Is the T-34's performance during WW2 overrated? Posted on March 17, 2023 by PrepHole Contributor Is the T-34's performance during WW2 overrated?
I don’t know
Can you repeat the question?
YOU'RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME NOW
AND YOU'RE NOT SO BIG
You got me with that one.
On paper, it was a very good design for its time, better conceived then the Panzer IV.
What the Soviets tended to make was not the on-paper design though.
Jesus Christ anon can't you get anything right?
>On paper, it was a very good design for its time
It absolutely wasn't you retarded moron. have a nice day, christielover.
It was the best tank for Soviets. Spam tanks that were good enough. Germans made high end stuff that took too many man hours to produce.
>It was the best tank for Soviets.
No it wasn't.
>Germans made high end stuff that took too many man hours to produce.
Fucking fudd retard
>Panzer III (Pre 1943)
>4,000 Man Hours
>Panzer III (Post 1943)
>2,000 Man Hours
>8,000 Man Hours
>3,700 Man Hours
>absolute horrible to use
>barely able to use it in battle due to that
>can't use it for longer than half an hour until you're drained
>can't see shit
>can't shoot what you can't see
>breaks down all the time
>gets stuck all the time
It didn't have notably lower ground-pressure than any other tank, so
The sloped armor quickly yielded to the updated German guns and at that point the drawbacks it caused were permanent and terrible.
The main gun was good, if it worked, which it often didn't and when it did it was inaccurate as hell (not because of the basic design, especially the later introduced ZiS was actually a pretty good gun).
>The existence of the T-34 and KV heavy tanks proved a psychological shock to German soldiers, who had expected to face an inferior enemy.
Fuddlore, the Germans killed thousands of T-34s even early in barbarossa. The real issue was tehm confusing the KV with the t34 since they called both the new Russian tank. The KV was an issue at first but didn't stay one very long because the army adapted, at which point it turned into a worse T34, which even the russkis realised.
If you think it was good on paper you know nothing about tanks.
Being able to actually spot and fight your enemy always matters.
The last Panzer III was produced in 1943:)
Even the Panther only took about 2000 man hours, anon.
The T34 being quick and cheap to produce is a pure myth. The soviets just had an unlimited number of quasi-slaves to do it with.
But the Panther had the worst chassis
That is the most retarded thing I ever heard.
the chassis was fine for 35 ton, but not the 45 ton it ended up being
Anon the Panther only weighing 35 tons would give it like 10mm armor. I don't think you understand how heavy steel is.
>It didn't have notably lower ground-pressure than any other tank
you're looking at nominal ground pressure, i suppose. the wide and long-pitch tracks gave t-34 a low mean maximal pressure over soft ground
>Fuddlore, the Germans killed thousands of T-34s even early in barbarossa.
lol there were like 500 t34s in the whole soviet union early in the war stfu
There were about a thousand of them on day one and the Soviets lost 2,500 T-34s on 41 alone.
It was shit and was slaughtered like everything else they had
you can't compare man-hours in 2 different countries.
The germans had a much better developed and modern heavy industry than the soviets. Of course they could make tanks faster. It probably would have taken 12k man hours to make a pz.3 in russia, or 1500 to make a t34 in russia.
t34 in germany *
Guess youve never been involved in manufacturing, overall a higher quality product takes less time to make. Poorly put together shit, with poor tolerances takes way longer to make
>good usage of sloped armor
>solid man gun
A solid medium tank.
>two men turret
it was exactly the tank that's "good on paper" but horrid to actually fight in.
Not an issue when you massively outnumber your enemy, and your war effort is being bankrolled by a foreign power.
These post have been identified as a 'Dumb post'. Average IQ of post: 84.37 (+-5, Confidence 95%).
Recommendations: Stop posting immediately, as you are either A. Retarded, or B. A Third Worlder with a Low IQ.
