 of July 1941 of the year on 1 September 1945 year is really 103 170 tanks and self-propelled guns. As you can see, in both cases we are talking about tanks and self-propelled guns, and from the Lend-Lease side only tanks are taken into account. If we take into account that Lend-Lease equipment arrived in the USSR in the summer of 1945 as well, then the number 78 356 should be taken into account. That is how many tanks were accepted by military acceptance from Soviet factories over a specified period of time. The number of self-propelled guns was 24 814 vehicles. As a result, it can be argued that the Lend-Lease tanks were 13% from Soviet production, self-propelled guns - 7%. As for armored personnel carriers, they were not produced at all in the USSR, which means that Lend-Lease deliveries amounted to 100%. If we compare by the criterion “light armored vehicles” and compare with the production of armored vehicles in the USSR (8944 units), then we get 70%. It should also be noted that of the 1800 Lend-Lease self-propelled guns, the 1100 were anti-aircraft, which we also practically did not produce (the 75 ZSU-37, released in the 1945-1946, did not participate in the hostilities). If we talk about armored vehicles in general, then Lend-Lease deliveries amounted to about 16% of Soviet production.


        Soviet tank M4A2 "Sherman" on the bridge in the Austrian town of Liezen
      2. svp67
        svp67 16 June 2013 12: 17
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        were there many of them? in% relation to thirty-four

        My rough count of the tanks supplied to us under Len-Lease, which can be classified as "average", and this:
        -1386 units of medium M3;
        -2007 units M4A2 (with 75-mm gun);
        -2095 units M4A2 (with 76-mm gun);
        -3782 units of "Valentine";
        -1084 units "Matilda";
        -6 units of "Cromwell";
        -20 units "Tetrarch"
        Total 10 380 units ...

        The numbers of the T34 release vary, although not by much, I'll take these
        1940 g. - 110 (+ 2 prototype),
        1941 - 2996,
        1942 - 12527,
        1943 - 15821,
        1944 - 14648,
        1945 g. - 12551.
        total 58 655 units Issued, but the number of troops entered will be slightly less, in addition, the full issue for the 1945 year is taken, and nevertheless, the ratio of 6 to 1, or about 17%. In reality, given the higher maintainability of the T34, the ratio in the operating parts was apparently in the region of 15% ...
        1. Santa Fe
          16 June 2013 14: 44
          0
          Quote: svp67
          -1386 units of medium M3;
          -2007 units M4A2 (with 75-mm gun);
          -2095 units M4A2 (with 76-mm gun);
          -1084 units "Matilda";

          so they need to be compared with the T-34

          5,5 thousand against ~ 50 "thirty-fours"
          a drop in the sea.
          Quote: svp67
          -3782 units of "Valentine"; -1084 units "Matilda";

          Esho 1232 American "Stuart"
          Valentine and Stuart - light vehicles, analogues of T-60, T-70 (EMNIP in the Union of Light Tanks made about 16 thousand) + 14 000 SU-76

          The ratio is destructive


          And if you count the KV tanks, self-propelled guns self-propelled guns and ISUs, pre-war BTeshki and T-26 then in general darkness.
          ps / tanks, airplanes - this is all nonsense. the true value of Lend-Lease is determined from the supply of raw materials, equipment and special products (for example, the radio engineering industry - hundreds of thousands of telephones and radio stations)
          1. svp67
            svp67 16 June 2013 18: 34
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Valentine and Stuart - light vehicles, analogues of T-60, T-70

            MK.III "Valentine" (according to the documents of the Red Army "Valentine" or "Valentine") was developed by the firm "Vickers" in 1938. Like "Matilda", it belonged to the infantry tanks, but in terms of mass - 16 tons - it was rather light. True, the thickness of the Valentine's armor was 60-65 mm, and the armament (depending on the modification) consisted of a 40-mm, 57-mm or 75-mm cannon. On "Valentine I" a 135 hp AEC carburetor engine was used, which was replaced on subsequent modifications by AEC and GMC diesel engines with 131, 138 and 165 hp. The maximum speed of the tank was 34 km / h.
            This tank in its characteristics is very similar to the t34 of the first releases, so I think that it is logical in the list ...
            "Brief report on actions. Mk.Sh" - apparently, one of the first documents with an assessment of the Allied equipment:
            "The experience of using" Valentines "showed:
            1. Tank passability in winter conditions is good, movement on soft snow with thickness of 50-60 is ensured. The adhesion with the ground is good, but for icy spurs are necessary.

