HEAT doesnt normalize, so it would go through the full 90mm when you take sloping into account
Side armor is only 40 at 40 degrees, for LOS of 52, so HEDP could defeat it with low natural angle
Side turret armor is 50mm with only slight sloping, so thats another good spot to hit
On the contrary, most WWII mediums had either equal or better to the protection of your average IFV. There are things that would punch through a Bradley that the T-34 would glance off.
But the amphibious and paratrooper stuff got real shitty: I'm talking "tanks" with worse protection then your modern level IV vest. Tanks you could punch a hole through from commercially available rounds. Tanks you can probably deform the chassis of with a sledgehammer.
Is that still true, though? Bradley's armor has been upgraded to the point it can withstand certain RPG types while the same rockets would blow a hole into a Sherman.
Maybe the BMP is still paper-thin to keep itself amphibious.
Bradley uses ERA to survive RPGs, an M4 with the same armor could survive the same
M2 brad with best add-on armor is up to 14.5mm all-around and 30mm from the front
Good for an IFV but still worse than an M4 sherman
IFVs have strict size and weight constraints so theres no way to make it that armored and they are usually designed around "don't die" instead of "dont be penetrated" layer of the onion
You guys are all looking at this backwards by looking at what kind of survivability it has against anti-tank weapons. Obviously very little. Look instead at what it offers; a mobile platform with an 85mm cannon and two thirty caliber machine guns. That's a potent addition to your force. You must protect it from anti-tank weaponry but as you've clearly recently seen, even the most modern tanks are not immune from the basic things which threaten tanks such as artillery, mines, and flanking fire.
>fuel and ammo >truck and train space that could be used to tranfer something else >maintenance crews who are already busy >industrial capacity from russia >mechanically adept crews who could be used elsewhere
Now make this all happen x1000 and you have a serious problem.
>Those costs are low
the costs are only low if you dont value the crew very much
>Both sides agree with me and not you,
russians didnt start equipping their forces with T-55s and T-62s until they had already used up their stock of T-72s
very difficult to interpret this as anything other than desperation
the ukranians have so far avoided bringing out the antiques, with their arsenal getting steadily more advanced as the war went on
using a T-34 in todays world is utterly silly and non-sensical unless you literally used thousands of them like it was WW2 and you had no care about the occupants making it home alive
the only time the "its better than nothing" argument holds water is if you are literally down to nothing
>the costs are only low if you dont value the crew very much
What is that supposed to mean? Somehow the crew which you now propose to send as infantry without support are suddenly 'valuable' to you? So valuable you don't bother arming them because the 'gasoline is too expensive' KEK. Get your shit together moron. >russians didnt start equipping their forces with T-55s and T-62s until they had already used up their stock of T-72s. very difficult to interpret this as anything other than desperation
No shit moron. New tank better than old tank. Old tank better than no tank. >using a T-34 in todays world is utterly silly
Says the comfy b***h at his PC at home. Meanwhile, those in combat with no other tanks, do use T-34. They were also used recently in the Yemeni civil war. >the only time the "its better than nothing" argument holds water is if you are literally down to nothing
That IS the fricking argument you moron.
>What is that supposed to mean?
using T-34s is dumb
> Old tank better than no tank
if you are down to no tanks, then you shouldnt be sending crew out to die
>Meanwhile, those in combat with no other tanks, do use T-34.
only literal african warlords expect to use T-34s
even T-55s are a dodgy choice
using T-34s un ukraine is stupid
>That IS the fricking argument you moron.
sending men to die in tin cans is usually a good sign that victory is not coming soon
11 months ago
Anonymous
Well we need to pass along your expert military advice to the front lines. The veterans at the front must be told of your bold new ideas.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>Well we need to pass along your expert military advice to the front lines.
most armies wont even use M60s or T-72s
so its broadly agreed that you shouldnt even be at war unless you have something resembling a modern tank
11 months ago
Anonymous
>so its broadly agreed that you shouldnt even be at war
Even better. We MUST inform our veterans that they need to abandon the fight NOW. We have reviewed the battle plans with our most senior NEET advisors who are calculating all possible outcomes in Starcraft simulations as we speak. Although these soldiers find old tanks useful and employ them, our NEET intelligence corps has realized this is a MISTAKE.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>We MUST inform our veterans that they need to abandon the fight NOW
most veterans would probably agree that they should not be sent to the fronts without proper equipment
>k. Although these soldiers find old tanks useful and employ them,
most soldiers would find that the prospect of being left with 80 year old equipment to be a very bad idea
if the situation is so dire that they need a tank that has had 3 generations of men die in them, then there must be something wrong with the grand strategy
>our NEET intelligence corps has realized this is a MISTAKE.
most countries wont even use leopard 1s or M60s, why would they even consider using a T-34?