This is a GPT-4 Bot. If you found this bot to be helpful, please respond with "Good Bot"
I think anyone that says "on paper" must be retarded. It's one of those phrases so abused it's meaningless.
He's a literal gay retard. It's why he copes and tries to defer to experts like the chieftan, but then goes and ignores what other experts that disagree with him say.
The US didn't have anything that compete with KV or T34 in 1940 or 1941.
Basically everything he says is a half-truth or confirmation bias. He's a fucking retard. You are for believing him. The only reason he made this video is to fuel his hateboner for russia.
>1:10 tanks break down before even arriving at the battlefield
Maybe in 1941, but only because of catastrophic supply issues and tanks being forced to travel for well beyond their maintenance period. The early T34 issues have become overstated at this point.
Combo breaker and also yes.
Shit sucked and had horrible reliability, the meme about them being cheap and bad but reliable is complete nonsense, they cost about as much as a sherman to make, which is why the factory that made 60% of them left out over half of its parts, it was actually fucking terrible in many ways, particularly the soft-factors that actually let you use the thing (which tend to not be represented in video games) and it was incredibly unreliable.
The only positive that can be said about it is that it only survived for about 4 hours on average once it entered battle anyway so it didn't matter if it couldn't be used for longer operations because it broke down fast and hard.
Consider this: Germans captured literal thousands of them, often abandoned without any real damage from the start of barbarossa all the way to the end of the war and still barely used any.
>The existence of the T-34 and KV heavy tanks proved a psychological shock to German soldiers, who had expected to face an inferior enemy. The T-34 was superior to any tank the Germans then had in service. The diary of Alfred Jodl seems to express surprise at the appearance of the T-34 in Riga.
That’s not true, they were shocked they had so many tanks.
you better not be quoting german reports made afterwards by krauts trying to prove their value to allied forces.
You are using a quote but not citing it are you trying to be as retarded as possible?
> Consider this: Germans captured literal thousands of them, often abandoned without any real damage from the start of barbarossa all the way to the end of the war and still barely used any
This is wrong. Even though parts and ammo being in short supply for the Germans and resulted in many tanks being cannibalized or repurposed, the practice was widespread enough to be well-documented
>This is wrong. Even though parts and ammo being in short supply for the Germans and resulted in many tanks being cannibalized or repurposed, the practice was widespread enough to be well-documented
It wasn't "widesoread" but the exception. Soviets lost 55k t34s, nearly none of them became Beutepanzer.
A tiny amount, much too tiny to be relevant and out of desperation, got converted.
>stalin wasn't being objective
When it was introduced, it was better than anything the Germans had in service and German tank design and modernization/conversion from 1941 onward was a direct response to it and the KV tank.
>wodkamoronboos on my PrepHole
"''Now ... there are a lot of complains about the T-34. You all know the reasons for flaws in the tanks. The first reason –inadequate visibility from the tank; the second reason, and this is the weak link that always accompanies our vehicle in the Army – final drive. And third, the main issue that we have today – insufficient strength of the idler wheel's crank. These issues are the major defects of the T-34 today. Having considered these issues from engineering and technological points of view I would like to discuss another issue, the one that directly resulted solely from our production deficiencies. They are: negligence during production of combat vehicles in the factories, carelessness of assembly and quality control of vehicles. As a result during combat employment our tanks sometimes cannot reach the front lines, or after getting to the territory occupied by the enemy for conducting combat operations, sometimes they are forced to remain on enemy's territory because of some little things... We have to make sure that as a result of this conference all shortcoming will be uncovered and following this conference all corrections in the tank will be implemented in the shortest possible time...
Recently comrade Morozov and I visited comrade Stalin. Comrade Stalin drew our attention to the fact that enemy tanks cover a lot of ground freely, and our machines although are better, but have a disadvantage: after 50 or 80 kilometers march they require repair.