            2. The weapon worked flawlessly, but there were cases of a shortage of the gun (the first five to six shots), apparently due to thickening of the grease. The weapon is very demanding on lubrication and maintenance.

            3. Supervision in devices and cracks is good.
            4. The engine group and transmission worked well up to 150-200 hours, and there is a decrease in engine power in the future.
            5. Good quality armor.

            The personnel of the crews underwent special training and owned tanks satisfactorily. The command and technical staff of the tanks knew little. A great inconvenience was created by the crews' ignorance of the elements of preparing tanks for winter. As a result of the lack of necessary heating, the cars could hardly start in the cold and therefore kept hot all the time, which led to a large consumption of motor resources. In a battle with German tanks (20.12.1941/37/200), three Valentinas received the following damage: one had a turret jammed with a 250-mm projectile, another had a cannon, and the third received five hits on the side from a distance of 3-XNUMX meters. In this battle, the Valentines knocked out two German T-XNUMX medium tanks.

            In general, MK.Sh is a good combat vehicle with powerful weapons, good cross-country ability, capable of acting against manpower, fortifications and enemy tanks.

            Negative sides:

            1. Bad track traction.
            2. Great vulnerability of the suspension bogies - if one roller fails, the tank cannot move. There are no high-explosive fragmentation shells for the gun. "
            1. Santa Fe
              16 June 2013 19: 02
              -1
              Quote: svp67
              this tank in its characteristics is very similar to the t34 of the first releases

              no plow

              All the "bells and whistles" you mentioned appeared much later, towards the end of the war. And at the time when the "T-34s of the first editions" were fighting in the Red Army, Valentine had a two-pounder cannon without fragmentation shells, inferior in ballistics to any Soviet PT-guns.

              And the specific power is 2 times less

              And a rare modification with a 57 mm gun (supplied since 1943) in addition there was no machine gun
  • Severok
    Severok 15 June 2013 23: 41
    -1
    Regarding the repair of T-34 tanks, eh, the author, would you tell this to those guys who scrubbed the remains of tankers in burned-out buildings ... who collected two or even three combat-ready vehicles in their volatiles from 4-5 tanks!
    You could tell how our techies "threw" our damaged tanks ...
    I think that they would not have done just a friendly "bream".
  • Stas57
    Stas57 16 June 2013 23: 21
    0
    October 7 The 1941 of the year near Mtsensk was defeated by the tank team of the Wehrmacht's 4 Panzer Division. Obnaglev from easy victories (or breathing in the Russian air), Colonel Eberbach relied on "maybe" and neglected thorough reconnaissance and other security measures. For which he immediately paid - the T-34 attack from the Katukov brigade caught the Germans by surprise. “Thirty-fours” killed the German armored vehicles crowded on the road and melted away in the evening twilight.

    I've already said a million times, this is nonsense
    no crushed columns existed in nature,
  • basil200
    basil200 26 June 2013 05: 12
    0
    Duel of the Tiger and Is 2
    Imagine the following situation: a duel between the Tiger and the IS-2 in ideal (flat terrain, distance up to 1000 m) and equal (quality of sights, level of training of gunners, full ammunition, wedge-gate cannon) conditions. At the same time, we will lay down a 50% probability of being hit by the first shot and agree that both tanks will miss (if they hit, there is nothing to talk about), but must necessarily hit with the second projectile, which often happened in real life. What happens next?

