Talk:T-34/Archive 6

Nonsense
"At least half the first summer's total tank losses were due to breakdowns rather than German fire, although this also included old tanks in disrepair"
 * Read the second part again. The tank is new, it just started to be produced in 1940. How on Earth they could be "old" in 1941? Disrepair is a bit more plausible; but all in all, it sounds more like old Soviet song "we weren't ready for the war" rather than solid facts. I would like to remove that part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.176.40.79 (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The source probably refers to all tanks. The nature of the warfare at the start from the Soviet perspective was fighting on a rapidly disintegrating front. So if an armoured vehicle broke down, it was a loss because it would be in German hands sometimes in mere minutes. This seems fairly obvious to me. T-34's and KV-1's were breaking down because they weren't thoroughly tested before seeing combat while the older tanks were breaking down because they weren't being maintained well enough.--Senor Freebie (talk) 07:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Citation style and consistency "References and Notes"
I understand that sometimes in Wikipedia "it's damned if you do and damned if you don't" but in looking over the article it seems that the use of Harvard style referencing and the use of separate Notes and References sections really effects the readability of the article and some are using it and some aren't. It's not just readability that suffers but using Harvard referencing negates much of the advantage that a wiki has over paper, namely the flexibility of an inline citation that combines reference citation information and an expository note that are grouped together rather than having one be separate from the other and that is linked right back to the sentence you were reading. The system may seem cumbersome if you are repeating a reference that has different page numbers but I have found that happens less than you might think and there's much more to be gained by combining the two, namely because you can assign names to references that don't change and it's much easier to read a combined notes and references section that uses lots of written references and reliable web citations. I did some work on T-55 that I hope shows better what I mean. Still working on a good combination of Notes, References and Bibliography that is functional yet easy to read using the wikicite template that's already here. Awotter (talk) 06:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I started to expand the article using Harvard citations exclusively, to minimize clutter for editors and link-jumping for readers, but a mix has developed since. I suppose it should all be converted to &lt;ref> tags, since that's how all the cool kids are citing these days, or perhaps we can keep using Harvard for plain citations, and the tags only for actual notes. —Michael Z. 2008-04-27 23:58 Z 


 * Guilty as charged, I did most of the tagged references as I found the Harvard style rather jarring and I was having to add a heck of a lot of citations to keep a fact bomber happy. Tirronan (talk) 00:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem, and much appreciated. Neither is perfect, and Harvard is rather more obtrusive now that the article is well referenced.  One of these days I'll clean it up, if no one's beaten me to it first. —Michael Z. 2008-04-29 03:57 Z 

Double Armor T-34?!
It's really weird that the article says the T-34 doubled its armor protection during the war. Indeed my references state that the glacis armor plate thickness had never increased. Some thickening the turret armor took place, but double? Unlikely. -Chin, Cheng-chuan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.225.70.94 (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Pretty close. The early narrow 76mm gun turrets had 45mm of armor in the welded version and 52mm in the cast version. I don't recall the exact thickness of the front of an 85mm gun turret but it was in the neighborhood of 90 to 110mm. Of course the sentence should not imply that *all* the armor was doubled because, as you correctly note, the hull was unchanged throughout production. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Only the turret had 90mm of armor but the hull still had 45mm in the front, so we can't say it has double the protection. It's true that the turret double the protection, but only the turret. The ZiS-S-53 doen't double the F-34 power too. -ACB, el Mutie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.145.254.162 (talk) 13:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

No turret basket
Hello.

Could someone please direct me to schematic drawings showing the layout in the T-34 turret, or try to explain the layout to me? I just can't see how a layout with no turret basket is practical

- How did the gunner stay in the sights? If he isn't in some way attached to the turret, he'd be sitting in the hull, and would have to move around along with the turret. Did the gunner have a seat hooked up in the turret roof?

- If the loader had to stand on the munitions on the turret floor, did that mean that he had to move around to keep up with the turret as it traversed? I can't see it happening in any other ways? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.109.86.72 (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In the 76mm armed versions, both the gunner (who doubled as commander) and the loader had seats attached to the turret ring; these seats moved with the turret. But there was no turret basket and they indeed did need to move around as the turret traversed. There were nine ready rounds in racks on the hull sides, so there was no need in a short firefight to open up any of the ammo boxes in the floor, but if more than nine rounds were immediately needed or the mix of ammo types needed required getting into the stowed ammo in the floor, the loader had to maneuver around all that.


 * You're right that it is a poor design from an ergonomic standpoint, but lots of tanks in 1941 didn't have turret baskets. I should add that 76mm-armed T-34s were known for having a low rate of fire and poor visibility, both factors related to the poor ergonomics of the turret and especially the two-man crew. Generally, tanks without turret baskets *were* harder to crew than those with baskets. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, that made things a lot clearer 83.109.86.72 (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

T-34 operators
Many of those countries, listed as operators, have scrapped/retired their T-34s. I cannot provide reliable sources for all of them, but here are some:
 * Ministry of defence of Bulgaria, the equipment page lists only T-55 and T-72 tanks in the inventory;
 * Ministry of defence of Romania, only the TR-85 tank is present.
 * Afghan national army official website, T-55 and T-62 displayed as MBTs, no T-34.

Those I can provide as sources for the moment. I will try to find more and for now remove the stars from those states at the operators list.

- Tourbillon A ? 12:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The asterisks indicate countries where the tank was used in 1996, according to the cited source. There's a sentence indicating what the table represents, and by removing asterisks you have rendered it false. —Michael Z. 2008-04-30 14:46 Z 


 * Why not showing the countries, where the tank is used in 2008, for example, when such sources are available ? - [[Image:Biohazard orange.svg|17px]] Tourbillon A ? 15:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. —Michael Z. 2008-05-28 15:20 z 

UNINTERRUPTED PRODUCTION RUN?
Under the “Importance” subheading is the text: “The improved T-34-85 remained the standard Soviet medium tank with an uninterrupted production run until the end of the war.”

I have just read ‘THE T-34 RUSSIAN BATTLE TANK’ by Matthew Hughes & Chris Mann. ISBN 0760307016. In addition to tabulating T-34 production by year and type, they state categorically that there were no T-34s produced in 1945. So who is right? 192.190.108.28 (talk) 04:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the authors mean that the original T-34 had stopped production, and only T-34-85 tanks were produced in its place, in 1945. —Michael Z. 2008-07-12 07:16 z 

Bay of Pigs Invasion
I've been hacking away at the BoPI page, trying to put some order and sense into it, though I'm just an aircraft historian, specialising in post-USAF B-26 Invaders. There's various accounts of the events, and accuracy of much BoPI data is suspect:- Cuban tanks are variously referred to as T-34s or Stalins. The shipping data also needs clarifying:- three LCUs or LCIs (Blagar, Barbara J, ANOther?), four LCVPs?(coded P-3, P-7 etc), four freighters, one LSD (USS San Marcos), but what sort of vessel was the Marsopa? Perhaps tank/ship nuts might like to investigate? PeterWD (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible Misquote
The following quote appears just under the section heading "Establishing and Maintaining Production": "Quantity has a quality all its own" —attributed to Joseph Stalin

On the History Channel I have heard this precise quote attributed to Lenin, and there are several websites that also credit Lenin, including: http://www.notable-quotes.com/l/lenin_vladimir.html (Badlermd (talk) 13:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC))


 * This has been attributed to both, and it may be apocryphal, but it has been repeated so much that it is part of the mythology. In my experience it is more commonly associated with Stalin, which is convenient for this article about a Stalin-era tank. —Michael Z. 2008-08-29 15:27 z 


 * See Joseph Stalin for a brief discussion. —Michael Z. 2008-08-29 15:30 z 

John Mosier on the T-34
Here are some more quotations which may be useful. I don't know whether they should be introduced into the article, because the thesis of Mosier's book is controversial, and he is not specifically a tank expert. The book is mostly about the Western Allies and the Germans, but he felt it necessary to mention the Eastern Front and specifically the T-34 a few times. From John Mosier (2003) The Blitzkrieg Myth: How Hitler and the Allies Misread the Strategic Realities of World War II, HarperCollins [Perennial 2004], ISBN 0-06-000977-2.

". . . Soviet tank design was considerably more advanced than in the West. But the T34 was a major step forward even for the Russians. In 1941 (and in 1942) no one had anything even remotely comparable. —pp 176–77"

"In June 1941 the Germans had no tank capable of defeating the T34, or even surviving an engagement with it, as one hit from its 76-millimeter gun would destroy any German tank outright, while its own angled armor rendered it well nigh invulnerable to the low-velocity German tank guns—most of which were still 50 millimeters or worse. Only the 88 could stop a T34, and only at ranges n which gunners were loathe to operate. All the more so as the crews were composed of Luftwaffe personnel who had been trained to shoot at airplanes.  Belatedly, and with a sense of panic virtually unique in the history of the German army, a whole series of crash programs were begun. —p 177"

"As we have seen, the entire German tank force was an overlapping series of failed designs. The truth is the only competent tank design to see any real use in the war was the Soviet T34. —p 181 [Mosier also counts the Centurion and Pershing as competent tanks, which “arrived on the battlefield too late to have any impact . . .”]"

Perhaps more important than the superlatives is Mosier's discussion of the German response to the T-34, including some subjects not adequately covered in our article. He mentions upgunning Panzer III and IV tanks and Sturmgeschütz, building Tigers and Panthers, development of a low-profile antitank carriage for the 88, and especially the deployment of captured and domestic antitank guns mounted on towed carriages as well as in self-propelled Marders and Hetzers. —Michael Z. 2008-09-20 22:23 z 


 * IMO we should leave Mosier out of this. He's a professor of English and should stick to the subjects for which he is trained. ;) DMorpheus (talk) 13:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Only to ilustrate: (1) the luftwafe 88 argument is voide, because the 88 was pressed in ATG job in France, since the Matilda II / French BIS tanks where stronger that the german tanks. An 88 could frontal open a T-34 over a 1000m away. So, i believe mr. Monsier forgets that germans already faced superior armor against them before the T-34, at 1941 there were already 88 ATG. (2) the "tank-tank" myth arises again. Basically, german tanks weren't meant to kill another tanks,
 * ...which does not make it non-true: Germans in 1941 had practically nothing to stop attacking T-34s with, apart from 88mm AAA guns. So the only viable way to prevent massed T-34s attacks was to disrupt Russian defense in general, keeping them off-balance and on the run. Which Germans did masterfully. .... 90.176.40.79 (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * but as fast hitting units against medium-light units and supply lines. As example: Rommel's "luring" strategy in Afrika. The T-34 was faster that the german panzers and stronger, so they needed to readapt, comming up with the Tiger / Panther. The tiger assuming the "heavy striker"place and the Panther the "fast hitter". Stu/Marder/Elefant were mainly meant for infantry support against armor. Not mentioning, a good quantity of especialist believe the Panther design been as good as the t-34. ---PHWeberbauer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.117.185.123 (talk) 04:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Adding movie of recovering T-34 from bog/lake
The recovering of the German captured T-34 that had been dumped in a lake in Estland, has been recorded on film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kKLbKHNquE. I think it should be added to the passage about the recovery which is already in the article, but due to health reasons (momentarily severe add which also affects my writing skills) I can't do it myself. I think the movie is too important not to mention here. Arnoldus (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Several videos can be seen in the reference cited at the end of that paragraph in the article. —Michael Z. 2009-01-11 17:19 z 

Tiger
I'm not sure where, but the fact that they rammed tigers should be included.--Krasilschic (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I hesitate to call that a "fact". I've never seen a really credible source make the claim. And, if true, what of it? DMorpheus (talk) 22:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

All tanks types have probably rammed another in one case or another, most are accidental which was a particular problem in Korea due to heavy fog often setting in. Intentional ramming is normally a sign of desperation and requires a tank to have far superior mass and weight to be effective, somthing the T-34 did not have against the Tiger. A few cases had definitely happened, but the same is true of any other tank. It's not really worth mentioning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.103.83 (talk) 21:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Links
I know an article about T-34 quite large in information, but in spanish. The link is this: http://www.militarwiki.org/wiki/T-34

I think it could be included in the external links. -ACB, el Mutie- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.145.254.162 (talk) 13:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Comparison with contemporary tanks.
Hi, this is IMHO a very good article on a significant tank. What it lacks to make it more complete is: I've seen these sections in other articles (about tanks and military aviation), and really do add to the information provided. Does anybody else concurs? Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 03:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * a section summarizing how the T-34 compared against other "contemporary" (ie: WW2) tanks; eg: Pz.III, Pz.IV, Panther, Sherman, Pershing.
 * a section ("See also" could be the one) listing related wikiarticles, eg for similar vehicles.

Fighting infantry?
The BT tanks were cavalry tanks, very fast-moving light tanks, designed to fight other tanks but not infantry.

As I understand the relationship of tanks and infantry, tanks do not fight infantry, rather infantry is used to support and defend tanks from other infantry (sappers, anti-tank weapon crews, etc.) and tanks are used to attack hardened defenses in support of infantry advances.

Shouldn't this be written "The BT tanks were cavalry tanks, very fast-moving light tanks, designed to fight other tanks without infantry"? (Fighting without infantry support and not supporting infantry in its task.)

- Leonard G. (talk) 02:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Tanks do indeed fight Infantry and vice/versa. There's nothing like a 120mm HEAT round to ruin your bunker ;) Sappers are Engineers, not Infantry. They may be mounted or dismounted.
 * In general during WW2, successful armies used combined-arms tactics with all arms supporting each other with teamwork even at very low levels (company and below).
 * The BT was designed in the 1930s to the cavalry tank or 'cruiser tank' requirement, which was found in WW2 to be unsound (to put it politely). Strictly speaking you are correct that it was designed to fight without strong infantry support. DMorpheus (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

T-34 in Afghanistan
See here at 3:40. Was watching this vid at CNN and suddenly, lo and behold, isn't that a T34!? I'm pretty positive that it is one although I'm not knowledgeable enough to tell exactly which model. Seems it's not unknown that they did use T34s there, only I didn't know that. Anyhow, if it's useful, here's a video showing one that works at least insofar that it swings its turret. 85.229.85.49 (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a T-34 85. But that seems to be a clip from the 1980's. So it likely was tank of the Soviet-backed, Afghan government, obtained by the Mujahideen after it was abandoned or captured.Catsmeat (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Present Usage
Why does it say that it is still in service? And if it is which countries are using it?--Coffeekid (talk) 23:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The T-34-85 is still being used by some African nations (Angola, for example) and I believe Egypt and Syria still use it as a self-propelled gun platform. Of course, this could have changed by now. My reference is pretty old. Cwjian (talk) 06:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)\

This year, 9 T-34s were used on the victory parade in the red square. Duiring conflicts in Armenia (1992) some of these tanks, standing as memorials also were used. George-yuschenko (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The T-34 as Myth
Recently have been reading through Robert Michulec's T-34 - Mythical Weapon and the points made in this large and very detailed book on the T-34 deserve inclusion, IMHO, in this article. Because so much of this book contradicts the conventional wisdom about the T-34, I think the best way to do so would be to discuss the issues this book raises as a separate section within this article. To attempt to integrate this book into the current article would require extensively re-writing this article, and discarding much of what others have written about the T-34. I personally think that is what should eventually be done, but don't think that it will be possible to do so without a massive fight, so I think a separate section would be the way to go for now.

The book unfortunately has gone out of print, and is now very difficult to find for sale. I seem to have gotten one of the last few copies.

Commments? Thoughts?