11 months ago
Anonymous
>if the situation is so dire that they need a tank that has had 3 generations of men die in them, then there must be something wrong with the grand strategy
"My grand strategy is to fight a war without hardship. Easy. We simply don't have supply issues with anything we need during war. All I do is build pylons to get supply to 200/200 cap then we win. Any other strategy is stupid and I'm basically a military genius at age 10." Thanks for the protips starlord. These are very good ideas. The supreme military council will be impressed!
11 months ago
Anonymous
>My grand strategy is to fight a war without hardship
a good place to start is literally sun tzu, dont start a fight you know you cant win
or worded differently, if all you have is garbage, then the only thing you can expect to fight is garbage
>why would they even consider using a T-34?
Please refer to previous comments. The T-34 is a mobile platform with an 85mm cannon and two thirty caliber machine guns, these things are useful to have, even if your lesbian starcraft vegana brain can't understand.
>The T-34 is a mobile platform with an 85mm cannon and two thirty caliber machine guns, these things are useful to have
one of those 30s is pretty much blind, co-driver has no periscope and couldnt hit a barn unless they were inside it
the 85mm gun would need to literally drive to point blank to make out their targets due to reliance on the mk1 eyeball
unless you are picking fights with somalian pirates, then its not a good idea to get into a fight at all with them
11 months ago
Anonymous
>dont start a fight you know you cant win
Oh there we are... this is really all about you yelling at Russian conscripts on the internet and pretending you're smarter than them and know better despite them actually fighting and you jerking it to BBC porn. Lmao. good luck on your COUNTEROFFENSIVE lmfao. You'll be in Moscow in two weeks. Surely.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>unless you are picking fights with somalian pirates, then its not a good idea to get into a fight at all with them
Yes sir that's right I said CANCEL the war, immediately, we've made a mistake! No we will not push through hardship we will surrender. Frankly we never should have invaded in the first place, look any basic commander knows you don't use T-34 when you can use Abrams instead. What idiots!
11 months ago
Anonymous
>why would they even consider using a T-34?
Please refer to previous comments. The T-34 is a mobile platform with an 85mm cannon and two thirty caliber machine guns, these things are useful to have, even if your lesbian starcraft vegana brain can't understand.
>Both sides agree with me and not you, hence the use of ancient tanks.
No, both sides do not agree with you, T-34 is not fielded in large quantities.
The logistical costs are absolutely not low, nor do logistics make any difference between hauling X tons of cargo for a T-34 or a T-72. They have to do the work either way.
I have no idea what kind of brain damage you've taken during your life but one hour of work on T-34 is an hour that could be used to service the later T-series elsewhere. This is non-negotiable, they do not service something faster just because it's older.
I honestly think you might be moronic, and at this point making fun of you is moron abuse which is not cool. Life is already likely every challenging for you and I don't need to add to those challenges by mocking you even as you flail about like a moron saying moronic things. "No one should use a T-34, they should just use Abrams instead." Yes anon very insightful thanks for your contributions lmfao. We'll be sure to pass along your secret battle plans to Zelenksy. "Sir, sir! Urgent plans, top secret, this moron online is saying don't use old tanks, instead use just brand new nice tanks!" "Genius!!!"