    The ISa loader takes a 25-kg projectile from the ammunition storage located in the turret aft niche and inserts it into the barrel, then sends it forward with a punch so that the leading belt firmly (with a ringing sound, as stated in the "Manual") is jammed at the beginning of the rifling ... An experienced loader sends the projectile with his hand, which speeds up the process. Then the loader takes a 15-kg cartridge case with a charge from the right side of the tower (we agreed that the ammunition load is full, which means that after the first shot there is still one cartridge case with a charge in the tower; ISa), puts it in the barrel and sends it. In this case, the shutter closes automatically. The loader reports - "Ready", the tank commander says - "Fire", and the gunner, who managed to adjust the sight during loading, presses the trigger and fires a shot. However, stop! Under all our conditions, the most trained loader will take at least 20 seconds for all of the above, which means, no matter how bitter it is to admit, he will not have time to finish the loading process, because at the 8th second an 88-mm German projectile will fly into the IS turret , and on the 16th - the second! Thus, upon the first miss, the Tiger, with a rate of fire of its cannon of 6-8 rds / min, did not leave the IS-2 a single chance for a second shot. Even if there were two of our tanks, the "Tiger", having hit the first IS, would have managed to fire the first shot at the second 4 seconds before the response. As a result, it turns out that for a guaranteed defeat of one "Tiger" with the second shot, three IS-2 tanks are required.
    1. Cat
      Cat 26 June 2013 06: 00
      0
      Quote: basil200
      Imagine the following situation: a duel between the Tiger and the IS-2 in ideal (flat terrain, distance up to 1000 m) and equal (quality of sights, level of training of gunners, full ammunition, wedge-gate cannon) conditions. At the same time, we will lay down a 50% probability of being hit by the first shot and agree that both tanks will miss (if they hit, there is nothing to talk about), but must necessarily hit with the second projectile, which often happened in real life. What happens next?

      let’s change the conditions a bit: a flat field, tanks are at a distance of 1000 m aft to each other, the guns are not charged, the engines are muffled.
      We give the go-ahead, and what do we see?
      The IS-2 gunner takes 180 seconds to rotate the tower 10 °, the Tiger gunner takes one and a half to two minutes (the hydraulic drive, with the engine not working, is not that). Who, in whom, and how many shells will slap in this situation? Oh well.
      Or another option: we agree that the first 28 shots fly past the target. Why not - everything happens in battle, right? As a result, the Tiger punches 64 holes in IS, without even being scratched.

      Say - delusional conditions of a duel? So no more delusional than what you suggested =)
    2. Oleg Petrov_2
      Oleg Petrov_2 9 October 2017 07: 16
      0
      based on your conditions that the first shot is always a miss, then is2 will change its position at the moment of reloading and the tiger will miss again)
  • Alex
    Alex 14 September 2013 00: 29
    +2
    I didn’t understand: according to the author, T-34 - what is this? He so often and gently changed his often opposite assessments that he did not immediately understand.

    Just as the discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of tanks is not clear. Any (I emphasize ANY) combat vehicle is a complex of various, often conflicting requirements. Add here the capabilities of industry, the human factor (this is all that is said about the crews: training, self-confidence, and love for the motherland - add if you missed that), military doctrine, and what else. All this leads to a compromise, called in this case the tank. And in any combat vehicle, there are both pros and cons. And their real value and inferiority is manifested in real combat conditions, and it is not a fact that when conditions change (theater of operations, for example), efficiency will not change. As well as the fact that the maintainability and cost of military equipment are also of considerable importance during the war.