DarthRad (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * For anyone looking for it: Hard Cover, 2007 edition with translations of the data tables:
 * I note that in your own Amazon review of the book, you say it's biased ;)
 * If the book is accepted as a more reliable source than those in the article, then the article should be rewritten, since articles are supposed to be accurate, and use the best references possible. However, if it's difficult to prove that the book has more reliability than others (especially Zaloga, Perrett etc.), then including its contrary opinions in a balanced way would seem appropriate, either point-by-point throughout the article, or in a separate section - although the latter may give it undue weight. Hohum (talk) 16:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If the book is accepted as a more reliable source than those in the article, then the article should be rewritten, since articles are supposed to be accurate, and use the best references possible. However, if it's difficult to prove that the book has more reliability than others (especially Zaloga, Perrett etc.), then including its contrary opinions in a balanced way would seem appropriate, either point-by-point throughout the article, or in a separate section - although the latter may give it undue weight. Hohum (talk) 16:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The book is biased because Michulec states his intent to demythologize the T-34 in the preface, and his contempt for anything to do with the Soviets (versus German, American, or British) runs throughout the book, and is quite noticeable. This contempt is almost certainly related to the Polish POV of this author.

I did catch a couple of not quite kosher comparisons in the book, which I pointed out in the Amazon review. But otherwise, MIchulec has his facts correct in this book, and the book is quite good. They do match what has been said in a lot of other books about the T-34.

It's the conclusions that Michulec draws from his facts that are most likely to draw fire from T-34 fans. Some of the basic hard facts that point out the limitations of the T-34 are already in this Wiki article. However, several claims are still sprinkled in the article which Michulec proves to be false.

The "technological pacesetter" quote from Zaloga is almost certainly overblown if not completely false. Michulec points out the earlier French FCM 36 as its probable predecessor and you only have to click on the Wikipedia link to see the strong family resemblance (yes, the T-34 was probably a stolen bastard child of the French, ooh la la! - how about that for a quote in the Wiki article?).

The claims about the reliability of the T-34 are also demonstrably false, another contradiction of Zaloga's writing. The M4 was by far more reliable, which is backed up in one sentence in Dmitryi Loza's "Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks." Michulec's book is literally filled with photographs of just how shoddily the T-34  was put together, including a number (I lost count) of T-34s that were completely blown apart due to the shoddy welding of the hull armor. I have never, ever seen a photo of a German, American, or British tank where the hull completely came apart as a result of an internal explosion. There are many photos of such shattered T-34s in Michulec's book.

Although Zaloga is certainly one of the major tank historians of our time, I am quite suspicious now about his earlier works. In his most recent books, he has revised a number of key statements from some of his earlier works already.

I think Zaloga's earliest works on the Soviet tanks have to be considered the most suspicious, especially since most of them were written with information obtained prior to the fall of the Soviet Union. Soviet propaganda about the T-34 still had a very strong effect. [Note, a controversial claim about the Soviet 122mm gun being able to penetrate a Panther tank from front to back is attributed to Zaloga's 1984 book, and is almost certainly Soviet propaganda, IMHO - this is still in the Wiki articles about the Panther tank and the IS-2 tank].

Finally, Michulec gives the figure of 45,000 destroyed T-34s, which would make it not "the finest tank in the world", which is what is currently stated in this T-34 article, but "THE MOST DESTROYED TANK IN THE WORLD". I'm all for substituting the latter quote in place of the first one, since the hard numbers are there to prove it, but, still this would be a controversial thing to do.

The combined sum of Michulec's views of the T-34 show that this was not a great tank at all, possibly not even a great tank in 1941, but that it was merely a tank that was produced in massive numbers and overwhelmed the Germans by sheer numbers.


 * You simply twist the facts far too much in the other direction. Yes, T-34 wasn't very ergonomic. Back in 1940, nobody even knew such a word; and Soviets never cared about their people that much. Yes, T-34 was optimized for mass production, and Soviets consciosly chose to not upgrade the design if it meant stopping assembly line. You think other contemporary tanks were better, or at least on par with T-34? Like what? T-34 was head and shoulders above anything anyone else had in 1941, AND it was twice as numerous as the most powerful tank Germans had, Pz-IV. 90.176.40.79 (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That happens to be a commonly expressed opinion about the M4 Sherman, unjustly so, and in fact would appear to be more appropriate for the T-34.

It's mainly having to fight against the weight of all the quotes from authors like Zaloga and Lidell Hart that makes integrating Michulec's book into this article difficult. A lot of that stuff I think is just outdated, and the truth will come out with further works, as more authors, hopefully Zaloga himself, go to Russia to find out the real facts. The window of opportunity may be closing, as Russia seems to be developing a strong pro-Soviet nationalism again.

DarthRad (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * How do you know Michulec is giving facts? You have other sources to confirm? Why not use them instead of a book from someone who you openly admit has an axe to grind and is biased? While you seem deeply impressed by this book, I'm struggling to see why.
 * One way to sell a book after so many have been written on the same subject, with not insignificant research to make them, by very well respected authors, is to come up with a new twist. "Demystifying, shattering illusions and preconceptions" etc. usually rings alarm bells with me, and makes me check the work very carefully. I see that Michulec has written several other WWII related books, and their titles, at least, don't seem as provocative.
 * Also, Zaloga, and others, have been able to inspect many T-34's outside Russia, since the tank was so prevalent throughout the world, and for a long period of time.
 * Even jokingly suggesting that "the most destroyed tank in the world" is appropriate for an encyclopaedia article gives me pause.
 * I have seen pictures of several Allied and German tanks literally blown to bits, but I don't think any are on wikipedia or commons; they were probably victims of large mines, or (un)lucky bomb hits. Images of Russian tanks blown to bits may from the same causes, and I'm usually dubious of the stated reasons in picture captions. Hohum (talk) 03:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 2 minutes of google searching, here's an obliterated StuG IV Elefant, Sherman  Panzer IV  Hohum (talk) 03:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you got me there. There are photos of other tanks that have come apart. But look at that photo of the T-34 I posted. The degree to which this tank came apart is much worse than your photos. It is not even the worst of the blown up T-34s from this book. I could have posted a couple others that were not even recognizable as tanks anymore - they were scattered in such pieces. It's really the sheer number of photos of completely disintegrated T-34s in Michulec's book that is impressive.

The photos of the tanks that you found do look more like they could have been bomb hits - the center of the tanks and tracked wheels look like they are collapsed down from a gigantic hammer blow from above, rather than an internal explosion making everything, including the side panels, come apart. That photo of the Sherman looks like a gigantic mine hit from below - most of the rest of the tank is still in one piece.

And so I think Michulec's explanation for the multiple photos of T-34s that are literally just completely blown apart has to be accepted for what it is. It might not be the reason for all of the tanks, but to see so many of them with their hull armor plate completely separated and blown apart, one has to come to the conclusion that yeah, something was seriously deficient in the construction of the T-34.

Some of the specifics of Michulec's other information are hard to back up with other sources, such as the his data on the low wear rates of the T-34's engine and main gun. There basically are no other sources that come close to being this specific with this information. Other sources deal only with generalities - Zaloga's statement that the T-34 was a durable tank, Dmitryi Loza's statement that it was no where near as durable as the M4 Sherman (he fought in both tanks, and clearly loved the M4 lots more).

Much of Michulec's information is so specific that it sounds very credible. The 45,000 destroyed T-34s number makes sense if you consider how many T-34s were produced and how many must have been left at the end of the war. If the Russians produced over 58,000 T-34s, surely it was to replace their losses, and not because they had 30,000 or 40,000 tanks at war's end.

The T-34 thus gets the title of "most destroyed tank of all time" over the M4 Sherman - fewer Shermans were produced and there were a lot of them still left over at war's end. But again, I don't know of any hard data as to how many M4 Shermans were actually destroyed during WWII, so this is just a guess. This is something that one should be able to find out, somewhere. One of these two tanks surely owns that title.

Anyway, this is why I am hesitant to insert information from this book into this article, except as a separate item so that people know that there is another viewpoint that may become the predominant one if or when more research comes out from  post-Soviet Russia. Zaloga's books on Soviet tanks are mostly from Soviet era information.

You should get this book! I would love to get your opinion of this book.

DarthRad (talk) 08:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

One additional point - Michulec does make very clear that there was a huge difference in the quality of the T-34s produced during the worst of the wartime emergency of WWII and the later T-34s produced after the war. Some T-34s were produced in Poland even. The differences are quite striking in the many photographs of the T-34s from wartime vs. those produced later. The armor of the wartime T-34s was poorly cast, turrets did not fit smoothly into the hull, etc. Photos of the very early T-34s and the late T-34s show very nice looking armor. He says the early T-34s had mechanical teething problems, and the mechanical reliability suffered also during the wartime, but improved considerably in the late model T-34s. All of this makes a great deal of sense, especially combined with his descriptions of how late and how hard it was for the Soviets to move their factories eastward with the Germans attacking (the main Factory 183 was re-built almost anew - Michulec says only about 10% of the parts and personnel were transferred successfully to the Urals, due to the late start of the transfer). Western sources generally seem to assume that the Soviets miraculously moved all of their industry to the Urals well in advance of the German invasion without any problems, but Michulec documents otherwise. All in all, despite Michulec's obvious anti-Soviet tone, he paints a fairly complete and consistent picture of what was happening during that time.

And so if Zaloga and others have examined T-34s, they most likely examined the nice shiny ones produced later. Michulec's book on the other hand thoroughly documents with photographs all the warts of the wartime T-34s.

DarthRad (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * T-34 Mythical Weapon is an awful book and should not be one of the main sources for this article. The text is very nearly useless. The photos and drawings are great. Anyone who takes this book seriously needs to go back to school; sorry, I don't mean to be rude but the text is simply awful. Regards and apologies ;) DMorpheus (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "You should get this book! I would love to get your opinion of this book."
 * I'm not spending the amount of money that this book currently goes for. (US$168) (crossarticle reference - Sledgehammers is interesting though)
 * I also can't give much credence to your offhand dismissal of Zaloga based on unproven accusation, when it's apparent he's been inspecting tanks for decades and is one of the seminal authors on the subject.
 * I'm sure I can find pictures of what is claimed to be even more blasted allied and German tanks, but they become a scatter of unidentifiable fragments. Pictures of wrecks don't prove how badly constructed a tank is unless the size of the explosion is known. You can turn a modern tank to splinters if you put a big enough charge under it, or guide a 2,000 lb bomb onto it.
 * However, I'm not a bomb damage assessment professional, so I just go by the reputation of the author. Michulec isn't looking good currently. Hohum (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To follow up one of your points about the comparative number of Sherman and T-34 tanks left at the end of the war - The Russians were usually fighting three quarters of Germany's strength while the allies fought the rest - it's no wonder they took a lot of tank casualties. Also the very aggressive way that the Russians used poorly trained crews without enough radio control, compared to the rather cautious, coordinated Western approach. Hohum (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: "The T-34 thus gets the title of "most destroyed tank of all time" over the M4 Sherman" Because Western front's battles were just a pale shadow of what took place on the East. T-34s fought more - many times more - that Shermans did, and, as a result, they were being destroyed much more frequently.
 * Re: "The photos of the tanks that you found do look more like they could have been bomb hits" Why not? Ju-87 dive bombers were used widely against Soviet tanks.
 * Re: "The claims about the reliability of the T-34 are also demonstrably false" Early T-34 was very unreliable, poorly controllable and blind machine, but during 1943-45 its quality was considerably (I would say, dramatically) improved. Therefore the statement is too general to argue.
 * Re: "French FCM 36" Maybe, my imagination is poor, but I see no common features. In addition, you forgot that Germans called old T-34 "Christie" (for obvious reasons).
 * And, finally, comparison of T-34 with German tanks is simply incorrect because T-34 was a type of weapon Germany simply didn't have: a light (in German classification it was a "light" tank, because their "medium" Panther had about the same weight Soviet heavy IS-2 did) mass tank that was widely and extensively used for various purposes. Note, the Germans had a very limited amount of tanks, they tried to save them and took every effort to repair even heavily damaged machines, whereas for Russians it was a standard common kind of weapon.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: "Also the very aggressive way that the Russians used poorly trained crews without enough radio control" Too general. In 1941 T-34 was almost blind and devoid of any communication means. It had a terrible transmission, both poorly controllable and unreliable. However, it had no opponents (except Ju-87 and stationary artillery). In the second part of the war most mechanical problems were resolved (no appreciable losses during 500km marches in 1944), every tank had been equipped with radio, commander got a cupola, etc., however, German anti-tank armament (a direct response on T-34) also improved dramatically.

____
Well all right, at least we are getting some debate on the subject.

Paul Siebert - The main contribution of the FCM 36 was the sloped armor on all sides, with the slope of the hull continuous with the turret, so that the tank ended up with a pyramidal shape and a very small turret. This was exactly the same shape of the T-34 which appeared some 3-4 years later than the FCM 36 and yet the T-34 gets all the credit and accolades as a "revolutionary design" for its sloped armor. Well, the French came up with that idea first (p. 247-248 in T-34 Mythical Weapon). Michulec goes further and points out that the pyramidal shape was highly impractical as it resulted in a tiny turret that was all but nonfunctional as the two crewmen could barely aim, load, and fire the gun. This was why the initial "flat turret" with the steeply sloped sides was replaced by the slightly larger, and less steeply sloped "hexagonal turret" (p. 245). The later T-34-85 turret was hardly sloped at all in order to maximize space to fit the larger gun and three crewmen.

As for your point about the dysfunctionality of the T-34-76, the early T-34-76 models were the most dysfunctional because of their tiny, steeply sloped turrets and the weak L-11 gun. The larger hexagonal turret (appearing in the summer of 1942), which was designed to allow for installation of the more powerful F-34 gun was much more functional, but it was still a two man turret lacking a commander. That problem was not fixed until early 1944 when the T-34-85 finally rolled off the production lines with a three man turret. The T-34-76 models thus ALL shared this problem of having nearly blind crewmen trying to fight on the battlefield. The Germans found it very easy to pick them off like ducks because the tank crews had a very limited field of vision, and no way to communicate with other tanks. There is a description in Healy's Zitadelle of an episode at the Battle of Kursk where the Soviet T-34s were charging in  and the Germans would just leisurely pick off the T-34s one by one, with all the surviving T-34s completely oblivious to the mass destruction around them. That was in July 1943. Michulec's book does show that the Soviets started installing a commanders cupola on the hexagonal turret in the summer of 1943 (p. 123). Probably finally learned from the heavy losses of the Battle of Kursk that the tank crews needed to be able to see what was going on around them.

Michulec points out that the tank that the Germans most likely did fear and have a lot of trouble with was the KV-1. The KV-1 had the really tough armor that was resistant to the early German guns (the T-34's thin side armor could be penetrated by the weak guns of the German tanks of 1941) and it had the three man turret that made it a formidable fighting machine on the battlefield. The T-34-76 crews could simply not see well enough and function inside that tiny turret well enough to be a serious threat to German tanks. The problem with the KV-1 of course was twofold - it was very slow and sluggish and did not travel through bad terrain very well, unlike the T-34. And it carried the name of the later disgraced Kliment Voroshilov. Which is probably why in the Soviet retelling of history, the KV-1 gets only a very brief mention. All the glory gets heaped on the T-34s, which the Germans had no reason to fear because it was not much of a threat to them on the battlefield, due to its dysfunctional tiny two man turret and much weaker armor. Michulec points out that the German generals, especially Guderian, in all probability confused the KV-1 and T-34 in their memoirs, thus adding to the myth of the T-34 while continuing to bury the KV-1's true contributions.

DarthRad (talk) 09:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

____
DMorpheus - I think you are being a bit harsh with Michulec's book. But at least you recognize the huge amount of work that he put into this thing. Yes, the photos and drawings are INCREDIBLE. I think rather than calling the text "awful", it would be more accurate to describe its two major flaws:

1. The book was translated by somebody for whom English was a second language. Not quite as bad as the translation for the movie "Alexander Nevsky", but a bit difficult to understand sometimes.