My points are valid and your points are childish fantasy shit. This is what happens when a moron like you is not euthanized at birth, they go to public places and show everyone what a person can do with 60 IQ 😀
11 months ago
Anonymous
>your points are childish fantasy shit
Yeah like why use old tank when we can just all use brand new tanks? I don't understand are they hard to find now or something? Are people getting desperate and making do with something sub par? No I don't think that's possible. My 45 IQ brain assures me this is wrong.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Remember boys, ONLY use brand new tanks, I know you're new recruits but please this is common sense. Don't show up to the front lines with a T-34, ONLY bring Leopard 2 and Abrams, ok, come on guys we had a powerpoint and everything. When you go to the tank store be sure to ask for NEW tanks only. Get it together.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Look homosexual, here's the facts. >T-34 was blind, even its time >Infantry anti-tank weapons that can skullfrick modern tanks any day of the week are as abundant as water >85mm is inadequate for fighting anything but BMP's and M113's, and its HE was too shit to be useful now for shooting fortifications so it's no good for that either >There's no fricking ammo for the 85 anymore >There's no fricking parts for the tank anymore
A T-34 fielded in Ukraine would get schwacked the moment it showed its blind ass on a modern battlefield, and the crew wouldn't even know what hit them among the infinite number of things that could have done them in. This is assuming that they could even get it on the front, considering that parts for it haven't been made in at least 60 years, perhaps longer. And even if they have original, vintage parts lying in storage (which they do not), those parts are suspect because of age and the corners the soviets cut to get them out faster. And finally, if we're being REAL FRICKIN GENEROUS, and say that it were to actually shoot at something, the only thing hurt would be an APC, or a defensive emplacement; this would be immediately followed by the geriatric machine that made this monumental mistake being obliterated by a Javelin/NLAW/RPG/Kamikaze drone/MT-LB with a D10T/Actual useful tank/TOW/Bradley/TOW launched by Bradley/etc., I could go on but that would be disrespectful to the hypothetical loss of life from such a monumental strategic frickup.
11 months ago
Anonymous
In other words, it's better to use your limited resources and manpower for fewer more modern tanks than many old obsolete tanks
11 months ago
Anonymous
Bingo. If they ever get to a point where they can't do that, they've lost.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>MT-LB with a D10T
MT-LB is probably the closest experience one can get to driving in Ukraine in a T-34 at the moment. Worse armour, worse weapon, and just about as blind.
But to its credit, it's a glorified artillery tractor that's been pressed into an APC role.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Yeah, it's not so good either. Just made sure to bring it up to hammer on the fact that even if so pathetic a threat as the up-gunned artillery tractor spots the T-34 first, which it likely would, the T-34 crew is gigafricked.
Just as well as any ither tank the Russians have. Anything the Ukranians are using to kill it can probably kill T72s. They'd probably be fine as self propelled infantry guns.
Not by design, T-34s had engines and tracks designed to last 2000km, as long as an M4 sherman
The reason for the short lifespan is due to corner cutting during production to reduce man hours
It's actually better protected than a typical IFV, good luck actually hitting anything beyond 1000m though with a 4x magnified sight though.
Also you are also completely blind by modern standards, even compare to like an old T-72.
If you install some homemade mine clearing buldozer to the front it could have some utility to clear the way for the real equipment and not be missed if it gets blown up. Other than that you could use it as a static checkpoint turret to goard a road or smth. Other than that it is just a waste of fuel.
Does anyone other than Veitnam still make 85mm shells? An SU-100 using the much more common T-55's gun would be a better avenue to explore first. However the Covert Cable videos show the Russians have two more years worth of tanks left.
I really hope western governments take this war to heart about keeping old stuff around longer.
Poorly, next question
Good next question
CIA bots.
WW2 tank armor is so unbelievably weak compared to modern armor. The most basic RPG could kill practically any WW2 tank with a frontal hit
Agreed. While Russia is more likely to deploy T-34s than T-14s, no amount of cope bricks and cope cages will save the T-34 from today's weaponry.
>The most basic RPG could kill practically any WW2 tank with a frontal hit
low-velocity 40mm HEDP has 63mm of penetration, T-34 has 45mm of armor
Explain to me like I’m moronant
Small grenade launcher is an AT weapon against T-34s.
Mk19s become an anti-T-34 machine gun.
it would be vulnerable to even an infantry grenade launcher
HEAT doesnt normalize, so it would go through the full 90mm when you take sloping into account
Side armor is only 40 at 40 degrees, for LOS of 52, so HEDP could defeat it with low natural angle
Side turret armor is 50mm with only slight sloping, so thats another good spot to hit
On the contrary, most WWII mediums had either equal or better to the protection of your average IFV. There are things that would punch through a Bradley that the T-34 would glance off.