What are we talking about? It is because of control gear; also, as comrade Stalin said, because of drive gear, and he compared it with the Pz.III, which is in service with the German army, and which is inferior in armor protection, and in other features, and in crew's layout, and does not have such a fine engine, which the T-34 got, moreover its engine is gasoline, not diesel. But the question arises – why its drive gear is developed better?
Comrade Stalin gave directives to engineers, to the People's Commissar comrade Zaltsman, to factory's CEOs and ordered them to fix all defects in the shortest time. A special order of the State Defense Committee has been issued on the subject as well as directives of the People's Commissariat of the Tank Industry. Despite all these resolutions have been made by Government and orders of the People's Commissar of the Tank Industry, despite repeated instructions from army units and from Main Directorate of the Armored Forces, which is in charge of combat vehicles operation, nevertheless all of these defects on vehicles are going on... We have to reveal all these flaws, and suggestions have to be made on at this conference how to modify machine component better and faster in order to make the T-34 tank, which is recognized in the army as a good tank, even better fighting machine.''
TLDNR: T34 reliability sucked dick (especially early on).
For more info:
Actually read the books if you're interested in more in-depth stuff though.
>especially early on
But you're ignoring the fact that it did improve massively throughout the war. A 1944 T-34 and a 1941 T-34 are completely different vehicles. Notably the page you linked says basically nothing about how the vehicle and production of it actually improved over time. I will begrudgingly (yes it's leddit) link an alternative page that has a massive amount of citations and quotations that run contrary to the myth that all T-34s were barely functional unreliable tinderboxes throughout the entire war. And it also shits on le funny pig's take so all the better.
>were barely functional unreliable tinderboxes throughout the entire war
Definitely they even included a chart showing that they were meeting their standards most of the time for 6 months.
>Is the T-34's performance during WW2 overrated?
When you talk about if a World War II tank is good then "when" is a very important point to stipulate. At the very beginning of the war the T-34 had a massive advantage, strong all around armor against the German 37mm and a powerful 76mm main gun. Germans even called their main anti-tank guns "door knockers" and rushed to build makeshift tank destroyers called Marders to buy time.
As the Germans adapted, started fielding StuG III's and Panzer IV's with the long 75mm and Tiger tanks the T-34's fatal flaw became apparent. The tank only had a 2 man turret with no cupola so the nearly blind gunner was playing double duty as commander and this drastically diminished the tanks ability to operate. Around this time the T-34 was probably the worst medium tank to be in when compared to the Sherman and Panzer IV. (ignoring Japanese, British and Italian tanks of course)
At the start of 44 it saw it's most substantial upgrade, the T-34/85 which had a new bigger turret. The 76mm main gun which was powerful early war but now struggled against new tanks was replaced with a more adequate 85mm cannon. The most important change was a 3 man turret with a dedicated commander and a proper cupola.
I would say the effectiveness of the T-34 was U shaped, a strong start before hitting a low point due to turret design and a strong recovery in the final quarter. I would also point out it that in typical Soviet fashion it was probably one of the least safe tanks as it was a tightly enclosed space that was difficult to get out of and the tanks ammo had a tendency to brew up when hit. It's been mythologized sure but it was a good solid tank when it was at the top of its game.
>I would say the effectiveness of the T-34 was U shaped, a strong start before hitting a low point due to turret design and a strong recovery in the final quarter.
I agree that it got better later but if you look at the actual results it achieved it kinda sucked early on already. Despite being massively undergunned with 37mm guns the Germans killed them by the hundreds.
Should've listened to Hitler when he demanded that the German standard tank gun should be the long 50mm even before France already instead of ignoring him and hoping he forgets it.
Or I guess Hitler should've threatened executions earlier. Not possible my ass.
>I agree that it got better later but if you look at the actual results it achieved it kinda sucked early on already.
Though how much of that was the Soviet's sucking early on just in a nice tank, you know pearls to swine and all that. They lost ridiculous amounts of men and equipment in the early days until they got their shit together... like more than they lost in the entire Ukraine War so far in months.