2. Michulec goes overboard with his obvious anti-Soviet ranting. Somebody should have just edited all this out, and it would have made the book more professional.

But, if you are able to slug through the difficult translation and filter out the anti-Soviet bias, what you find is that Michulec has packed his book chock full of facts, and he does reference most of his major facts. Unfortunately those references all seem to be in Russian or Polish or German. But I think that is where this book shines over books by Zaloga.

Here's an excerpt (p. 161):

"The relocation of the production, the starting of new assembly lines, usually in great haste, and the loss of many sources of raw materials, had a pronounced effect on the quality of the produced T-34s. If in mid-1941 the failure rate of the vehicles can be described as moderate, after 1941 it was closer to being catastrophic....

As late as the second half of 1944, Red Army tank units tried to replace all tank engines with more than 30 hours of operation. This was done to try to guarantee that the engines would be able to function for 75-100 hours during the coming attack. This seems logical since the factory's peacetime guarantee in the first half of 1941 was only 150 hours, and, therefore, expecting only 100 hours of operation at the front appears reasonable. It could not be otherwise, since during the period 1942-1943 the Soviet industry reached its technological bottom. As a example, at the beginning of 1942 almost every tank had faulty side clutches. The total service life of the tank also declined steeply. Tanks that were repaired by field workshops and returned to duty broke down very frequently, reducing the combat strengths of the tank corps by up to 50%....

Of course, with time, the quality factors of the T-34 started to change for the better, but it is doubtful that the Soviets were able to reach a satisfactory level of production before the end of the war...."

DarthRad (talk) 09:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

_____
Finally, there is Michulec's figure of 45,000 destroyed T-34s. Does anybody dispute that number or think that it is an exaggeration? I believe that the weight of the evidence is that the number must be right, or very close. The Soviets rushed to produce 58,000+ T-34s for a very good reason. In most of the major battles of the Eastern Front, the Soviets lost huge numbers of tanks to the Germans, even when the battle was a win for the Soviets. The Germans got to be the best in the world at knocking out tanks.

So, unless you think that the Soviets finished the war with more than 13,000 T-34s (enough tanks to equip more than 30 tank divisions) then that number sounds about right, and so for whatever the reasons were, (and lots of good reasons have been given as to why this happened) the T-34 wins the title of "the most destroyed tank of all time". And that is not a joke, I'm being serious here. It's the logical conclusion if you accept that 45,000 number, just as the 45,000 number is the logical conclusion if you understand why 58,000 tanks were produced.

Q.E.D.

DarthRad (talk) 09:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I stand by my opinion, it is a horrible, horrible book. And poor translation is not the problem, silly bias and baseless opinions are the problems. I have the book and use it frequently for the photos and plans; I ignore the text because it reeks of comic books.
 * Your yourself are guilty of original research. To take one small example, the Red Army wanted a commander's cupola on the T-34 in 1940-41 - take a look at the T-34M design (or the T-50 and KV-1S that actually entered production with cupolas, or the KV-220 design). They didn't lack the knowledge that such a cupola would be useful, but they decided to concentrate on producing as many T-34s as possible so they 'froze' the main design features and approved changes only if they sped production. You can argue whether that was a wise decision but that's what they were up to.
 * The FCM 36 was a very interesting design, with a diesel engine in addition to its steeply-sloped armor. It was also grossly under-armed. The obvious forerunner to the T-34 is not the FCM 36 but the BT series and the technical lessons of the Spanish Civil War.
 * I'd suggest you read some other authors before latching too firmly on anything Michulec writes.
 * regardsDMorpheus (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Darthrad wrote, "The KV-1 had.... the three man turret that made it a formidable fighting machine on the battlefield."
 * This is a great example of Michulec getting it completely and utterly wrong. The KV-1 did have a three-man turret - loader, gunner/commander, and rear MG gunner. A KV commander had no different workload or better tools than a T-34 commander. The third turret crewman was an under-employed rear MG gunner of very limited tactical value.
 * The KV-1's three-man turret crew did NOT include a dedicated commander. That blows away the entire argument. There was no tactical advantage to the KV-1's turret crew.
 * If the KV was so terrific, why did the RKKA advocate stopping production? Why did they stop making them in 1943? Why did they concentrate almost all their tank production on the T-34?
 * Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Darthrad wrote " ...the early T-34-76 models were the most dysfunctional because of their tiny, steeply sloped turrets and the weak L-11 gun. The larger hexagonal turret (appearing in the summer of 1942), which was designed to allow for installation of the more powerful F-34 gun.. "
 * Incorrect again. Only a few hundred T-34s were built with the L-11 gun. Almost all T-34s with narrow turrets mounted the F-34 gun. The hex turret was an improvement, to provide more room and to ease manufacture, but carried the same F-34 gun as most of the preceeding narrow-turret tanks. It was not designed to carry a more powerful gun.
 * regards, DMorpheus (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I find myself in agreement with Dmorpheus and Paul Siebert.
 * Also, "the most destroyed tank of all time" is sensationalism that might belong in a tabloid newspaper, but not an encyclopedia article. Hohum (talk) 20:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * With regard to the T-34 being a 'revolutionary design', the reason for that isn't merely sloped armor. Sloped armor had appeared on other AFVs before the T-34, and any battleship designer would have told the tank designers that sloping the armor envelope was very old news. Shell-proof armor was a feature of many French tanks. Diesel engines had been used on a few tanks before (Type 95 Ha-Go light tank, a 1935 example). Very high-powered engines had been used on all Christie-based tanks. Big guns had been mounted on other tanks before the T-34.
 * What made the T-34 revolutionary was that it *combined* all these features into one package that could be mass-produced. It didn't have the best armor or the biggest gun. But it combined the big three - armor, firepower, mobility - in a better, more capable way than any other tank on the battlefield at the time it was first fielded. Sure it had weaknesses - every weapon does - but in the essentials the T-34 was the best tank around in 1941. That's no myth.
 * regards, DMorpheus (talk) 02:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

______
DMorpheus - OK, my bad, I didn't do my reading about the KV-1 and I misread Michulec's book. That comment about the three man turret of the KV-1 was NOT from Michulec's book. That was my own "original source" contribution. You are absolutely right. The third man in the KV-1 manned a rear facing machine gun and was pretty useless. The KV-1 had the same deal as the two man T-34 turret with the commander having to be the gunner. You are also correct about the narrow pyramidal turret of the T-34 mostly mounting the F-34 gun, and the hexagonal turret being installed later (summer of 1942). [The hexagonal turret was put in to make the turret more functional as the narrow pyramidal turret was a tight squeeze]. Let me emphasize that these were MY MISTAKES not Michulec's because in re-checking the facts in his book, he has them correct. I got them wrong.

Michulec's point about the KV-1 is still valid. Its heavy armor was what stymied the Germans in 1941. The T-34's thinner side and rear armor made it much more vulnerable, even in 1941. As a defensive weapon, which is pretty much what the Soviets were doing in 1941, the KV-1 was much tougher for the Germans to handle. The reason that the KV-1 was phased out in 1943 was that by then, the Soviets were mounting increasing numbers of offensive tank assaults, and the KV-1 was way too slow and sluggish to do those Soviet style tank-infantry banzai charges (or "Hoorah!" charges). More importantly, by then, the Germans had also upgraded all of their AFVs to at least the 7.5 cm KwK 40  and their infantry had large numbers of the equivalent Pak 40, which could knock out the KV-1s with ease. And the KV-1's 7.62 cannon was exactly the same as the T-34. And it was lots more expensive than the T-34. So of course the KV-1 was dropped. There was no reason for its existence anymore by 1943. The Soviets did try the KV-85 "upgrade" for about 130 tanks. The IS-2 of course was the ultimate upgrade.


 * Darthrad wrote "DMorpheus, your last point about the T-34 having the best balance of firepower, armor, and mobility in 1941 is absolutely true. BUT, the clear cut missing flaw that you continue to fail to mention is the extremely poor ergonomics of the T-34,"
 * Check the article history - *I* added the poor ergonomics bits years ago.
 * It is very well known that the T-34 (and the KV) had very poor ergonomic design. That does not cancel out or change the fact that it was a revolutionary and indeed pace-setting design. Frankly, some people latch onto the ergonomics issue as a sort of baseball bat they use to beat on the T-34, and only the T-34, in the absence of any better-thought-out critcism.
 * Your points about the KV are flat out wrong, sorry. The Germans still had hundreds of 50mm-armed Pzkw-IIIs in the field in 1943. They even continued to field some Pzkw-IIs. It was only in the winter of 43-44 that the Panther began appearing in large numbers, replacing Pzkw-IIIs for the most part. The trend in armor design since early in WW2 has been precisely to place thick armor in front and thin armor on the sides and rear. The Panther, for example, has sides as thin as a T-34!!!! Earlier designs such as the pzkw-III and KV had a more even armor envelope, and this was correctly seen as a DRAWBACK by designers once some combat experience accumulated. If your belief about armor is correct then the designes of the Panther and even the US M1 Abrams are wrong. Hmm.....
 * The KV was phased out because it was mechanically unreliable, slow, had no better firepower than the T-34, but was far more expensive to produce. No one began KV production postwar. The T-34 was cheaper, faster, more reliable, same firepower, and indeed was the first tank to go into production postwar in e.g. Poland and Czechoslovakia. In other words, it was not as useful as a T-34.
 * Again I urge you to read other sources to seewhy Michulec is so frequently wrong. I don't have time to handle it point-by-point....you have a blizzard of bad info here.
 * Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 12:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Michulec goes into excruciating detail analyzing Guderian's memoir - Panzer Leader. He points out that Guderian constantly refers to difficulties in the 1941 battles against T-34s when in reality he must have meant the KV-1. Michulec breaks down the details of one particular battle (Mcensk) to prove that the "T-34s" that were troubling the Germans had to have been KV-1s. The T-34 had much weaker side and rear armor than the KV-1 and the Germans did not have problems shooting them up at the Battle of Mcensk.

OK, you want corroborating evidence about how ineffective the T-34 was? If you don't believe Michulec, how about Mark Healy? Here's an extended excerpt from Healy's Zitadelle (2008) - page 176:


 * Although fundamentally sound, there were cumulative limitations in the design of the T-34 and its equipment that permitted the more highly trained, but numerically inferior German tank crews to inflict disprortionately heavy losses on Soviet armoured units at Kursk. Unlike German Panzers, the T-34 was operated by a crew of four with just two members being stationed in the turret.  Herein lay the principal weakness of the T-34/76 design, which was not satisfactorily addressed until the emergence of the T-34/85 in late 1943.  Not only was it difficult for the crewmembers in the turret to service the gun because of its cramped nature; their task was made more awkward by the the need for the commander to have to double up as the gunner.  Having identified his target, this secondary function then required him to take his eye off of it in order to service the gun.  Nor was his vital need to see the enemy helped by the poor sighting arrangements provided for in either design.  Both the KV-1 and T-34 shared the same inferior single, limited field of vision, traversing periscope and turret view slit.


 * A graphic account of how detrimental this could be to the employment of the T-34 in combat was given by Clemens Graf von Kageneck, commander of the Tiger-equipped sPz.Abt 503 during Zitadelle:


 * Our neighbours pulled back under the strong growing pressure and Ivan advanced with strong armoured forces. I was able to assemble eight tanks and we attacked across a swampy sector, behind which a tree-covered slope rose to high ground.  Then we saw an amazing picture.  Riflemen from our neighbouring division were withdrawing - still in a half-organised fashion - and in between rolled Russian tanks, firing wildly in all directions.  We were already in an ideal position and, in a short time, knocked out more than 20 of the Russian tanks that were moving in front of us like targets on a range.  Once again, the weakness of the T-34 showed up, the tank commander in the turret could not see around him.  Therefore, none of them noticed how the neighbouring tanks were going up in flames, and new targets kept coming over the hill.


 * Until the advent of the late production T34/76 turret with a commander's cupola and built-in vision blocks in 1943, the standard provision of a heavy, one piece forward opening hatch, also prevented a Soviet tank commander emulating his German contemporary in exposing his head to view the battle. Thus, in nearly all tank-versus-tank battles, Soviet crews fought with their hatches closed and with the restricted visibility, fought at a deadly disadvantage....

Skipping to p. 177:


 * The capacity for radio production of the Soviet electronics industry in the first few years of the Russo-German conflict was low. Instead of radios, the platoon commander would employ flags to send signals.  In the heat of bttle, it was often impossible to see them, so drivers of T-34s had a tendency to follow the unit leader.  This and the general lack of sightlines accounts for the characteristic bunching of Soviet armour so often commented upon by German tank crews and illustrated by von Kangeneck earlier.  The distance between individual machines was frequently as little as 25 meters, whereas for the Germans, a distance of 100 meters between each panzer was the preferred norm.  This accumulation of limitations rigidified Soviet tank tactics, which was observed by the Germans who moved rapidly to exploit the weakness.  Destroying the lead command tank invariably led to chaos amongst those following.  These were then shot up in their turn, their close proximity aiding the enemy in his rapid selection of targets.  This was a major factor in helping to account for the high number of Soviet tanks destroyed by the Leibstandarte on 12 July in the great tank battle at Prokhorovka....

Healy goes on to state that the Germans had only 278 total write-offs for all AFVs at the Battle of Kursk (the phase ending July 17, 1943), whereas estimates for Soviet losses are in the range of 1,254 -1,614 for that same phase. He gives an estimate that the Soviets lost a total of 6,064 AFVs for the Battle of Kursk and the followup counter offensives that ran through the month of August, 1943.

So why is this important? Because the numbers and historical evidence clearly show that the Soviets "won" the Battle of Kursk at a great cost, as they did almost all of their battles against the Germans. The T-34 was integral to the Soviet victory, yes indeed. But the Soviets won with the T-34 primarily by overwhelming the Germans with massive numbers. That is a point which is frequently made about the M4 Sherman on the Western Front. Why is it not allowed to make the same claim about the T-34? All of the data points to this concept being even more true for the T-34 than for the M4 Sherman.

Jentz's Panther and Tiger books have range penetration data done by the Germans which prove that the armor and firepower of the T34-85 was very close in performance to the 76mm M4 Sherman. Other data show that the T34-76 firepower was similar to the M4 75mm gun. So although very different in design, the two tanks tracked each other remarkably in their performance, accomplishments, and in the large numbers knocked out by the Germans.

The difference is that years of Soviet propaganda and mistaken identity in the memoirs of the German generals have created the myth of the T-34.

Zaloga points out in the preface of Armored Thunderbolt that the M4 Sherman also used to have a mythology built around it. When I was a child, the phrase "built like a Sherman tank" was a common term of praise for any sort of durable machinery, and the M4 Sherman was often credited with helping win WWII. Today, it gets ripped with derogatory terms like "Ronson", etc. while the T-34 continues to bask in its Soviet era propaganda of "best tank of all time".

DMorpheus, your last point about the T-34 having the best balance of firepower, armor, and mobility in 1941 is absolutely true. BUT, the clear cut missing flaw that you continue to fail to mention is the extremely poor ergonomics of the T-34, which is the point that Michulec rants about for pretty much his entire book. Healy only spends about a page and a half of Zitadelle to make the same point - I've pretty much quoted most of that section - and it comes across much more professionally as a result. But that's not to say that Michulec's book is awful just because he keeps repeating himself about a fact that you don't seem to want to hear about the T-34.