But the amphibious and paratrooper stuff got real shitty: I'm talking "tanks" with worse protection then your modern level IV vest. Tanks you could punch a hole through from commercially available rounds. Tanks you can probably deform the chassis of with a sledgehammer.
Is that still true, though? Bradley's armor has been upgraded to the point it can withstand certain RPG types while the same rockets would blow a hole into a Sherman.
Maybe the BMP is still paper-thin to keep itself amphibious.
Bradley uses ERA to survive RPGs, an M4 with the same armor could survive the same
M2 brad with best add-on armor is up to 14.5mm all-around and 30mm from the front
Good for an IFV but still worse than an M4 sherman
IFVs have strict size and weight constraints so theres no way to make it that armored and they are usually designed around "don't die" instead of "dont be penetrated" layer of the onion
>an M4 with the same armor could survive the same
>The most basic RPG could kill practically any WW2 tank with a frontal hit
Shit, you could probably mission kill anything short of an Iosif Stalin or a Tiger with a Barrett M82 anti-material rifle.
A tank is a tank. Is basically a fortress on wheels.
In 1943? Good
If ziggers ride on top of BMPs anyway, isn't it a better BMP?
You guys are all looking at this backwards by looking at what kind of survivability it has against anti-tank weapons. Obviously very little. Look instead at what it offers; a mobile platform with an 85mm cannon and two thirty caliber machine guns. That's a potent addition to your force. You must protect it from anti-tank weaponry but as you've clearly recently seen, even the most modern tanks are not immune from the basic things which threaten tanks such as artillery, mines, and flanking fire.
>Look instead at what it offers
No, you look what it TAKES:
>fuel and ammo
>truck and train space that could be used to tranfer something else
>maintenance crews who are already busy
>industrial capacity from russia
>mechanically adept crews who could be used elsewhere
Now make this all happen x1000 and you have a serious problem.
Those costs are low. Easily worth the firepower. Both sides agree with me and not you, hence the use of ancient tanks.
>Those costs are low
the costs are only low if you dont value the crew very much
>Both sides agree with me and not you,
russians didnt start equipping their forces with T-55s and T-62s until they had already used up their stock of T-72s
very difficult to interpret this as anything other than desperation
the ukranians have so far avoided bringing out the antiques, with their arsenal getting steadily more advanced as the war went on
using a T-34 in todays world is utterly silly and non-sensical unless you literally used thousands of them like it was WW2 and you had no care about the occupants making it home alive
the only time the "its better than nothing" argument holds water is if you are literally down to nothing
>the costs are only low if you dont value the crew very much
What is that supposed to mean? Somehow the crew which you now propose to send as infantry without support are suddenly 'valuable' to you? So valuable you don't bother arming them because the 'gasoline is too expensive' KEK. Get your shit together moron.
>russians didnt start equipping their forces with T-55s and T-62s until they had already used up their stock of T-72s. very difficult to interpret this as anything other than desperation
No shit moron. New tank better than old tank. Old tank better than no tank.
>using a T-34 in todays world is utterly silly
Says the comfy b***h at his PC at home. Meanwhile, those in combat with no other tanks, do use T-34. They were also used recently in the Yemeni civil war.
>the only time the "its better than nothing" argument holds water is if you are literally down to nothing
That IS the fricking argument you moron.
>What is that supposed to mean?
using T-34s is dumb
> Old tank better than no tank
if you are down to no tanks, then you shouldnt be sending crew out to die
>Meanwhile, those in combat with no other tanks, do use T-34.
only literal african warlords expect to use T-34s
even T-55s are a dodgy choice
using T-34s un ukraine is stupid
>That IS the fricking argument you moron.
sending men to die in tin cans is usually a good sign that victory is not coming soon
Well we need to pass along your expert military advice to the front lines. The veterans at the front must be told of your bold new ideas.