>Should've listened to Hitler when he demanded that the German standard tank gun should be the long 50mm even before France already instead of ignoring him and hoping he forgets it.
For all the talk of "Hitler meddling" it really was a mixed bag. If I remember right it was Hitler who ordered the Ardennes offensive against the advice of his generals which led to a quick victory in France and prevented a repeat of WW1.
Hitler was also against Citadel which if he had been listened too might’ve allowed Germany to last longer because they wouldn’t have a been sucker punched by later Soviet Offensives.
My favorite youtuber and the history channel and my AP European history teacher all said that Hitler was an idiot clown who would have won if he'd just listened to his generals. If you make arguments to the contrary, I will just claim you are "defending Hitler" from my righteous criticisms, and I will then feel smug and assured of having won the debate.
but even right at the start Panzer 3's were knocking them out.
T-34 obr. 2024
Nyet. Not enough ERA
>Powerful main gun
Both the L11 and F34 were trash guns. The ap shells were also poorly made and in short supply. If anything the gun was a hinderence since panzer3&4s with the upgraded frontal armor could stop the shells if it wasn't a point blank shot
Uparmored panzer <5s could barely move lol. Not their fault btw, it’s just that you can’t do much with a <20 ton design
Btw HE is the most important shell type for tanks. Stop playing WoT
>Uparmored panzer <5s could barely move lol
NTA but that's not the case.
>Btw HE is the most important shell type for tanks. Stop playing WoT
One of the T34 guns actually lacked a real one iirc, I'm sure some anon knows which one I mean. The one before the Zis2
Yes, but it is funny to pretend that it is the greatest tank of all time which was cheap, rugged, and vastly superior to every other allied tank.
On paper, sure, but it was aids to fight in and had poor crew surviveability. Many were not made to spec, and every surviving example was a post war propaganda piece built in the 1950s and later.
Luckily for the soviets the germans had retarded plannig. Its a tad overrated
The Panther's suspension was overengineered, and the Schachtellaufwerk interleaved road wheel system made replacing inner road wheels time-consuming (though it could operate with missing or broken wheels). The interleaved wheels also had a tendency to become clogged with mud, rocks and ice, and could freeze solid overnight in the harsh winter weather that followed the autumn rasputitsa mud season on the Eastern Front. Shell damage could cause the road wheels to jam together and become difficult to separate.
who asked + cristie suspesions lmao
The British were using the Christie suspension into the post-war period.
the brits had heavily invested in a bunch of countermeasures to try and outweigh its downsides and stabilize the gun.
unlike the t-34.
and the t-34 got stuck in the mud just as much.
Suspension was a development dead end and they boxed themselves into a design corner. Welds were shit, optics were shit, early turrets were shit, transmission was a brapphogg requiring an hammer to unstuck ... the sheer mass of them produced had its own quality, but in absolute terms the Sherman was the best tank of the war. T-34 was annoyingly adequate for the grok production values mostly.
>Panther's suspension was overengineered
Kraut maintenance procedures made it a matter of indifference, which is why they went with it anyways -- it's too fucking muddy in Commieland, and the additional flotation was mandatory for the design requirements of armor & gunnery overmatch
Various factors about the T-34, especially about reliability, are exaggerated as well as other aspects of it's performance. However, it could made relatively quickly and put up an actual fight. It is a case of going, perfect is overrated good enough is how you win. Which in an attritional conflict on your own soil, is probably the better option.
One of the reasons why so many flaws and manufacturing defects were in the T-34's, the quality of individual tanks varied wildly depending on factory, is because they knew the flaws existed. However, in the name of expediency of production, design flaws which were well known, weren't fixed. Since that would take retooling and retraining of workers to new standards when they simply needed vehicles in the field.
Was the T-34 a good vehicle? For the Soviets in the position they were in? Yes. Compared to it's contempories, it was average design with garbage quality control, but that didn't matter if the vehicles service lifespan was concluded to be two weeks.