Calling the The T-34 a "revolutionary design" or "technological pacesetter" (the term used in the current article) falsely implies that the Soviets were the ones who came up with all those new technological concepts. No, no, no, no, no, NO! As you yourself just stated, the sloped armor was well known by the time of the T-34's design, was already in use by many tanks (including the frontal armor of the U.S. M2 Light Tank), and the roadwheel suspension came from Christie's BT series of tanks. And the French also were using diesel engines in their tanks. So the T-34 was very much a COMBINATION of several earlier innovations, not a "revolutionary design". "Revolutionary design" and "Technological pacesetter" are inaccurate terms and should NOT be used to describe the T-34.

hohum - if the the title of "most destroyed tank of all time" bothers you, then the quote from Lidell Hart calling it "the best tank of all time" should bother you even more. The first title is actually TRUE - there is all that hard data I gave you backing it up. The second title is ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE and the quote comes from Lidell Hart, a writer who has more recently been discredited as a shameless self-promoter who probably had a lot less influence on tank theory than he would like historians to believe. The only "best" category that the T-34 really excelled at was in being produced by the Soviets faster than the Germans could destroy them.

DarthRad (talk) 09:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "He points out that Guderian constantly refers to difficulties in the 1941 battles against T-34s when in reality he must have meant the KV-1" Yes, he makes that claim with absolutely zero evidence to back himself up, and he goes on for pages about it. I could with equal validity claim the US won the battle of Midway because we had a secret squadron of death-ray-equipped flying saucers.
 * regards, DMorpheus (talk) 12:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: "a COMBINATION of several earlier innovations, not a "revolutionary design"" Tn that sense, a Wright Brothers's invention was also just a combination of few earlier innovations, namely, a glider and a gasoline engine. I believe, no further explanations are needed...--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

DMorpheus - OK, you make some very good points. I think I will for now abandon this "T-34 as Myth" project until one of the major English speaking tank historians writes something that will be more acceptable to everybody. Don't see that this is getting anywhere right now. Since Zaloga recently revised a good chunk of his former writing with Armored Thunderbolt, he would be the ideal candidate to do something new on the Soviet tanks also. Zaloga did get some acknowledgements from Michulec in T-34 Mythical Weapon so they were in touch.

At the same time, unless somebody comes up with bigger numbers for the M4 Sherman, the T-34 still owns the title of "most destroyed tank of all time". I think the title of "best tank of all time" is a big mistake, but there are just too many T-34 enthusiasts at present to wipe that off of this Wiki page.

The fact that the T-34 was the most destroyed tank of all time was certainly due to a combination of factors - horrible Soviet tactics and training, superb German anti-tank capabilities, and the gigantic nature of the war on the Eastern Front. However, the limited capabilities of the T-34 against German guns and armor after 1941 was also a big part of this story, just like it was for the M4 Sherman. And that's what needs to get emphasized whenever people get too enthusiastic about the T-34.

Paul Siebert - the Wright brothers' aircraft had a number of new technological INVENTIONS. It was not just a glider and an engine. They filed a number of patents for their discoveries on how to control the aircraft, etc., and in fact became consumed by their desire to protect their patents, spending enormous time filing lawsuits against everybody. They just about stopped designing new and better aircraft because they spent so much time on the lawsuits. I honestly can't think of a single thing that the Soviets invented with the T-34. So your analogy is not correct here, but I digress...

DarthRad (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wright brothers' inventions were of secondary importance. Their major contribution was to make a glider (already known) and put there a gasoline engine (also already known). With regards to lawsuits, I believe I'll express a common opinion by saying that they become famous because they build a first flying engine driven aircraft de facto, not de jure. Nothing would change if someone had been able to break some of their patents.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * One of the Wright brothers' patented inventions was figuring out a way to control the flying surfaces so the aircraft could bank and turn. Another important innovation was their engine, which was their own design and was lightweight enough to not anchor the aircraft solidly to the ground.    So the reason the Wright brothers were able to get "an engine and a glider" to fly was because they actually INVENTED new things so the thing could fly.  It was not just a combination of previous ideas.   But seriously, this debate doesn't belong here.  The key question is, what did the Soviets INVENT for the T-34?  Nothing, as far as I can tell.  They just put other people's ideas together.  That does not justify calling it a "technological pacesetter" or "revolutionary design".     --DarthRad (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This talk page isn't for the Wright Brothers, nor is this a forum for general discussion. If people have a desire to argue about irrelevancies, please do it somewhere else. Hohum (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"..there are just too many T-34 enthusiasts at present to wipe that off of this Wiki page." Kindly do not insult your fellow editors. The fact is that the sources are heavily in favor of the current content as opposed to the silliness Michulec writes. This is not a question of anyone's "enthusiasm", is simply a question of reliable sources and a fair weighing of lots of them. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't realize that "T-34 enthusiast" was an insult.   As for the current content, it seems to not follow some of the guidelines of other wiki pages.  A large number of the citations come from internet websites - I thought those were considered not reliable.  The content seems to still be in transition, with some "enthusiast" statements that are not internally consistent with the better, more tightly written parts of the article.  Some statements are not properly cited.   I would note that Neizvestnyy T-34 (The Unknown T-34) is listed as a reference twice for this article but is not cited by any footnotes in the article itself.  This is the main reference source that Michulec  cites for the section in his book on p. 161 about the unreliability of the T-34 (the excerpt I posted above).   The book is apparently only in Russian. (http://www.aviapress.com/viewonekit.htm?VMA-002   and   http://www5b.biglobe.ne.jp/~TANK-GUY/book-rev/Brev-06.html)   Which is why I do not believe that Michulec is making this stuff up about the T-34.     There must be new post-Soviet information out there now that just hasn't made it through the the language barrier.    Somebody will eventually have the skills to write a decent English language book with this new information.   And this T-34 article will get re-written at that time with much less controversy.    Anyway, I'll leave this page alone for a while.   DarthRad (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, a lot of causes for a tank to be written off without being destroyed by enemy. And if Michulec is right, 80% of T-34 never reached the front, breaking down somewhere along the way :) In reality, in WW2 a lot of tanks got destroyed several times... Some crews kept on swaping tanks as they got KOed from under them, and some tanks got several crews killed in them. After all a KOed WW2 tank if not burned down was easy repair: patch the holes, swap the engine or gun if needed, and wash the blood from the inside. Wheter that was actually done or not depended mostly on the surrounding situation: what were your forces doing, atacking or retreating, were there spare crews, or a recovery team at hand. For example, if you are in the middle of an attack operation, for when the tank gets fixed the frontline can be a 200km away. And if there are new (and better) tanks arriving continuosly, why waste time with a broken down tank? Just leave it there to rot or send it back to the melting furnace. And some tanks simply wore down. It's not for nothing that the lifespan of the things was measured in hours. 190.134.10.151 (talk) 04:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and when a tank get blown to bits it usually means the ammo on board detonated, either due to a directo hit to the ammo racks or after a fire. It has nothing to do with the "build quality" of the tank, but with the nature of the ammo on board and where it is stored. Loza was of the idea that soviet HE shells were more powerfull that the US, but in turn had a higher chance of going high order once the tank was set on fire (he supposed it was due to different explosive composotion). 190.134.25.206 (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Poor English writing
I partially removed Milanetti's recent changes, reverting to a version vetted by Hohum. This article is a featured article, and should not be subjected to poor writing skills. A featured article is supposed to be a shining example of our best work.

Milanetti changed the second sentence. The previous version was Although its armour and armament were surpassed by later tanks of the era, it has been often credited as the most effective, efficient and influential design of World War II.

Milanetti's version was: Although its armour and armament were surpassed by later tanks of the era, and –in the early years of the conflict - its trasmission was the most primitive of the time it has been often credited as the most effective, efficient and influential design of World War II.

This sample was enough to display the unsuitability of the editor's English composition skills. So... what's the next step? Is an editor here willing to rewrite all the poorly written non-native-speaking edits that are applied to this article? Binksternet (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * While I'm not stepping up to say that I will monitor this article and fix every single grammar issue, I'm in two minds about immediately reverting relevant, good faith edits using what appear to be reliable sources, even on featured articles. My preference would be to fix them, so the article stays FA standard, and is also improved by the addition - immediate reversion in this case seems a little "bitey" too. On the other hand, it's not all been relevant, and I agree the style and grammar were poor. (Although that is true of some of the existing text too) - and I know not all editors have time to fix issues immediately.
 * I think the suitable compromise would be; to tag referenced, good faith edits where the core of the information is relevant, but the style or grammar is poor - with a relevant inline or section template, so that other editors don't miss it, and will hopefully get to it within a reasonable time - or remove it if the tag date gets old. Or go the extra mile and make the fix yourself. Hohum (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

T-32 Redirect
The entry for the T-32 redirects to this T-34 entry. I don't think it should; the T-32 was a Yugoslav tank and a totally separate model to the T-34. How does one go about removing redirects in order to create the T-32 entry? Noisms (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The A-32(T-32) was a prototype before the T-34. If you mean the T-32 (Skoda S-I-d) Assault Gun, check that is isn't already on wikipedia under a different name, and if not, you can start a new article with its most common name, but don't use T-32 tank, as this T-32 is an assault gun, not a tank. If you mean a different T-32 which is a tank, then edit the T-32 tank page by taking the redirect tag off and adding normal article information, but include a link to this T-34 article to refer to the prototype. Hohum  18:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Huge article, but useless without a 'center'
One of the most frequent problem with wikipedia articles is the lack of, let's say, a 'center'. What do i say? I mean, if a reader came here, it's likely that he could be confused. T-34 article, even if featured, it's a mess. I'd want a paragraph in wich i could find a basic description of a typical T-34 tank: internal, ammunition stores, armour thickness, etc. In this article, quite long, it's badly needed this neat description. Instead, there is not even a complete description of the 'famous' sloped armour; its hardness, quality, alloy, but even, the thickness and angle. I did not found it, and this is basically bad. The basic datas, when availables, are scattered all around. Instead, there is a lot of 'he said that', opinions, even referenced, that not really help the reader.

A paragraph in which you could find: armour thickness of a 'typical' T-34 (ex, the first T-34A, or T-34/85), engine, trasmission, tracks (lenght and widht, type etc.), weaponry (gun, machine-gun, elevation, ROF, ammunition store etc), sight system and whatever else. If you'll submit such article in a magazine, it's likely it would be trashed. Until this reorganization and rationalization, T-34 article will be just a mess and i'd prefer far more the simpler but well organized wwii page: http://www.wwiivehicles.com/ussr/tanks-medium/t-34.asp, easy to read, and easy to use in order to find everything you need. It should been taken as example of a user's friendly page, and it's far different than wiki article.

I added atleast the armour thickness, but there is a lot of work to do.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The worst part of this article is that it contradicts itself. There are these four quotations stuck in there that praise the T-34 to the high heavens.  Then if you read the fine details you find out why those quotations couldn't possibly be true - horrible ergonomics, mediocre armor comparable to the much maligned M4 Sherman in spite of the much trumpeted sloped armor (not a Soviet innovation by any means whatsoever), weak gun that got progressively better, but again not as good as the later 76mm M4 Sherman and no where near as good as either the Panther/Tiger or the Sherman Firefly.  Somebody needs to sort out these internal contradictions.  As the fine details do not seem to be in question, I think the best way to deal with these four quotations would be to put all of them into a section entitled "The T-34 as Myth" and explain that the high praise and superlatives were the products of inaccurate memoirs of the defeated German generals plus Soviet propaganda.   See above discussion ("T-34 as Myth") as to how that idea got squashed.
 * The T-34 changed quite a bit from beginning to end.  There really was no "typical T-34".  There were at least three different guns and many different turrets.  The engine more or less stayed the same.  The hull was slightly reshaped from the 76mm to the 85mm gun to make room for the larger turret ring.  Each different Soviet factory made slightly different T-34's that were supposed to be the same model.    The one book that actually goes into all of these details in a massively comprehensive fashion  "T-34 - Mythical Weapon" was arbitrarily debunked as not reliable by some of the editors of this article (see above discussion "T-34 as Myth").  So if you want to sort out all the different models and the huge number of variations, you would have to delve into this book, which is about as comprehensive in its treatment of the various models of the T-34 as R. P. Hunnicutt's books are for the M4 Sherman and M26 Pershing.
 * "T-34 article, even if featured, it's a mess." Agree, which raises these questions - how the heck did this article get featured in the first place, and how did it get changed into its current mess?  DarthRad (talk) 08:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The poor source mentioned wasn't arbitrarily debunked, good reasons were given.
 * An article can get into a mess by people choosing a source which reflects their favourite POV, and then pushing it. ( Hohum   @ ) 20:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Its kind of odd to see someone talking about how bad the T-34's gun was when even the L11 was far and away superior to anything the Germans had at the start of their Eastern campaign. The German's had a very low velocity 75mm on the PzIV and a 37mm on the PzIII. The L-11 outperformed both in armour piercing and the F-34 was considerably better. At first, the German's strategic advantage, coupled with better on the ground tactics meant this didn't matter as much, though at a few points, they took considerable losses. But putting them on the backfoot at the start of the war meant the Soviets didn't have to focus nearly as much at producing prototypes, fielding un tested designs or building vehicles that were not as suited to mass production. And the gun, in itself was enough of an advantage to justify this.--Senor Freebie (talk) 01:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "a 37mm on the PzIII. The L-11 outperformed both in armour piercing and .." This is actually wrong. The germans had in June 1941 350 Panzer III with the 3,7 and 1090 with the 50L42. This was not equal to the L-11 but a far cry better than the 37mm. Snark7 (talk) 14:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Tank production and deployment in a country that was pressed to the max to deliver every tank it could will result in some confusion which is part of what you see. As for the T-34 being revolutionary, it was the 1st real tank bringing all the elements together in a successful way, it was fast relatively well armored and had a decent gun.  But one can take a snapshot as the US, GB, USSR, and Germany, franticly deployed new designs and point out that the T-34 suffered in comparison, however, with the M4 it shared the fact that while it lacked in some areas it was available in large numbers and in a relatively effective format.  Yes I have also been puzzled at the downplaying of the M4 when in actual combat against the vaunted T-34 it proved to be more than capable of dealing with the T-34 but that is a US attitude towards its own tank that we didn't deploy a very good tank in the M4.  In it's timeline until 1944 it was a damn fine tank and there were lots of T-34s at hand, towards the very end of the war it didn't look like the world beater it was in 1942 but that is the pace of war.Tirronan (talk) 11:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The thing about the M4 was that by the time it came out in its initial form (late 1942), it was already somewhat inadequate for the ETO. If it had come out a year earlier like the T-34 (1941), it probably would have proved just as dangerous and formidable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.138.146 (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Suspension
I am slightly confused as to the suspension system used in the T-34. According to the infobox it is a Christie suspension, while in the article is stated that the suspension was changed to a torsion bar system in 1942. The article on the Christie suspension is not quite clear on what characterizes a Christie suspension, except that it is considerably different from a torsion bar suspension. Could anybody enlighten me about this? --παγκρἃτωρ/pankrator 06:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pankrator (talk • contribs)

All T-34s had a Christie suspension; no production T-34 had a torsion-bar suspension. Briefly, christie's design used long-pitch tracks and large wheels, each independently suspended from swing arms attached to very large vertical coil springs inside the hull. At the time it was invented around 1930 it allowed for far higher speeds than any other suspension. In many incarnations it also allowed for convertability between tracked mode and wheeled mode (for example the BT series of tanks). However, the T-34, and other christies such as the British Cromwell, did not have a wheeled mode.

Christie suspensions are relatively easy to manufacture and do not impose any height penalty on the tank hull. However, they do impose a width penalty. The hull must accomodate relatively large-diameter springs, narrowing the useful space inside the hull.

Torsion-bar suspensions, which were invented in the later 1930s and began to see use just before WW2, also use individual suspension systems for each wheel. However, the torsion bar runs along the bottom of the hull from side-to-side. This imposes a slight height penalty but the height of a torsion bar is far less than the width of a christie coil spring tower. So, it is far more efficient in terms of using up hull volume. They are harder to manufacture, however. Early uses of the torsion-bar design would be, for example, the German Panzer III or Soviet KV series.