>Well we need to pass along your expert military advice to the front lines.
most armies wont even use M60s or T-72s
so its broadly agreed that you shouldnt even be at war unless you have something resembling a modern tank
>so its broadly agreed that you shouldnt even be at war
Even better. We MUST inform our veterans that they need to abandon the fight NOW. We have reviewed the battle plans with our most senior NEET advisors who are calculating all possible outcomes in Starcraft simulations as we speak. Although these soldiers find old tanks useful and employ them, our NEET intelligence corps has realized this is a MISTAKE.
>We MUST inform our veterans that they need to abandon the fight NOW
most veterans would probably agree that they should not be sent to the fronts without proper equipment
>k. Although these soldiers find old tanks useful and employ them,
most soldiers would find that the prospect of being left with 80 year old equipment to be a very bad idea
if the situation is so dire that they need a tank that has had 3 generations of men die in them, then there must be something wrong with the grand strategy
>our NEET intelligence corps has realized this is a MISTAKE.
most countries wont even use leopard 1s or M60s, why would they even consider using a T-34?
>if the situation is so dire that they need a tank that has had 3 generations of men die in them, then there must be something wrong with the grand strategy
"My grand strategy is to fight a war without hardship. Easy. We simply don't have supply issues with anything we need during war. All I do is build pylons to get supply to 200/200 cap then we win. Any other strategy is stupid and I'm basically a military genius at age 10." Thanks for the protips starlord. These are very good ideas. The supreme military council will be impressed!
>My grand strategy is to fight a war without hardship
a good place to start is literally sun tzu, dont start a fight you know you cant win
or worded differently, if all you have is garbage, then the only thing you can expect to fight is garbage
>The T-34 is a mobile platform with an 85mm cannon and two thirty caliber machine guns, these things are useful to have
one of those 30s is pretty much blind, co-driver has no periscope and couldnt hit a barn unless they were inside it
the 85mm gun would need to literally drive to point blank to make out their targets due to reliance on the mk1 eyeball
unless you are picking fights with somalian pirates, then its not a good idea to get into a fight at all with them
>dont start a fight you know you cant win
Oh there we are... this is really all about you yelling at Russian conscripts on the internet and pretending you're smarter than them and know better despite them actually fighting and you jerking it to BBC porn. Lmao. good luck on your COUNTEROFFENSIVE lmfao. You'll be in Moscow in two weeks. Surely.
>unless you are picking fights with somalian pirates, then its not a good idea to get into a fight at all with them
Yes sir that's right I said CANCEL the war, immediately, we've made a mistake! No we will not push through hardship we will surrender. Frankly we never should have invaded in the first place, look any basic commander knows you don't use T-34 when you can use Abrams instead. What idiots!
>why would they even consider using a T-34?
Please refer to previous comments. The T-34 is a mobile platform with an 85mm cannon and two thirty caliber machine guns, these things are useful to have, even if your lesbian starcraft vegana brain can't understand.
>Both sides agree with me and not you, hence the use of ancient tanks.
No, both sides do not agree with you, T-34 is not fielded in large quantities.
The logistical costs are absolutely not low, nor do logistics make any difference between hauling X tons of cargo for a T-34 or a T-72. They have to do the work either way.
I have no idea what kind of brain damage you've taken during your life but one hour of work on T-34 is an hour that could be used to service the later T-series elsewhere. This is non-negotiable, they do not service something faster just because it's older.
I honestly think you might be moronic, and at this point making fun of you is moron abuse which is not cool. Life is already likely every challenging for you and I don't need to add to those challenges by mocking you even as you flail about like a moron saying moronic things. "No one should use a T-34, they should just use Abrams instead." Yes anon very insightful thanks for your contributions lmfao. We'll be sure to pass along your secret battle plans to Zelenksy. "Sir, sir! Urgent plans, top secret, this moron online is saying don't use old tanks, instead use just brand new nice tanks!" "Genius!!!"
Cope and seethe, moron, cope and seethe! 😀
My points are valid and your points are childish fantasy shit. This is what happens when a moron like you is not euthanized at birth, they go to public places and show everyone what a person can do with 60 IQ 😀
>your points are childish fantasy shit
Yeah like why use old tank when we can just all use brand new tanks? I don't understand are they hard to find now or something? Are people getting desperate and making do with something sub par? No I don't think that's possible. My 45 IQ brain assures me this is wrong.