The issue with Panther was it's final drive was fragile as glass, and god help you if you were a mechanic and you had to fix the transmission.
>Was the T-34 a good vehicle? For the Soviets in the position they were in?
Actually the answer to both is no, fudd.
Prove me wrong.
Nah now that the one youtuber historian released a hit piece on it and the Ukranian war tanked any good will people have towards Russia its pretty fairly rated. Russians love it and for good reason it helped save their dumb asses. It was a decent tank and thats all it needed to be to be pumped out quick. The steel may have been brittle or the welds may have been poor just like German tanks at the end of the war but the gun still worked when you kicked the lever.
Except the Sherman was cheaper to produce and a better tank to boot.
There's stories of Soviet Sherman crews having to guard their tanks from the T34 crews to prevent theft of components. Should really tell you everything you need to know.
Also, if your steel if brittle in use then it doesn't matter what your technical specs are.
Still killed plenty of Germans, many more than the lend lease Shermans did. Should really tell you everything you need to know.
>Still killed plenty of Germans, many more than the lend lease Shermans did.
Oh wow the tank that outnumbered lend-lease Sherman’s killed more enemy tanks. What a fucking revelation
Oh wow it's almost like the tank worked despite all its flaws. What a fucking revelation
>Oh wow it's almost like the tank worked
Actually, usually it didn't.
More than the German ones and thats what mattered.
Not according to comrade Stalin
Who won the war sis? Which tank was pictured driving into Berlin in droves? They all seemed to be working and killing Germans just fine??? Try a little harder sis. The T34 got better as the Germans became the ones with the sloppy QC issues like bad welds and brittle armor, a point that even the posts you want to use make.
>Who won the war sis?
>Which tank was pictured driving into Berlin in droves?
Reminder that the US Army had to hold back to give the Russians enough time to even arrive in Berlin.
>They all seemed to be working and killing Germans just fine???
>take horrendous casualties and lose several times as many tanks as your enemy
>The T34 got better
Not really, none of the most fundamental problems were ever fixed even after the war.
I accept your conceit, its okay to lose
>>take horrendous casualties and lose several times as many tanks as your enemy
To be fair that is the Russia “strategy”. If you bleed on the enemy enough they will probably drown
Explains the Ukraine.
>the tank worked
>usually it didn't.
>More than the German ones
>Not according to comrade Stalin
kek, vatniks and their delusions
Sorry your side lost sweetie.
Name a side that won that isn't israel.
>inb4 actually the soviets enslaving 99% of their population was a pretty good deal compared to becoming a German protectorate
No the US won
Oh wow it’s almost like no one claimed it didn’t work. I should have clocked your backpedal on that one. Might be fast enough to get you drafted
You must be ESL if you can't understand the point from the very beginning was that the tank had flaws but still won the war.
Australia came out okay. Hmm maybe not.
>the point from the very beginning
> Still killed plenty of Germans, many more than the lend lease Shermans did. Should really tell you everything you need to know
The point is you don’t understand per unit metrics. Because all they teach you in snow Nigeria is how to make vodka from potatoes and how to rape other men in the army
Sorry I struck a nerve sweetie.
>get proven to be an idiot
>nooooo you’re the one who’s upset
You pulled the
And act like you won. Bravo on showing us more vatmoron delusions
sherman was absolute shitbox that barely saw any combat against peak form enemy. Even then during the post 1943 mop up it got a rep for burning its crews as soon as some ragtag volkssturm sneezed on it
Burgers can take pride in their safe and untouchable manufacturing hub safely tucked away behind giant oceans and supplying everybody to the teeth. Aside from the air campaign that is about the main contribution they had to WW2 euro theater
It's St. Patrick's day not opposite day guy
Actually, battles in Korea showed the M4 to be the equal to the late model T-34/85s.