Since 1945, most tanks have used some variant of the torsion-bar system. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 22:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

"Revolutionary design"
Really? The title itself is not neutral, and what was revolutionary about the T-34? Everything about the tank had been done before. It should be renamed "History" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.114.227 (talk) 02:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It is revolutionary as 45mm is equal to 1.8 inches and the 7.62mm is equal to three inches. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 09:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree that "Revolutionary Design" is highly inaccurate. This subheading title does not reflect the content of what is written in this article, which clearly shows that the T-34 was an Evolutionary Design influenced by the experience with previous Soviet tanks. Just look at that photo lineup in the article of the BT and A-20 tanks which preceded the T-34. The Christie suspension and sloping armor, etc., key characteristics of the T-34 were already in place before the T-34 came into being.

So there, I made the change. DarthRad (talk)

As for putting Mellenthin's quote right next to a subheading of "Revolutionary Design", the juxtaposition creates an incredibly false and misleading conclusion. There were several reasons that Germany had nothing comparable to the T-34, and none of those reasons had anything to do with the T-34 being a "Revolutionary Design". Germany had only slowly started up its tank industry, secretly breaking the Treaty of Versailles in the early 1930's (aircraft production violations of the Treaty started earlier). The German Army recognized a need for better tanks, as the early versions of the Tiger I design were already underway in 1937-1938, well before the invasion of Russia. Most of all, it is a well known historical fact that Hitler was so encouraged by Chamberlain's appeasement policy that he jumped the gun and started WWII before his armed forces were completely ready and fully armed with all the best weapons on the drawing boards. Also, German military intelligence during WWII was abysmal (helped no doubt by the fact that many Abwehr were anti-Nazis, including Canaris, the head of the Abwehr) and had absolutely no advanced knowledge of the state of Soviet tank development. The German Panzer III and Panzer IV were adequate to deal with the Soviet BT and T-26 tanks that were known to the Germans from the Spanish Civil War and the Soviet-Finland Winter War. Information about the approaching arrival of the Soviet T-34 and the KV-1 tanks undoubtedly would have accelerated German tank design/production efforts. In any case, WWII was a constant arms race in which each side tried to leapfrog the other side with new designs and all armies would end up at one time or another with outclassed tanks on the battlefield. This would later happen to the T-34 vs. the Panther and Tiger tanks. DarthRad (talk)

The revolutionary thing about the T-34 was that it was the first tank to achieve the fine balance of armour, mobility and firepower for its time. All other tanks before it were deficient in at least one area (The British Matildas, the early German Panzers, most of the French tanks (excepting the SOMUA S35). Many of the ideas used on the T-34 may have been thought of before, but the T-34 was the first to combine all of them together into one package, much like how many of the elements of the AK had been done before, but the AK was one of the first to put them all together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.138.146 (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Arg. Too much Soviet propaganda again.  The AK47 was NOT the first assault rifle, the Germans came up with the Sturmgewehr 44 first (indeed that is how the term originated - Sturmgewehr = "assault rifle" in German),  i.e, a light infantry rifle that could fire full automatic using a smaller rifle cartridge, so that it had longer range than the existing submachine guns of the time (which fired pistol bullets) but was easier to handle than full sized battle rifles or machine guns.  The Stg44 was introduced in 1944, the AK47 in 1947.

While they did come up with the name the first assault rifle was probably the cei-rigotti Pharoahjared (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The balance of armor, mobility, and firepower for tanks that you mention was constantly shifting before, during, and after WWII. Virtually every new tank that was introduced during that time period was an improvement in that balance for a short period of time before being overtaken.  What is truly missing from all this breathless praise for the "revolutionary" nature of the T-34 is any insight as to how rapidly the tank arms race in WWII made the T-34 into first an ordinary tank, and then into outdated target practice for the German gunners.  The T-34 sat on top of the heap of that balance for only about one and a half years - June 1941 until late 1942.  By late 1942, the long barrel 75mm Kwk40 had easily made the Panzer IV superior in firepower to the 76mm T-34s (yes indeed, look up the range penetration data - the 75mm Kwk40 was way better than the Soviet 76mm F-34 gun).   And of course then the Tiger I came on the scene and re-defined the whole concept of where the balance of armor, mobility, and firepower should be.  By the time the T-34-85 arrived in early 1944, it was at best only equal to the later model Panzer IV and the 76mm M4 Sherman in terms of armor and firepower.   DarthRad (talk)


 * I never said the AK was -the- first assault rifle, but if you want to go into that debate, technically the Federov Avtomat would be the world's first assault rifle. But I digress. My point still stands.


 * The Federov Avtomat was the Australopithecus of assault rifles - it somewhat resembled an assault rifle, but none of its mechanical design carried over into modern assault rifles, thus it was a dead end offshoot on the evolutionary tree. The M1 Garand, with its rotating bolt and gas piston, was far more influential to the design of all modern combat rifles.  Kalashnikov copied these features from the M1 for the AK47.  What most people don't realize is that the AK47 is really just an upside down M1 Garand firing a shorter rifle cartridge on full automatic.  DarthRad (talk)

Granted, it was a race, but the same could be said of any tank, past or present. The T-34 just happened to get it right at the right time. Again, all other tanks were deficient in 1 or another of these 'hard' factors, whereas the T-34 managed to get it 'right' when it came out. One other thing 'revolutionary' about the T-34 was the ease with which it could be made, which was unprecedented for any other tank before it.

The fact that all post war tanks were influenced by the T-34 (or by the Panther, which was itself influenced by the T-34) does speak volumes as to what a benchmark it was in tank design.

Frankly, if the M4 had arrived around the same time as the T-34, it would have been remembered along with the T-34 as a revolutionary design, but it came a year later, as it happened. It's a little unfair, but that's how things turned out.

The Tiger I had terrible mobility strategically, and adequate tactical mobility at best. And of course, it was terribly expensive to produce. Sure, it had firepower and armour, but to stem the tide of T-34s and Shermans, it would have had to destroy at least 10 T-34s/Shermans for every Tiger lost (which it certainly didn't).

The T-34-85 was far superior to the Panzer IV (slightly better armour, far more mobility, equal in firepower, far easier to produce) and was the equal of the M4A3 E8. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.186.209 (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, you've gone off on a tangent here into a comparison of tanks with an aside on the industrial production failures of Nazi Germany. The original debate was about why the T-34 was not a revolutionary design. My point about the tank arms race during WWII was that each army was constantly trying to leapfrog the other with new tank designs that would give it a temporary advantage on the battlefield.  The T-34 was just another in a series of such tanks during WWII that threw a brief scare into its enemies.   If each new tank that temporarily threw a scare into the enemy can be considered "revolutionary", then the Pz III and IVs were revolutionary in their own time period (1940) as their mobility and excellent infantry support capabilities were integral to the success of the Nazi blitzkrieg in France and Poland. The T-34 forced the Germans to uparmor and increase the firepower of its own tanks.    The Tiger I also forced all combatants to  re-calibrate the size and power of their anti-tank guns and so in this sense it too was "revolutionary".  The British Firefly was "revolutionary" because its 17-pounder could easily knock out a Tiger I and yet it was a far more mobile tank.  The Germans were worried enough about it to specifically target the Fireflies during combat.


 * The Tiger I certainly had severe mobility and production issues. However, it was truly a tank killer with kill ratios of over 12:1 in many units (I think the overall figure for all Tiger units was around 5:1).  The problem was that less than 2,000 Tiger Is and IIs were built versus nearly 100,000 T-34s and M4 Shermans.  So the kill ratio would have had to be closer to 50:1, not 10:1,  for the Tiger to win the war by itself.  Hitler's insistence on tank superiority was a doctrinal and strategic mistake - tanks were fundamentally expendable weapons during WWII, and the Tigers were not built to be expendable.  The T-34 was built to be expendable with lots of short cuts in quality taken to speed up production.


 * The T-34 was at the peak of the firepower and armor balance only during the period of mid-1941 to 1942. The Pz IV hull was later up-armored and yes, its turret and side armor remained weak, but the T-34 hull was never up-armored and the tank was EASILY knocked out by German guns after 1942.  One on one, except in inclement weather (the T-34 was more mobile than the Pz IV only in the mud and snow), the later uparmored Pz IVs could more than hold their own against the T-34 (read "Panzer Gunner: A Canadian in the German 7th Panzer Division, 1944-45" by Bruno Friesen to get an idea of what fighting in a Pz IV was like).


 * The historical record is quite clear about this fact. After 1942, the only problem that the Germans had with the T-34 was that the Soviets could produce them faster than the Germans could knock them out. One needs only to read a post-Soviet account of the Battle of Kursk (Healy's "Kursk 1943") or Drabkin and Sheremet's "T-34 in Action" to realize the horrendous casualties suffered by the T-34 tank crews, and to understand how easily these tanks were knocked out by the Germans.  Accounts of T-34 crews in action in the 1941 time frame describe isolated T-34s fighting off the Germans, with the crew buttoned up, taking shot after shot, until the Germans were finally able to bring a heavy gun in to knock out the tank.  Accounts of later actions, once the Germans figured out how to knock out the T-34s,  describe T-34 tank crews leaping out of their tanks as soon as it received the first hit, which usually penetrated the tank.  T-34 crew went into combat with their hatches open to facilitate  a quick exit.  "T-34 in Action" even has a rating as to which crew member was most likely to survive based on how quickly they could exit the tank.  Morale appears to have been terrible as the Soviet Army imposed a rule that tankers would be sent to punishment battalions if they abandoned their tank for  any reason (including losing a track) other than if their tank had burned up.


 * As for the T-34 being the progenitor of the modern tank, PLEASE let's put that myth to rest also.  Just what exactly from the T-34 is in use today in modern tanks?  Sloped armor?  We have already established that sloped armor was being used in many tanks before the T-34, so the T34 did not originate this idea.  Christie suspension?   NOT.  See excellent explanation by DMorpheus above about the downsides of the Christie suspension - thus all modern tanks use a torsion bar suspension.  What about the T-34's classic slack track treads?   Well, this too has been abandoned in favor of smaller wheels and tensioned return rollers since the slack track was highly prone to de-track off the wheels.   Low silhouette and cramped crew space requiring short tank crewmen?  Still a feature of modern Russian tanks but definitely not for Western tanks.  Side sponsons over the track?  Not.  No modern tank has side sponsons.  In fact, if you had to pick one tank that was the prototype for modern American tanks, it would be the M26 Pershing, since nearly all the major features of modern American tanks are found in this tank (except of course, the Chobham armor).  If you had to pick one tank that looks most like modern Soviet tanks, it would be the IS-3, with its hemispherical turret, ultra-low silhouette, large amount of frontal armor and very thin top and side armor.  The competing line of Soviet KV and IS series of tanks had the return rollers instead of "slack track" and the torsion bar suspension, and it was the design features of this line of Soviet tanks that lived on in the post WWII Soviet tanks, not the T-34.   No matter how "revolutionary" the T-34 proved to be for 1-1/2 years during WWII, its mechanical features were largely evolutionary dead ends, just like the Federov Avtomat and just like all but one of the subspecies of Australopithecus.


 * This T-34 article desperately needs a "Mythbuster" section. DarthRad (talk)


 * This is not a forum. This is a place to discuss how to improve the article using reliable sources. ( Hohum  @ ) 19:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Combat history
More shuld probably be added? Syria used T-34 tanks in the israeli-arab war of 1967. What about the T-34's perfomance in this conflict? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.110.193.21 (talk) 10:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

A whole bunch of information, including references on the T-34's ww2 combat performance was added in July 2012. Admittedly, some parts of the writing is not encyclopaedic or perhaps contains too much opinion. But instead of re-writing, editing or updating the newly added content, certain posters keep deleting ALL OF IT, including all the properly referenced data and reverting to a previous version. This, IMO, is unacceptable as it does not allow the subject topic to be altered or new contributions to be made. Instead it would behove contributers to read through and edit out the conjecture and un-reference opinions! And yes wikipedia is a synergistic effort, and no the current article is not perfect and not without bias/conjecture! 142.162.25.82 (talk) 14:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, you could only add the properly sourced, properly written elements. ( Hohum  @ ) 17:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Did you read what was posted, most of the quotes were sourced, as was the data, and some of the opnions as well, from generally respected authors. Yes there seems to have been some conjecture and opnion or interpretation of said data, but like most articles on wiki it is a synthesis of a number of sources. Additional, the pre-existing content was not always properly source and does contain some opinion and un-source content. The additional info was also re-formatted, which IMO, adds to the quality of the article. But certainly all extreme conjecture and unfounded opinions or correlations should be removed.142.162.107.79 (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Due to popular demand I have been going back through what I initially posted to try and clarify the references and remove extraneous conjecture and or biased/unreferenced opinion. Some of the conclusions that I added do follow directly from the data that is refereced....although I am certain parts would be open to debate!Tempsperdue (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that the following section or a version thereof should be included as it speaks to the soviet war winning mass production philosophy and the help they received from the Allies "These conclusions also give the lie to the fact that the Soviets (largely due to the huge number of T-34s produced) could have won WWII on their own, without the aid of the US or Commonwealth forces. If the 11,900 AFVs contributed by the Allies to the Soviets via Lend Lease were not available, and all German WWII fully tracked AFVs produced had been allocated to the East Front then the Germans would have required a kill ratio of only 2.45 to 1far less than the 2.94 to 1 actually achieved, in order to have destroyed all Soviet fully tracked AFVs that existed on 22nd June 1941, 23,300, and those that were produced during the war, 99,150(for a total of 122,450 soviet fully tracked AFVs). This is before we even consider the cumulative effects of increased German production (of all weapon types) due to the absence of the Allied strategic bombing campaign, the direct effects of German air superiority on the East Front from 1943 onwards, as well as the effects of the Red Army loosing over half its motorised transport (which had been received from the Allies due to lend lease), and the effects of 9-10 000 additional (and fully supplied) heavy 88mm flak guns on the East Front from 1941 onwards."Tempsperdue (talk) 01:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As to this: "The inclined plates incorporated in the design along with a minimisation of shot-traps did provide an equivalently greater armour thickness for a given plate thickness and potentially lead to more shot deflections. However, shell penetration mechanics is a complex affair and inclination is not always more effective for a given weight ratio, as one needs more volume and more plate to cover a given area, as opposed to flat plate. The underlying structure supporting and joining the plates is also more complex to weld and assemble with inclined pieces.[citation needed] Many T-34s suffered, not from inherent design flaws, but rather from poor workmanship and quality control during the rushed assembly of the armoured plate, resulting on many occasions in gaps and misaligned armoured plate; this was especially noticeable on those T-34s built hastily at certain factories under harsh conditions during the German advance after 1941"...I have seen photos of some of the T-34s built in ww2 where the plates didn't meet or were mismatched. Also inclined plate is not necessarily more effective that vertical plate as one requires more inclinedplate to cover the same volume...so one can make the vertical plate thicker for a a given weight! But perhaps a discussion for the penetration mechanics article, although it does give lie to the supposed effectiveness of the T-34s inclined armour! Finally "Quality control and proper manufacturing and finishing techniques were dropped in favour of rushed production by a less than skilled workforce (the retreating soviet army had a habit of pressing every able bodied man into the army regardless of skill set)." I have read about the consequences to skilled soviet workers during the retreat but cannot remember where!Tempsperdue (talk) 01:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I have found a photo of misaligned plates here on the T-34: http://worldoftanks.com/news/1031-chieftains-hatch-devils-due/, but am not sure that this is not copyrighted. The info on the image says 'the website does not supply ownership info'...too bad, as it is a great photo and would allow us to add information on the workmanship of the T-34!Tempsperdue (talk) 02:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have removed entirely unsourced speculation (again, I think). Instead of firing a shotgun of information into the article and seeing what sticks, try only adding reliably sourced information without speculative commentary, or your own conclusions. Also, adding a table and then both using it as something to draw conclusions from, and also adding a note undermining its accuracy means it isn't worth including it at all. The article should only reflect what reliable sources say.
 * Images of things as sources can be problematic. For instance, an image of misaligned plates on a tank isn't necessarily good by itself without a reliable source describing it as a typical example.
 * Also, I see no mallets in the other image provided. Unless this is backed up by reliable sources the caption and main body text should go.
 * Please stop using "ibid", it is basically useless in a wikipedia article as they become broken as the article changes. Take a look at WP:NAMEDREFS.
 * On the other hand, I don't want to be too discouraging, some of what you have added is fine. ( Hohum  @ ) 15:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I see you have re-added a section without discussion or consensus.
 * There is little doubt that on average German tank crews in 1942 were probably still the best trained and most experienced in the world
 * This is self contradictory and unreferenced.
 * You then go onto use a table to use as a reference for your own conclusions, yet call the table accuracy into question anyway. For each reason, the entire section is unusable on wikipedia. ( Hohum  @ ) 16:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the table itself is not suitably referenced. ( Hohum  @ ) 16:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hohum, I do see your point. The accuracy of the table has more to do with confusion between 75mm and 50mm paks, at least as far as I can currently remember. As to the German tank crews, I guess it is an un-citable statement, but at least in my opinion it is a view that is widely held; but I guess removing it is fine... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tempsperdue (talk • contribs) 18:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Czarnkowski czołg
Can somebody make a photo of Czarnkowski czołg T-34 for Commons? Thank you.--95.129.137.176 (talk) 13:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

"The best tank of the war"?
How is it possible to make such a general, vague, and sweeping assessments by calling 'x' tank "the best tank of world war 2"? The sheer number of factors are overwhelming and extremely situational. Many times during this article have such references been made, taking a non-neutral point of view and citing less than fair sources with seemingly no external reasoning other than invoking nationalistic pride. Instead of saying "x" tank is "better" than "b" tank, we should present the specifications in a non-POV way and let the reader come to his/her own conclusion.