    However, these are all elementary truths, I just could not resist (emotions, you know). I was also interested in two other points.
    The first. T-34 is a medium tank (I think no one will deny this). And the fact that all participants in such disputes are hoarsely discussing its superiority or disadvantages in comparison with the "Panther" or "Tiger" - heavy tanks - speaks unequivocally in its favor.
    The second one. The article has one rational message. Perhaps it makes no sense to directly compare different tanks of different countries. After all, they may have been created for different purposes. So it is worth comparing them by the efficiency with which they coped with these tasks. And at the same time, how successful was their use in conditions of changing realities of the war. As for me, 34 has done it much more successfully.
    Which proved in Berlin.
  • Jackob84
    Jackob84 8 October 2014 10: 45
    0
    I noticed some inaccuracies, but the article is a masterpiece!
  • air wolf
    air wolf 22 January 2015 21: 34
    0
    As a child (13 years old) for a whole month in the Zvezdny pioneer camp, he played in the T-34, stood behind the hull, there were even working batteries, crawled everything in it, a tank like a tank, then in a military school there was a T-55, both wonderful tanks.
    Conclusion: all scribblers or psaki who write that the tank was not high-quality, etc. Let them put their nasty words in the ass, because they didn’t see this tank in their eyes, but they rewrite articles from each other soldier
  • v.nosov100
    v.nosov100 April 20 2015 19: 39
    0
    Americans love to praise themselves and what they have done. And if you take reality, then their "Shermans" generally beat are not adapted to conduct hostilities on the eastern front. This is evidenced by history and eyewitnesses, i.e. veterans of that terrible war. And at the moment, taking into account the latest events in the east of Ukraine, and the introduction of sanctions against us, the American State Department feeds through all the media trying to rewrite the history of V.O.V. and take credit for this war. Contrary to history, they believe that it was America that won the war. Although, according to military experts, we could do without the Americans, the war lasted for six months, maybe a year. And what about the T-34 is the best tank of the 20th century. We must proceed from the cost, cost, effectiveness in battle, survivability and maintainability in the field. Comfortable conditions are not for war (these are Americans without Coca-Cola and toilet paper, they cannot fight. They have not won more than one battle in their entire history. Only fingers bend). a tank lives in battle for 5-7 minutes. No wonder the Fritzes, who captured the T-34 in the first period of the war and tested it at their training grounds, could not figure out the phenomenon and the grandiose invulnerability of the "thirty-four". And this is very simple T-34 plus RUSSIAN CHARACTER
  • 111111111111
    111111111111 29 June 2015 15: 09
    0
    Ratsugol sloped armor T-34 is a plus to the architecture of the tank hull, and not only as a means of armor protection. A pyramid is always more constructive and more stable than a cube. The T-34 was a well thought out and applied tank. The mentioned "blindness" and "unreliability" of the T-34 relative to the same "Sherman" - just smile and it remains. Sherman burned like straw - literally. The gasoline engine exploded instantly, with a pop, killing the car along with the crew. And the documentary footage that has bypassed the minds of the "Shermanists", where the tower flies from the T-34 along with a fountain of flame - diesel fuel flares up - and does not explode, the crew had time to leave the tank. Therefore, our command did not like imported gasoline "lighters", that before the first "arrival" - and you neither a tank nor a crew - AND FOR THE "SHERMANS" IT WAS PAID GOLD! .... That's why the Soviet tank crews "Sherman" - and what, they will not be sent into a serious battle, if they are sent, then you will surely return (no one needs losses), it is comfortable in the tank, it is light and the flies do not bite. This is not a fighting "three-four", not a working "BT" -shka, which will fulfill the task and will not spoil the statistics on losses. This, brother, is a foreign car, a SUV. In our days it would be dubbed "a tank for thieves sons". You can repeat the mantra about the review, about the "balanced" weapon and the quality of workmanship - guys, the "34th" of the pre-war issues was the best in the world, carefully finished medium machine with rolled armor. Was, so what? When the rubber bondages of the rollers began to burn out in the continuous fire of Stalingrad, the smooth running became a cute fairy tale from peacetime. When it became clear that the tank lives on average 10-30 battles, labor costs for its improvement became obviously harmful - all these pressure gauges, pipes, brackets will become secondary fragments at the first hit. THE TANK IS A VICTIM OF AN ARMS RACE. Therefore, Hitler did not pile up the next generations of "tigers" - they would still be burned by anti-tank artillery, and Stalin did not begin to make "anti-tigers" - there were upcoming street battles with the participation of German faustics (otherwise that's a real need, it's scary to even imagine this tank - as in an advertisement, "Best Friend for energetic Cats" .. yeah, for "Tigers" and "Panthers"))))) In general, I would like to see a duel between "Sherman" and "7-34", but you can't convince the mattress makers even with a hundred burnt out "fireflies". Because they love the "Gamerican tank" in advance for free only for one thing - that it is not the damned T-85 Victory Tank. And the rape from the panzerwaffe can be endured amicably, the fascists are not strangers to tea.
  • 111111111111
    111111111111 29 June 2015 15: 35
    0
    The world film distribution lacks a film about rare, but tender and warm meetings of T-VI and IS-2. There, as in boxing, there were no victories on points. Fascist sedentary anti-tank bunker against a heavy Soviet breakthrough tank. Both on the battlefield are a death sentence to each other. The front-line soldier said that the Isa volley was called a "bird" - later he read what others called "Stalin's" fire "robin" for the peculiar sound and purple color of the shot. Who would have removed. After all, there are reliable productions about all sorts of tanks - both "White Tiger" and "Fury", even the film "KV-2" is available (sorry without fire scenes)))) ISU-2 is nothing. However, if they do, it will be another libero-fascist UG.
  • Oleg Petrov_2
    Oleg Petrov_2 9 October 2017 07: 02
    0
    author -> author -> author balabol contradicting itself, it’s “filled up with quantity” of nonsense of dying liberals, then at the end of the article he writes that supplies of tank cities compensated the weakness of the thirty-four and its huge losses