>Even then during the post 1943 mop up it got a rep for burning its crews as soon as some ragtag volkssturm sneezed on it
You realize that's a meme, right? The M4 Sherman brewed up less than other tanks once it got wet ammo storage. In fact, there are anecdotes that suggest the T-34 was actually more of a death trap. The Driver's Hatch had to be screwed in place before the driver and hull gunner could escape and the ammo had less stabilizers in it so it would explode faster in case of an ammo fire.
Did you get your opinions from the history channel? Sherman was the best tank of the war statistically speaking. After wet ammo stowage it was one of the safest tanks. It was easy to repair and fairly modular for the time. It was also one of the most reliable ta is of the war.
There is more to a tank than engaging armor which almost never happened.
>It was also one of the most reliable ta is of the war.
NTA but that is heavily overstated and really just 99% based on the American logistics system and the way the army counted readiness.
And also the War Office was incredibly autistic about how long tank parts had to last post assembly line. Because all the fighting was oceans away from America.
It's intertwined. Anecdotes of LL Shermans suggests that they were extremely reliable and the fact that the nearest factories were overseas gave great incentive to make sure the tanks broke down as little as possible. It's also true that the US sent over enough spare parts to make entirely new tanks if needed. We can even see signs of the ease of maintenance with how the gun mantlet and transmission housings were held on by oversized bolts rather than rivets or welds.
>Anecdotes [...] suggests
The panther was actually specifically designed for ease of maintenance and was extremely easy to maintain in a lot of ways, engine swaps could be done in about 15 minutes by a good support crew in the field.
But I doubt any of those anecdotes are going to lead to some great heel-turn on the panther maintenance question anytime soon in the public consciousness.
To reiterate: Shermans got the vast majority of their reputation for reliability from the fact that they had the American maintenance apparatus ready to take care of all of their needs at all times. Maintenance isn't just about fixing what's broken, it's actually mostly about ensuring things don't break in the first place. And the American logistics system made that several orders of magnitude easier than any other. One of the reasons why Russians didn't really care about their T34s breaking down all the time wasn't just that they didn't expect to survive too long in any given battle, they were also aware that due to their fucked system shipping new ones to the front was often easier than repairing old ones.
>The panther was actually specifically designed for ease of maintenance...
IIRC it was possible to the same job on a Sherman could in a half an hour.
you do not recall correctly. it took several hours
i'll trust the technical manuals vs some internet infographic
>i'll trust the technical manuals
Post the time requirements from the manuals then.
i did: "several hours"
kek almost all german tanks had the transmission and final drives at the front, too
Anon and I were talking about the engine, not transmission, guys.
Funfact: They actually figured out an excellent transmission after a while, but due to production restrictions because of the massive bombing campaigns they went to the jagdpanther, since they needed them way more because it was even heavier at the front. The good news is that they ended up extremely reliable in the Jagdpanther and solved its issues, the bad news is that I have no idea if any overproduction went to normal Panthers.
But transmission failures were massively reduced even without that after the teething period. By the 8th of July during Citadel, Panzer Abteilung 52 had only experienced 5 transmission failures.
>Anon and I were talking about the engine, not transmission, guys.
the panther is having its transmission removed in that image, so anon seemed not to have been talking about the engine
The Panther is getting its transmission replaced in that image, but I don't think anon was aware.
Or maybe he didn't care.
Or maybe he just thought it's a good image regardless.
well plus he referenced the sherman havintg the same job done in half an hour. moran has overplayed how simple and fast it was to remove the sherman's transmission, and since the sherman had several different engines i think anon changed the subject to try to make the sherman seem better than the panther in this regard
>try to make the sherman seem better than the panther in this regard
The Sherman was better in that regard.
How long did it take to swap out a Sherman engine?
how long did it take the panther's transmission to be removed versus the sherman's?
>Anon and I were talking about the engine, not transmission, guys.
I'm the guy who responded and posted the pic ....The discussion was exactly about the transmission.