I move to remove all mentioning of such cases, and replace them with side by side statistical breakdowns, or perhaps a new comparison article instead. This way the reader can draw their own conclusions based of the specifications of the tanks.

76.181.103.83 (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Jade rat


 * Raw specifications don't tell the whole story. (They never do, or, on the specs, France would have won in May '40.) In the case of the T-34, my impression has always been, it didn't have excellence in all areas, but its features combined produced an excellence. In short, the Sov designers got the combination right better than anybody else: gun power, armor, weight, hp, reliability, & production. Others had an edge in some areas; none had a better combined package. Nor AFAIK is that in doubt among even German or American historiographers, who may have reason to lie about it.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  22:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe there is considerable doubt about the superiority of the T34 tank among German and American historians. Since you think those sources may have reason to lie about the T-34, let's try a British one, Encyclopedia Britannica.  It states "the German vehicle [the Panther] was superior to the Russian [the T-34] except in mechanical reliability."TL36 (talk) 08:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I am all in favor of removing all of these excessive "enthusiast" superlatives about the T-34, and in fact believe this phenomenon of T-34 worship deserves its own section in this article - e.g., "The T-34 as Myth". There are very simple reasons as to how this T-34 worship got started after all, mainly in the memoirs of the defeated German generals who had all sorts of motives to inflate the reputation of this Soviet tank. Unfortunately the main sources that currently help to debunk this myth are from Soviet or former Soviet-bloc countries, and so have been slow to make it into acceptance among the moderators of this article. But sooner or later, one of the major Western tank historians will write a terrific and updated book about the T-34 based on this new post-Soviet information and thoroughly debunk this myth. The truth is out there already.

Meanwhile, it's very frustrating, and I find these designations of the T-34 as finest this or greatest that or "progenitor of the modern tank" to be every bit as annoying as all the references on Wikipedia that, three years ago, quoted Belton Cooper (author of "Death Traps") as saying Gen. Patton was the person responsible for stunting the development of the M4 Sherman and M26 Pershing. This falsehood was widely repeated across the Internet. In a single book, Zaloga's "Armored Thunderbolt" provided the documentation that completely crushed that falsehood into oblivion once and for all. Zaloga's recent book "T-34-85 vs. M26 Pershing" had a nice section describing how in the Korean War, the M26 Pershings greatly over-matched the T-34-85 whereas the M4A3E8 Shermans were equal to the T-34-85. Since Zaloga is readily accepted on these Wikipedia articles, as fast as one of his books come out, I have entered his stuff in and it never ever gets challenged. So, here's an appeal to Steven Zaloga, if you're reading this, I'm sure you've seen some of this new post-Soviet stuff out now about the T-34. Your 1988, 1994, and 1996 books about the T-34 are getting to be a bit long in the tooth. Write something new, Please! DarthRad (talk)
 * Just a little note. Whatever is editor's POV (and it seems that here everyone has one) please please please stick to the WP:NPOV and WP:MOS policies and do not add text to the article (or a whole section) that would turn the article into a conversation or an argument. Quote from the former: "Article sections devoted solely to criticism, and "pro and con" sections within articles, are two commonly cited examples. There are varying views on whether and to what extent such structures are appropriate; see Avoid thread mode, Criticism, Pro and con lists, and Template:Criticism-section. [...] Commonly cited examples include articles that read too much like a "debate" [...]." Self-consistency first. If there is something biased, just be WP:BOLD and adjust the (presumably) biased text, do not just insert your counter-argument. --Kubanczyk (talk) 12:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

FAR
An editor has nominated this article for FAR. However, as the first step (of notifying interested editors on the talk page to see if work can be completed without a FAR) was not completed, the FAR has been placed on hold so that this notification can be placed. Here is the text of the FAR nomination, as a starting place for work. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Copied text:

Looking at the article, and comparing it to the criteria: It is—  (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; (c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;  It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of—  (c) consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1) —see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended. The use of citation templates is not required.  Media. It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
 * The information on the tank's design is severely lacking, totalling as it does four completely broken up paragraphs.
 * Several chunks are completely unreferenced, including the last line of the "Background" section, an entire paragraph of "establishing initial production" and almost the entirety of "Design (T-34 Model 1941)".
 * Citations are completely and utterly inconsistent, ranging from the Harvard style to a divided bibliography-and-citations type. Many facts appear in the lead, but not in the text of the article proper.
 * Images, rather than alternating, go down almost unbroken in a gallery on the right-hand side of the page. Ironholds (talk) 05:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is an FA criteria for images to be on alternate sides of the page? ( Hohum  @ ) 17:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is MOS:Images that should be read and followed. Overall there are 23 photos in the article. This is a gallery posing as an article. A good rule to follow is only allowing one pic per section unless that section is unusually lengthy and the photo/s used must have relevancy to the section they're placed in. Brad (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There are many versions and many details to be shown, hence so many pictures. Is it OK to have three separate galleries? One for T-34-76 kind, second for T-34-85 kind, and the bottom gallery for all the other variants (and the monuments)? --Kubanczyk (talk) 14:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Just bumped into this FAR by chance, and thought I'd give a few thoughts about this article, since I happen to have a bit of knowledge on the subject.
 * First for comprehensive coverage, in which the article now is sorely lacking. Just to give short examples:
 * The development history is very short, and there's almost no information on T-34's genesis, which is important to the overall picture. To mention, the history of T-34's development presented quite some detective story, although it has been mostly resolved in recent (Russian) sources.
 * Also, not even a short technical description (compare T-26 article).
 * Rather little coverage on T-34 design and combat history analysis, and comparatively, even fewer sources. There's a vast amount of data on this topic, only a (small) part of which is presented here.
 * Only a small amount of information about T-34 postwar history, with Korean War section blown out of any proportion. Foreign use section is no better.


 * As for "well-researched" claims, there's a pityful amount of sources for such a subject in this article.
 * Which seems to rely mostly on Zaloga, ahem, a bit dubious "high-quality reliable source" and, all the more, the main source to write article from. For example, there's a blunder already in the preamble. Referencing Zaloga, well-known for substituting for gaps in knowledge with his vivid imagination, it tells us that T-34 was intended to replace both T-26 and BT series. While in fact, T-26 was planned to be replaced with infantry's T-50 tank (the article of which is also a nice piece of Zaloga's historical fiction), and T-34 was only intended as (less numerous) replacement for "fast" (maneuver, cavalry, however translation you prefer) BT tanks. Only the war, and the failure to mass-produce T-50 forced T-34 into the role of "universal" tank. And the article is strewn with other small mistakes and unreliable (or highly approximate) data from obsolete sources.
 * Small amount of sources also leads to inevitable bias, with only some of the wide spectre of points of view (not of them equally significant, of course) presented as established truth.
 * I understand that Russian sources represent a linguistic challenge, but their coverage on the subject is incomparable to western ones, which in regards to T-34 saw little development since Cold War end. And as for bias, many of them are comparable to Michulec's piece of writing in terms of harsh criticism (actually, Michulec may seem fresh for english speakers, but in comparsion to Russian sources his only contribution is his POV, from which you have to salvage any bits of useful information) — but attempting to be objective instead of being Pole. I could recommend a few books, if someone would be willing to use them to improve this article . --Saə (talk) 09:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ basic factual information leaves much to be desired. (And the heavy load of opinions, or even speculations, is not needed for now.) --Kubanczyk (talk) 11:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you point us to something authoritative which challenges Zalogas reliability? ( Hohum  @ ) 18:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This discussion is not about Zaloga or about "challenging his reliability". That's not the point. We should simply use the most reliable sources that we have on hand, preferably many of them. If an author happens to have a historical book that is sourced better than Zaloga's, as long as we should obviously include it, it does not mean we need to ban Zaloga. Wikipedia has a clear policy (WP:NPOV) regarding controversy/debate among editors (and inconsistency between reliable sources) and there are much much more controversial topics that are handled with success. --Kubanczyk (talk) 07:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Since Zaloga is heavily used, and his reliability was just strongly questioned, it clearly is a relevant point for the article FAR. Personally, I think he is reliable, and Saə was using more hyperbole than is justified. NPOV and reliability are (mostly) separate matters, unreliable sources should never be used, while a well balanced (NPOV) combination of reliable ones should be. ( Hohum  @ ) 17:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't care about his POV here. Zaloga is about reliable when you have nothing better, but the amount of small (and not-so small) factual mistakes he makes, especially in older works, makes him inadequate as a main source for FA now. Imagine someone's book on M4 Sherman that would've claimed that it was created to 1936 requirement for a heavy tank to counter new japanese armour, but its inadequate combat perfomance later led to a hybrid of M36 tank destroyer and up-armoured Sherman made into M26? (yes, here I'm using hyperbole, but only slightly) Even though, compared to vast majority of English-language authors working in a field of Soviet WWII armour, that I've seen so far, he's rather good. --Saə (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Your own personal assertion about the quality of particular works isn't relevant. To say one source is better than another, you'll need to show peer review showing that it is better, which can also be implied by how much other respectable historians reference their work. ( Hohum  @ ) 18:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, feel free to consider Zaloga, or whoever else — I personally recommend the renowned AFV historian George Forty. His 2005 book where he confuses ASU-57 and ZSU-57 is still unrivalled — a reliable source. Not that how silly yet another en-wiki article looks (roughly the above description, only without any hyperbole) concerns me enough to continue this discussion. --Saə (talk) 23:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Zaloga's more recent works are better documented, and thus more reliable, than some of his earlier books, most of which were relatively short monographs with some of the information based on what can best be described as dubious sources. Some of these older short books do not contain thorough notes about his original sources.  In the article on the M26 Pershing, which I extensively revised, I point out that Zaloga completely changed his story about Patton being the cause of the delay of the M26 in his 2000 book "M26/M46 Pershing Tank" (matching/parroting Belton Cooper's version) to the more thoroughly researched version that laid the blame squarely upon Gen. Lesley McNair in his 2008 "Armored Thunderbolt".  Quoting the letter that McNair wrote to Gen. Devers where McNair slams the latter's desire for the M26 is pretty definitive.  Where Zaloga got the original version about Patton is anybody's guess, since he does not provide detailed sourcing in the 2000 book (my guess is that he heard this from Belton Cooper).  The current Panther Tank article still contains a Soviet claim that the IS-2's 122mm gun could penetrate the Panther from front to back, a fairly dubious claim which is not corroborated by any other source and doesn't even make sense on a physical basis, given the Panther's well known superb frontal armor and other sources that rate the Soviet 122mm gun roughly equal to the British 17-pounder.  It's been difficult to get rid of that bit of trivia from the Panther article because the source is one of Zaloga's older books about Soviet tanks, which he wrote, I believe, at a time when he was one of the first Western authors allowed into the Soviet Union.  My guess is that the Soviets fed him some propaganda.  So, in summary, I have found Zaloga to be a useful reference, but his more recent work is much, much better than some of his earlier work, where he seems to have been a bit careless about passing on poorly documented information, and some of that information was not true.  Give him credit, though, for being willing to revise his own works.  That's why he seriously needs to re-write some of his earlier works about the Soviet tanks of WWII.  DarthRad (talk)
 * As for IS-2's gun performance, it seems to be a confusion on Zaloga's part. During one of the tests of 122-mm gun's M1944 APC shells, it indeed penetrated a tank from front to back, but a Pz.IV, for which this result is rather unsurprising. Still, frontal armour of Panther and Tiger, also present in shooting, was penetrated without much difficulty, and Panther's turret side was pierced all the way through (all shots made from 1400…1500 m range) See for example: Zheltov I., Pavlov I., Pavlov M., Sergeev A. Танки ИС в боях (IS tanks in action), Moscow: Tekhnika Molodezhi, 2002 . Panther's high-hardness armour indeed made its glacis plate a very difficult target for guns in 75…90mm range, but 122-mm's 25 kg shell was a different matter and during comparative evaluation outperformed even the 100-mm gun, despite latter's significantly higher penetration in normal conditions. Contributing to this was also the decline in late-war German armour quality, owing to the critical alloyage shortages. Substitutes for these made steel plate very brittle, which didn't make much difference for 17-pounder, but proved fatal against heavy shells. Also, just for a short but, it seems, necessary note: Soviet penetration tables data is not directly comparable to British, US, Japanese or Papuan one, and the penetration values obtained by different methods usually differ wildly for the same gun. Judging by his progress, I hope Zaloga would also learn of this, somewhere around 2030 . --Saə (talk) 07:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That is all still your personal opinion, and starting to wander into WP:NOTAFORUM, instead of a FAR. ( Hohum  @ ) 14:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is not the A-19 122mm gun forum, but a discussion about reliability of sources.  I consider Thomas Jentz to be absolutely meticulous in his writing, documenting where he obtained every scrap of information, and setting down no more than what his sources state.  As such the range-penetration data which Jentz set down in his two books -  "Germany's Panther Tank" and "Germany's Tiger Tanks: Tiger I & Tiger II: Combat Tactics" are about as definitive as it gets for the gun vs. armor debates.   And in those books, you'll find that neither the 122mm Soviet gun nor the British 17-pounder could penetrate the front glacis plate of the Panther at any range.  You'll find that the T-34's 85mm gun was slightly WORSE than the much maligned 76mm gun of the even more maligned M4 Sherman.  So much for the "best tank in the world" label - how could that be if the German Army tests say the T-34's 85mm gun was not as good as the M4 Sherman's 76mm gun?  This same data show that the much maligned armor of the M4 Sherman was roughly equivalent to the T-34-85 as far as  resisting puncture by the Panther's 75m Kwk 42  - neither tank's armor was any good, but they were about equal. "Best tank in the world"?  Or just a myth, perhaps only momentarily true for the 1941 time period?   Jentz's data show that the firepower and armor of the 76mm M4 Sherman and the T-34-85 were very, very close to each other.