Remember boys, ONLY use brand new tanks, I know you're new recruits but please this is common sense. Don't show up to the front lines with a T-34, ONLY bring Leopard 2 and Abrams, ok, come on guys we had a powerpoint and everything. When you go to the tank store be sure to ask for NEW tanks only. Get it together.
Look homosexual, here's the facts.
>T-34 was blind, even its time
>Infantry anti-tank weapons that can skullfrick modern tanks any day of the week are as abundant as water
>85mm is inadequate for fighting anything but BMP's and M113's, and its HE was too shit to be useful now for shooting fortifications so it's no good for that either
>There's no fricking ammo for the 85 anymore
>There's no fricking parts for the tank anymore
A T-34 fielded in Ukraine would get schwacked the moment it showed its blind ass on a modern battlefield, and the crew wouldn't even know what hit them among the infinite number of things that could have done them in. This is assuming that they could even get it on the front, considering that parts for it haven't been made in at least 60 years, perhaps longer. And even if they have original, vintage parts lying in storage (which they do not), those parts are suspect because of age and the corners the soviets cut to get them out faster. And finally, if we're being REAL FRICKIN GENEROUS, and say that it were to actually shoot at something, the only thing hurt would be an APC, or a defensive emplacement; this would be immediately followed by the geriatric machine that made this monumental mistake being obliterated by a Javelin/NLAW/RPG/Kamikaze drone/MT-LB with a D10T/Actual useful tank/TOW/Bradley/TOW launched by Bradley/etc., I could go on but that would be disrespectful to the hypothetical loss of life from such a monumental strategic frickup.
In other words, it's better to use your limited resources and manpower for fewer more modern tanks than many old obsolete tanks
Bingo. If they ever get to a point where they can't do that, they've lost.
>MT-LB with a D10T
MT-LB is probably the closest experience one can get to driving in Ukraine in a T-34 at the moment. Worse armour, worse weapon, and just about as blind.
But to its credit, it's a glorified artillery tractor that's been pressed into an APC role.
Yeah, it's not so good either. Just made sure to bring it up to hammer on the fact that even if so pathetic a threat as the up-gunned artillery tractor spots the T-34 first, which it likely would, the T-34 crew is gigafricked.
>Both sides agree with me
and both side are hyper moronic if you look at what is happening, and so are you
Just as well as any ither tank the Russians have. Anything the Ukranians are using to kill it can probably kill T72s. They'd probably be fine as self propelled infantry guns.
It's still a gun with tracks.
That being said, the two puppet proxy republics already mounted old D-10 AT gusn onto MTLBs which gives you pretty much the same thing.
It's obviously obsolete. And the Russians don't have the spare parts to maintain it properly.
But for Ukrainian infantry, it'd still be nasty to fight against without anti tank weapons.
they would break the frick down dumbass, those tanks were disposable by design
Not by design, T-34s had engines and tracks designed to last 2000km, as long as an M4 sherman
The reason for the short lifespan is due to corner cutting during production to reduce man hours
tank is tank
using t-34 is typical russian genius that arrogant anglo-saxons cannot understand
I am reminded of a certain book.
>mg proof
>has gun
>has machine gun(s)
>2 tracks
>reasonably fast
looks good enough for a mobilnik
>mobilnik
That's what a mobile phone called in russian
It's actually better protected than a typical IFV, good luck actually hitting anything beyond 1000m though with a 4x magnified sight though.
Also you are also completely blind by modern standards, even compare to like an old T-72.
T-34-76 obr. 2023. 1A40 system added, designation changed to BMP-34
If you install some homemade mine clearing buldozer to the front it could have some utility to clear the way for the real equipment and not be missed if it gets blown up. Other than that you could use it as a static checkpoint turret to goard a road or smth. Other than that it is just a waste of fuel.
I wonder if it would even do okay as a recovery vehicle.
I'm sure we'll find out soon enough
Does anyone other than Veitnam still make 85mm shells? An SU-100 using the much more common T-55's gun would be a better avenue to explore first. However the Covert Cable videos show the Russians have two more years worth of tanks left.
I really hope western governments take this war to heart about keeping old stuff around longer.
I have the feeling we'll have a definitive answer in a year, tops.
Better then nothing.
it can be used effectivly with the right tactics