 * Jentz's data are all from tests done by the German and British Armies on captured tanks, and these are about as reliable as it gets. I have no idea where the Soviet data comes from.  Perhaps they were testing precision manufactured versions of their guns instead of what actually came out from their factories.  Yes, theoretically a 122mm gun should do a lot better than a 75mm gun, and an 85mm gun should do better than a 76mm gun, but not if the barrel and gunpowder are so shoddily manufactured that the factory gun could not generate the required high pressures and velocities.   The Soviet 122mm had significantly lower velocities when tested by others than the Soviets. DarthRad (talk)


 * Soviet penetration data is calculated theoretically usually. Bear in mind that Soviet penetration data assumes 80% probability of penetration, whereas German data assumes 50% though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.138.92 (talk) 04:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The article is far too opinionated and biased. Statements are made about the T-34 being the "best" when such a thing is completely subjective to situation and enormously complex. In the opening paragraph such statements are made on three separate instances — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.135.164.254 (talk) 15:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Estonian bog tank
The article claims this is an example of the design's durability. It's nothing of the sort. An absence of rust and degradation would be entirely expected after being submerged in an anaerobic environment. Bogs routinely offer up well-preserved artifacts from thousands of years ago. This whole section should be deleted IMO, as the restoration of an individual T-34 isn't particularly noteworthy, even if it was unusually well preserved. 2p0rk (talk) 22:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

T 34-85 three man turret
The sentence about the three man turret giving the commander the ability to focus on commanding the tank while leaving the operation of the gun to the gunner and loader does not require a citation, it is obvious isn't it? Imagine standing in the two man turret, spotting a target, then having to crawl down into the gunners seat, swivel the turret and find the target again through the very limited field of vision of the gunsight, and then hit the target: ridiculous, what were they thinking? If anything the Soviets should have made the commander the loader in the two man turret. Loading the gun only takes a couple of seconds, and then the commander can be up again searching for targets and directing the gunner and driver. Any tank commander or crew member could explain this.Azeh (talk) 09:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Lots of things are obvious to those with some knowledge of the subject. Even the obvious things, here, do need cites...especially since this is for the non-expert.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  18:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed, and, related to this issue - the statements about the lack of a turret basket are misleading for non-experts. Sure, a turret basket is a wonderful thing to have. But hardly any tank in 1941 had such a thing. The only tank operating on the eastern front in 1941 with a turret basket was the Pzkw-IV. DMorpheus2 (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oops, I forgot the Soviet T-28 and T-35, both of which had turret baskets for their main 76mm gun turrets. But both vehicles were rare (about 60 T-35s and ~500 T-28s total) and quickly disappeared from the battlefield since they were no longer in production. DMorpheus2 (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Unbalanced section
The following section seems unbalanced:


 * Armour

'':::Although in theory an effective overall shape, armor suffered from build quality issues, especially of plate joins and welds, as well as the use soft steel :::combined with shallow surface tempering, all this was noted by US engineers at the Aberdeen Proving grounds.[8] ::::In a heavy rain lots of water flows through chinks/cracks, which leads to the disabling of the electrical equipment and even the ammunition.
 * :The following is a war time account of the effectiveness of the T-34's armour and relative impunity when faced with available German anti-tank guns of the time:
 * Remarkably enough, one determined 37 mm gun crew reported firing 23 times against a single T-34 tank, only managing to jam the tank’s turret ring”.[66]
 * Although the German anti-tank gun crew managed to score 23 hits, the T-34 referred to did not manage to hit the AT gun once.[66]

When we consider the T-34 was one of the best-protected tanks in the world in 1941, this section is a bit silly in its unbalanced description. DMorpheus2 (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

T-34-85 or T-34/85
I'd like to suggest that we consistently use one or the other, and not mix both usages in the article. I suggest this mostly for the sake of good style.

Having said that, the Soviet and Russian usage is T-34-85, not T-34/85. This usage has been adopted much more commonly in newer English-language sources than T-34/85. The T-34/85 usage is a bit dated and, I'd guess, probably derived from the German usage of T-34/76 (a designation not generally used by the Soviets or Russians). Since this is a Soviet-era piece of equipment, not German, I suggest we use the Soviet/Russian usage.

Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I prefer T-34/85 for clarity's sake. IMO it doesn't leave questions (or as many, anyhow) about what's referred to. (Maybe informed by hot rodder practise...) I'm not so wedded to it I'd demand it, & I do agree a consistent use is preferable.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  01:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Its potentially confusing when you consider the usage "T-54/55", which refers to the T-54 and T-55 series of tanks, not to a T-54 armed with a 55mm gun ;) DMorpheus2 (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair point. We're not doing that on this page, tho, are we? (Are we? ;p )  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  17:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The Slash comes from Finnish sources. For example the infantry rifle M/28-30, or submachine gun M/31. 69.60.229.207 (talk) 03:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

This isn't really about the T-34 at all is it?
''Soviet fully tracked AFV production from June 1941 to May 1945 was 99,150 (this includes all types of fully tracked assault and self-propelled guns) vehicles. An additional 11,900 tanks and self-propelled guns were received via Lend Lease.[88][89] In comparison, the Germans, who are often criticised for producing too few, albeit higher quality tanks replete with too many refinements and excessive quality control during production, produced a total of 26,925 tanks, 612 command tanks, 232 flame tanks, 10,550 assault guns, 7,831 tank destroyers, and 3,738 assault and self-propelled artillery AFVs, between 1938 and May 1945.[90] For a combined total of around 49,900 fully tracked AFVs. Soviet tanks had a generally rough and ready finish, and lacked many ergonomic and refinement features which were deemed essential by German and to a large extent by Allied tankers as well.[citation needed] That there were more Soviet tanks produced during the war than were destroyed (approximately 44,900 of the 55,550 T-34s produced were lost), regardless of the individual tactical performance of each, ultimately helped to win the war. The Soviets mass produced more fully tracked AFVs, and more T-34s in particular than the Germans did total fully tracked AFVs. It can be argued that it was exactly the emphasis on refinements, manufacturing quality and subtleties of design which gave German tank crews significant edge in combat at the tactical level. The Soviets achieved strategic success, but paid an exceptionally high price; approximately 44,900 of the T-34s were lost out of a total of 96,500 fully tracked AFVs lost compared with only 32,800 for the Germans (this includes all SP guns, SP artillery, and several thousand vehicles captured when Germany surrendered on the East Front) during all of WW2; a global loss ratio of 2.94 to 1 in favour of the Germans.[91][92]''

That's all very interesting stuff about armored combat in WW2 but its not really about the T-34 is it? Certianly, far more specific conclusions could be drawn.DMorpheus2 (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I suspect the numbers are sourced (many of which are irrelevant to the article), but the conclusions may be synthesis. Additionally, a 3 to 1 loss ratio isn't that relevant if at the end you have zero tanks, and the enemy still has thousands. ( Hohum   @ ) 17:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Operators
I tagged Italy and the Russian Liberation Army (ROA) usage. I am aware of no documentation at all of any Italian usage of the T-34. I've seen one blurry, obviously-retouched photo showing Regio Escercito troops near an STZ-produced T-34. No evidence that it is operational; from the photo it could be disabled/abandoned. It is impossible to tell.

The ROA was never in combat until the last few days of WW2 in Prague. While there is no doubt they had a few T-34s, they were issued from German stocks, not captured by the ROA from the Red Army.

Finally, although I did not tag it, some of the Finnish T-34s were bought from the Germans, not all were captured.

regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits
I've made a recent project out of acquiring better citations for this article. I copied the entire article to my laptop, traveled to various libraries and used bookstores(usually on other projects) and, wherever there was a "citation needed" tag, I'd search the indices of books on the shelves, and frequently I found something. The mainspace content has been edited with all these references in the past couple of days as a result of this compilation of research conducted over the past several weeks. There's one section that I just can't find anything for, so I've simply deleted it. If any of you can do better, I encourage you to replace the section in the mainspace with citations. Intuitively the content does make a lot of sense but I just can't find any sources to support it.

Support vehicles
There were many support vehicles and even civilian tractors and cranes built on the T-34 chassis starting during the war and continuing at least into the 1990s. The vast majority of these were conversions of old or damaged tanks and self-propelled guns.
 * Bridging tanks: Old tanks rebuilt in the field or at repair facilities. These were simply driven into water two abreast for special river-crossing operations, to be recovered later.
 * Armoured recovery vehicles: During World War II, some old tanks were rebuilt as armoured recovery vehicles (ARVs), by plating over the turret ring or adding a superstructure. After the war, this repurposing program was formalized in successively more elaborate models.

--

The article was delisted from the Featured Articles during FAR here. Criteria can be found here. I've just addressed all of the 1c issues (fully referenced). Would someone please help with the 2c issues (consistent citation style)? I do not believe it would be all that difficult to restore this one to Featured Article status, but it would be a bit tedious ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

__________________________________________________

"One can recognise the widely exported Czechoslovakian-built T-34-85s by a semi-conical armoured fairing (like a rear-facing scoop) on the left rear slanting side-panel of the engine compartment sponson."

This 'fairing' is an small armored housing for an infantry call button or 'door bell' and I have seen them on Soviet-produced vehicles from factory 174 also. So, I suspect this is a postwar add-on, not a recognition feature unique to Czech vehicles. DMorpheus2 (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Service Length
When did the USSR stop using this tank? We need to add this info in. I DO NOT believe any made it to 1991, but who knows?

74.51.57.78 (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

In the "Use in other countries" subsection, there's an indication that the USSR used the T-34-85 until at least 1968. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * As an aside, I notice a couple of years ago here on this Talk page, we saw a discussion about the allegedly "poor" armor penetration qualities of the Soviet A-19 122mm gun, rating it roughly equal to the British Ordnance QF 17-pounder (76mm). Perspective is everything. It isn't that the 122mm gun was so bad, but that the 17-pounder was so good. The 122mm was derived from a corps-level artillery piece designed in 1931. The 17-pounder was designed in 1941. In the intervening ten years, a great deal was learned about armor penetration. In most respects the 17-pounder was similar to the German 7.5 cm KwK 42 L/70 mounted on the Panther, but it had APDS ammunition shortly after D-Day. In comparison with these weapons, the 76mm and 85mm guns on the T-34 were a bit mediocre. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Well.....more specifically, the 17 pounder firing sabot was extremely good at punching holes in armor plate because that's what it was designed to do. It was not designed to be a general-purpose tank gun. No Allied towed AT gun was as good as the 17 pounder except perhaps the Soviet 100mm.
 * The 122 gun-howitzer's closest counterpart in the British Army would probably be the 5.5 inch gun, which probably wasn't a great hole-puncher either. I haven't looked it up, but I am not sure there was even an AP round for that weapon.
 * Compare the HE performance of the 122mm or the 85mm to the 17 pounder and I think you'll get a rather different perspective. The Soviet 76.2mm F34 was in action in June 1941 in tanks; the 85mm in Feb/Mar 1944; the 17 pounder first saw action as a tank gun in June 1944.
 * So perspective is indeed everything isn't it?
 * Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Here we go ... off into the thicket of another oblique off-topic Talk page discussion. The BL 5.5 inch Medium Gun was developed in 1939 from a World War I Royal Navy gun, the BL 5.5 inch Mark I naval gun (used on two light cruisers, and as secondary armament on HMS Hood and a couple of light aircraft carriers) — so AP ammunition was definitely available, but evidently never issued to Royal Artillery units.
 * The British made the mistake of specializing a lot of their artillery. Their high-velocity AT guns and many high-velocity tank guns (2-pounder and 6-pounder) were only issued AP ammunition. The low-velocity field artillery (and the howitzer armed tanks) were only issued HE ammunition. This made both families of weapons pretty useless if confronted by the "wrong" type of target. Nobody else made this mistake with anything like the obstinate regularity the British displayed. (Germans, Soviets, Americans, Italians, Japanese, even the French.) The British did correct this mistake late in the war with the 17-pounder, the 75mm tank gun (Cromwell), and the so-called "77mm" tank gun (Comet).
 * At the other end of the spectrum were the Soviets, who (in my opinion) best demonstrated a desire to field weapons that would be equally effective against any target — tanks or infantry. For the other nationalities I've listed, it seemed to be a happy coincidence whenever it happened, although they did issue both types of ammunition for nearly all their weapons. But the Soviets clearly planned it that way, with very few exceptions (their howitzers and their 57mm tank-killer).
 * To a very small degree, the Americans followed British pattern with their tank vs. tank destroyer thinking ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * So to bring us back around to the T-34 ;), and to which this digression actually contributes.....one of the important things the initial design got right was the armament. The 76mm gun was a very good dual-purpose gun for 1940-41. It could penetrate any tank in the world at combat ranges with its APHE round, while at the same time having a very useful HE-frag round. Compare that to almost any tank in the world in 1940-41. Designs like the French B-1 or the initial Churchill concept had two guns so they could combine AT and HE capability on one vehicle. Most other tanks (all British cruisers, most French tanks, most of the German tanks) could only really usefully fire AP *or* HE but not both. The Pzkw-III with its 50mm gun was beginning to go in the right direction. The KV is the only other example that comes to mind for this time period.
 * As the armor of German tanks improved the Red Army considered putting the 57mm ZIS-2 gun into the T-34. This would have created the equivalent of the Sherman Firefly - a tank with a super-potent hole puncher but little HE capability. They were wiser to move to the 85mm gun.
 * While it is rather well-known that the T-34 had a great combination of the holy trinity (firepower, armor, mobility) it is often forgotten that the firepower was good both due to raw performance and because it was dual-purpose.
 * FWIW I think you are right about your assessment of British artillery.
 * Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, all British cruisers had in 1940-41 reflected that mistake. Most of the tanks in each squadron (company) were the standard version with the high velocity gun and only AP ammunition. There would also be a few CS tanks with a low-velocity howitzer and only HE ammunition. In 1940 the Panzer III (37mm high-velocity gun) and Panzer IV (low-velocity 75mm gun) approximated this dilemma, but at least they issued both types of ammo to both vehicles. My impression of the French was that their most useful tanks (S35 and similar tanks) were armed with a 47mm tank gun that fired pretty decent rounds for 1940, for both AP and HE. The Italians and Japanese had similar 47mm tank guns. And I recently added to the article mainspace that the T-34's 76mm tank gun was the best in the world in 1940-41.
 * The Americans were tending toward the same flawed thinking as the British: American tanks were designed to engage enemy infantry, while American TDs were designed to engage enemy tanks. But like the Germans, at least they issued both types of ammo to both types of vehicles; and at least with the early models of the M4 (medium-velocity 75mm gun), they had a fairly adequate dual purpose tank gun. It took a 90mm (M26 & M36), a high-velocity 76mm (other TDs and the M4A3E8), or an M4 moving around to the flank or rear (with its gyrostabilizer) to make a Panther or Tiger crew nervous, however. Earlier, the M3 light tank was similar to the early Panzer III, and the M3 medium tank was similar to the French B-1. But fortunately, American tank forces never saw action against the Germans until they were equipped with the M4. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 05:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Plagiarism 101
The statistics in the operational history part come from my site: http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.gr/2013/01/tank-strength-and-losses-eastern-front.html http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.gr/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html

Thanks a lot for copying my work without mentioning me or my site! Also maybe you didn’t understand it 100% but some of the German strength data for AFV’s are my e-s-t-i-m-a-t-e-s not all come from Jentz’s book. If you copy my information you should mention my site as your SOURCE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paspartoo (talk • contribs) 12:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

General Edit & Clean-up
The article has a lot of useful information, but it is painfully clear that it has been worked on at length by two major editors with the same set of sources. The amount of repetition and redundancy is enormous, running from sentences to whole paragraphs of identical information. For example:

"Even during the Battle of France, the Germans' 37 mm PaK 36 anti-tank gun had earned the nickname "Door Knocker" among German crews, due to its inability to penetrate anything but the lightest tank armour, though it worked very well at announcing the presence of the gun crew. The PaK 36 proved to be completely ineffective against the T-34, earning the contemptuous nickname "Door Knocker" from German troops"

As for paragraphs, to pick one example (there are more), the following appears in its entirety twice:

"From the point of view of operating them, the German armoured machines were more perfect, they broke down less often. For the Germans, covering 200 km was nothing, but with T-34s something would have been lost, something would have broken down. The technological equipment of their machines was better, the combat gear was worse."

It's also poorly organized, with the Mobility section just being a list of ways it broke down, though this is separate from a section on Reliability. Production, armour, and gun information is widely scattered, despite their being sections for such things, and heavily repeated as well. Finally, the introduction is way too long, containing far too much irrelevant information for a reader who should just be getting an intro to the topic.

I've gone through and made lengthy edits that have condensed things into their proper sections. In doing so I've deleted a great deal of redundancy. Note that while the trimmed word count appears high, the vast majority really was just repeated info (there were also little bits on German tanks and performance that were too detailed for this Soviet tank article, and/or were unsourced).

I have added no new information. Cheers.94.232.219.141 (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Palindromedairy (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, that's about all I can think of doing. Thanks for your patience, and for allowing a (initially) non-registered user to make such sweeping changes.  I'd like to think it's a lot sharper now, but then again I'm obviously a bit biased.


 * There's a few things I'd like to raise, but am unable to address without access to the sources that have been used to date:


 * 1) The summary chart now in the Overview section states that there was no appreciable difference in both speed and horsepower of the various models. How can this be?  The T-34-85 is almost six tons heavier than the Model 1941, for instance, but it appears every model went up in weight by at least half a ton, and yet they're all just as fast?
 * 2) The Mobility section lacks any cited reference to the T-34's famous mobility. That is, its wide treads, low ground pressure, and ability to handle fairly steep inclines.  The example there now is a purely comparative one, in reference to the Panzer IV, which doesn't really cut it.
 * 3) The Reliability section is absolutely dominated by the Aberdeen information, which, while quite valuable, is really about one or a handful of examples of one model of T-34. Reading it, you'd think it was the most unreliable tank ever.  More references are required placing the Aberdeen info in context, explaining how these issues were addressed in later models (if indeed they were).  Similarly, I've read that the early problems with failure over relatively short driving distances can be attributed to untrained crews (in addition to the early builds not having all the bugs ironed out).  If that's true, it needs to be brought up, otherwise you think the T-34 was incapable of travelling long distances.


 * Cheers. Palindromedairy (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed on that last point. Operational readiness statistics would show that T-34 units did better than some of their competitors. I'll see if I can source what I swear I can remember ;)

DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Error
This sentence, though sourced, is incorrect: "Starting with the Model 1943, cold-rolled armour plate (similar to that used for the tank hull) was welded in a sloped hexagonal design, improving turret armour protection.[48]" Although there were some welded turrets manufactured in the initial narrow design (the so called "Model 1941" or sometimes "Model 42" designs with the single large hatch), all the hexagonal turrets were cast or stamped. None were welded. I wonder if this is a mistranslation. DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It might also be another case of confusion over the fact that "Model X" refers to different Models depending on what source is being used, since the year-based naming system varies from country to country. If you've got a source that contradicts it, and you're sure it's correct, it would seem to make sense to replace what's there now.
 * Palindromedairy (talk) 14:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

General Reliability
The whole General reliability section is completely focused on early models of the T-34. The tank itself was one of the most reliable tanks during the war, however if one were to read the article one would think that the T-34 was not at all reliable, The models of  late 1941 were reliable and the models of 1942 and 1943 were highly reliable able to travel far greater distances and require far less maintenance than any German tank.Nor123Nor (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I raised that issue just two sections up. In short, I agree: unfortunately, no one is producing any reliable sources to demonstrate otherwise.  I've clarified, as part of my cleanup, that the problems in the current examples were specifically in the earliest models, but there's no room to do more unless sources that actual contrast tank types (as opposed to less useful blanket statements of reliability) are produced.Palindromedairy (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia comrades, I see you’ve changed the T-34 page once again! Regarding the reliability of the T-34 model 1943: http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.gr/2013/01/german-evaluation-of-captured-soviet.html Regarding the reliability of the T-34/85: http://www.scribd.com/doc/230672358/ENGINEERING-ANALYSIS-OF-THE-RUSSIAN-T34-85-TANK?in_collection=4556464 Paspartoo (talk) 14:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Strange Parallel with the Sherman M4
The second paragraph of the Overview section draws a strange comparison with the Sherman M4, as if assuming the reader is familiar with the details of this machine. The article should stand on its own and I find this paragraph out of place and inconsistent. In particular, it makes the statement: "Both were an approximately even match for the standard German medium tank, the Panzer IV." However, elsewhere in the article it is stated in the Operation Barbarossa subsection of Operational history: "...but the T-34 was a notable exception, superior to any tank the Germans then had in service." Stating that the Sherman M4 was "approximately equally matched with the Pz IV" is also a stretch, but this could be an article in itself. At best, I don't think this parallel adds anything to the article. At worst, it's just incorrect. If it must be retained, the comparison should be reduced in scope to compare the "backbone of the armoured forces" and designed for simplicity and mass production aspects and leave out any comparison of performance. CptCaveman76 (talk) 09:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

"Both were an approximately even match for the standard German medium tank, the Panzer IV." I feel the same way about this statement, Cpt. A big part of the historical importance of the T-34 is its superiority to German tanks in the early phase of its service life. Notreallydavid (talk) 10:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hitler Misquote?
I believe the following quotation may be misleading and a misquote. It is found in the Barbarossa subsection of the Operational history section : Adolf Hitler later said, "If I had known about the Russian tank's strength in 1941 I would not have attacked".

The cited reference is: Correlli Barnett, ed. (1989). Hitler's Generals. Weidenfeld and Nicolson. p. 456. ISBN 0 297 79462 0.

I believe in this quotation, Hitler was referring to Soviet tank strength in general i.e. referring to numbers rather than the qualities on the T-34 in particular. I think the apostrophe is mis-placed and that it should be "Russian tanks' strength" instead of "Russian tank's strength"

I do not have access to the source material, perhaps someone who has could check this out.CptCaveman76 (talk) 09:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I have a copy and will check the quote shortly. Palindromedairy (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Having checked, the quote does indeed feature a misplaced apostrophe. It is also uncited besides; I'll remove it immediately. Palindromedairy (talk) 02:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Removal of WP:OR and WP:SYN
I've reviewed the entry introducing and its given source. None of those cited source following the origin quote, it rather seems viewed from a selective personal preference, which concluded to that synthesis WP:SYN. That's obviously not within the meaning of our guidelines. I suggest we discuss this to gather consensus for speedy removal and rephrasing.

1) "The T-34 was a Soviet medium tank which had a profound and lasting effect on the fields of tank tactics and design. First fielded in 1940, it has often been described as the most effective, efficient, and influential tank design of World War II"

Chris Mann and Hughes does not in the slightest preconize what is described; it's more likely a mixing up of the ref. from achtungpanzer.com: "when introduced into production in June of 1940, was the most advanced tank design in the world. It was superior to any other tank in the world, including feared German tanks. Its revolutionary design featured sloped armor, speed, hitting power and low silhouette along with reliability and low production cost"

It was miles away from being efficient and effective at its introducing. The new T-34 suffered from serious teething problems regard to their clutches and transmissions. Mechanical breakdowns accounted for at least 50% in 1941. Only 27% of 7'000 tanks were in good enough mechnical condition to last more than a few days of fighting before suffering mechanical breakdwons. However, I rather want to take Zaloga and Grandsen wording in agreement to Field-Marshal Ewald von Kleist: "The combadt début of the T-34 in the summer of 1941 revealed it to be unquestionably the finest tank design of its time. The revolutionary combination of thick, angled armour, heavy firepower and superb mobility placed it in a class above its closet German contemporaries, the Pz Kpfw III and Pz Kpfw IV (D and E)" - Which gives a fair settlement and factual view, apart from some sweeping and creative wki-editors. WP:NPOV

It would also replace the uncourced and heavy inflated second dublicated statement: "At its introduction, the T-34 possessed the best balance of firepower, mobility, protection, and ruggedness of any tank. Its 76.2 mm (3 in) high-velocity gun was the best tank gun in the world at that time"

2) " German tank generals von Kleist and Guderian called it "the deadliest tank in the world"

Where this quote is coming from? I couldn't find, neither in the cited book(Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War II pp.110-170) which I've rewieved as well, nor in the recovered wepages: 1, 2 Thanks, regards Bouquey (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I would broadly agree that a modification of wording would be acceptable, and a more rigourous attribution of some of the more sweeping claims be backed up by some good RS. Much like the panther intro. Irondome (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I would welcome a rewrite of the lede section. However we must bear in mind that it's a lede section, therefore a brief summary of the entire article, and sweeping generalizations are appropriate. Focusing too much attention on the teething problems of the Model 1940 would violate WP:WEIGHT. The Model 1941 formed the bulk of the T-34 force when the Germans invaded, and they were quite reliable. Please post your proposed rewrite here for review before posting it in the article mainspace. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I have nothing to oppose to a brief summary which is well sourced and cited. You can track the progress on my sandbox. Suggestions for improvement are encouraged, thanks. Bouquey (talk) 14:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Misleading Information
Kleist and Guderian don't called it "the deadliest tank in the world".

Check source 1: Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War Two, Grandsen, Zaloga - the article not only fails to give the page in the reference, but also misleading it with an Guderian and Kleist citation. Guderian is solely mentioned at page 123 and von Kleist ist not even memoired in the entire book !

Check source 2: https://web.archive.org/web/20120330022217/http://www.theeasternfront.co.uk/Commanders/german/guderian.htm - dont emphasize that quote.

It's clearly that some editors are liying here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FileDivaM (talk • contribs) 12:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You still do not seem to get it. you go to talk, as you have done, and wait for consensus for your proposed change. You do not make the changes anyway. So I am restoring the article to its previous condition until consensus is reached. Please do not revert. Also check WP:AGF. Throwing around terms like "liar" does not help your credibility. Moderate your tone and go easy on the edit button. Just some advice to a new user. Irondome (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There are several source quoting Von Kleist as calling it the finest tank in the world. Guderian calls attention to the "vast superiority.."of the 34 "to our tanks" Panzer Leader pg 233, penguin, London 2000. PL is peppered with such sentiments. If "deadly" cannot be found in due time, it will be removed. However Kleists and Guderians quotes would more than suffice. It would also support the best balance of armour, firepower and mobility bit which seems to annoy you so much. Remember the lede must summarise what is to come. If it is the truth, then it is not peacock. Try to maintain your WP:NPOV on this. Cheers Irondome (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Kleist called it the finest design at praticular time of 1941, in the same acknowledge as Guderian that they had nothing comparable at praticular time. But cutting it down and drawing it to like the deadliest in the word, is pure synthesis(!) with the sole purpose to fit selective arguments of one's POV. Also, the called the best tank gun in the world, is peacock. They were already wheeled and halftracked vehicles of 88mm (flak 36 )and 90mm (italian) guns which already surpassed the 76mm gun in years, see the the spanish civil war! so you better fix your WP:NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FileDivaM (talk • contribs) 19:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That won't do. The examples you give were not tank mounted at all at this time. In any event, the assertion that the Soviet 76.2mm was the best multi purpose tank gun at the time would be correct. As I have said, if "deadly" can be found in any additional quote it will be added. If not, it will be replaced by "Finest". This will be based on consensus based on discussion here by other interested colleagues. It would amount to the same thing anyway. Deadly. You appear to have a pro-axis POV in terms of equipment. I have also noted it at the 8.8 cm KwK 43 article that you are attempting to WP:PEACOCK Irondome (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * See https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=osu1392912024&disposition=inline

"The T34 was a revolutionary advance in tank design because it was able to combine unprecedented improvements in mobility, protection and firepower in a single vehicle. The design innovations included the Christie type, independent suspension combined with an extremely wide track allowing for high speed cross-country mobility and the increase in overall weight associated with increased armor. The increase in overall armor thickness combined with the use of highly sloped armor provided unprecedented protection in a medium tank for its day, this protection was complimented by the use of a diesel fueled engine decreasing the risk of fire caused by fuel, making the new tank one ofthe safest in the world. The use ofthe 76mm gun that was capable of effectively using both high-explosive and armor-piercing ammunition provided a marked increase in firepower over any of the T34's contemporaries". P.11

From TWO WAYS TO BUILD A BETTER MOUSETRAP Thesis by Major David Frederick McFadden B.S. Ohio State University 2002. Irondome (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * A perfectly good RS published by a major academic institution coming from an author with a military background. I believe we can use this in the article. Is this acceptable colleagues? Irondome (talk) 20:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Added McFadden reference, removed tag. Also added and sourced the Kleist and Guderian quotes. Removed "deadly" because I can't find it after a long search. The new cites should more than back up the points made in the lede. Irondome (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I like the way the lede section looks now. Let's keep it that way. I do remember reading Guderian saying that the T-34 was the "deadliest" tank in the world in 1941. It was in either "Achtung Panzer" or "Panzer Leader." But the quotes we're using now are well sourced so let's keep them. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 06:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Time to split T34-76 and T34-85 articles ?
A major advance and far more powerful, T34-85 should have separate article. Rcbutcher (talk) 07:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio T-34
(moved from my talk page ( Hohum  @ ) 21:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC))

As you have revert my edit as copyvio; I want to inform you that the sentence in the lede:" Although its armour and armament were surpassed later in the war, it has been often credited as the most effective, efficient, and influential tank design of World War II" is also clearly a copyvio.

Why I can't add my edit? All points on the sentence are adressed in the article, and as far the WP:LEAD goes, we should: "include mention of consequential or significant criticism or controversies".

CobhamLaine (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * What is it a copyvio of?
 * WP:LEAD requires that the Lead is summary of what is in the main text. It should not have things which are not reflected in the main text. I hope this is clear enough. ( Hohum  @ )


 * It is a copyvio of this (the cited source). <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  Talk   19:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting. That source is copyright 2011, yet the phrasing was in the article in 2008. here. In fact, the entire section is lifted from Wikipedia and credited as such at the end of the section. ( Hohum  @ ) 19:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, you are correct. Obviously, that source should be removed as a citation (though another should be sought). <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  Talk   19:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I have removed it, thanks.CobhamLaine (talk) 20:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You have completely misunderstood. ""Ironsides": Canadian Armoured Fighting Vehicle Museums and Monuments By Harold A. Skaarup" is copyright 2011, and uses Wikipedia as its source using material which was in Wikipedia from at least 2008. That doesn't make Wikipedia a copyvio of the book, it means Wikipedia was using a meaningless WP:CIRCULAR reference. I have put the reference used to support the 2008 wording back. ( Hohum  @ ) 21:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The site www.achtungpanzer.com doesn't seem do be the genuine source of the sentence. Its lead is completely different, therefore it should not be credited and referred as such origin, even when it was mentioned in 2008. A reason why Harold may took it as his own intellectual property.CobhamLaine (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You still don't seem to understand, and I'm not explaining it again. ( Hohum  @ ) 21:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I only see that you are discrediting Harold A. Skaarup as historian by removing its following citation. Can you track it down? How could you be sure that it is clearly WP:CIRCULAR? CobhamLaine (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, last try. The book is copyright 2011, he uses wording that was in Wikipedia in at least 2008, and he even credits that wording to Wikipedia. ( Hohum  @ ) 17:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)