>I'm the guy who responded and posted the pic ....The discussion was exactly about the transmission.
I started this by posting this
And I clearly talked about the engine, that's why I wrote engine.
>IIRC it was possible to the same job
How is changing the transmission the same job as changing the engine without modern powerpacks?
I re-read your post, you got me there so i'll give you points on that one. Overall though, the Panther was still shit mechanically and dubiously design in some aspects. That being said, it is one of my all time favorite tanks.
I wasn't trying to make any points I was just confused because everybody acted like an angry retard for no rea-
Oh yeah I'm on PrepHole.
From wiki-"The M4A2s used by the Red Army were considered to be much-less prone to blow up due to ammunition detonation than their T-34/76 but had a higher tendency to overturn in road accidents and collisions or because of rough terrain due to their much-higher center of gravity.
Under Lend-Lease, 4,102 M4A2 medium tanks were sent to the Soviet Union. Of these, 2,007 were equipped with the original 75 mm main gun, with 2,095 mounting the more-capable 76 mm tank gun. The total number of Sherman tanks sent to the U.S.S.R. under Lend-Lease represented 18.6% of all Lend-Lease Shermans.
The first 76mm-armed M4A2 diesel-fuel Shermans started to arrive in Soviet Union in the late summer of 1944. By 1945, some Red Army armoured units were standardized to depend primarily on them and not on their ubiquitous T-34. Such units include the 1st Guards Mechanized Corps, the 3rd Guards Mechanized Corps, 6th Guards Tank Army and the 9th Guards Mechanized Corps, amongst others. The Sherman was largely held in good regard and viewed positively by many Soviet tank-crews which operated it before, with compliments mainly given to its reliability, ease of maintenance, generally good firepower (referring especially to the 76mm-gun version) and decent armour protection, as well as an auxiliary power unit (APU) to keep the tank's batteries charged without having to run the main engine for the same purpose as the Soviets' own T-34 tank required."
>sherman was absolute shitbox
People appear to be in the part of the cycle where they shit-talk it all the time, so I would say it's presently underrated, if anything.
The shit-talk is justified so no.
Anon wtf is going on in that image? Why would anyone hold a grenade like that? Or take the pin off for that matter? Why is one of the girls literally braindead (ok I guess that answers one of the previous questions)
I've seen plenty of ooc pics in this board but that has to be the most distracting of the bunch.
Well it looks like she has a gut wound too that may be the reason for the delirious look
> Partner got shot in the gut
> She's literally drooling and deadpan, lights on but no one's home
> Ram a nade between her boobs
> Pull the pin
> Keep arguing with that other gal over there like nothing weird's going on
I still have so many questions.
I *think* it's a reference to a movie, but idfk what movie. Quick reverse image search says "The Dogs of War", but I don't think that's right
Welp, thanks for the attempt. I couldn't find any movie with something like this but it must be referencing something that's for sure. Because otherwise I don't see the reason to hand a pinless grenade to a braindead (literally) person sitting right beside you.
I think it's "You better hurry, she can't keep squeezing them titties together forever." If she dies, she drops the grenade, and it kills everyone, so it's an incentive to hurry the fuck up lol. At least I think
>Take a monkey, place him into the cockpit and he is able to drive the car
Late war ones were okay. Most you see were actually built post war with proper heat treat. During the war they had a plethora of issues. Super hardened steel led to brittle armor, poor welds and plate cut not to spec led to gaps in the armor. Most t34s did not have radios. The optics in the t34 sucked. No dedicated commander, the commander was also the gunner. Sloped armor led to a cramped interior. With the innovation of the t33 85 it was a fine machine with most of the kinks worked out.
Best tank of the war was the Sherman by far.
Yes....sorta. Wartime T-34s were made without quality control so you'd have something like 1:10 tanks break down before even arriving at the battlefield. You also had issues like tanks being sent out without gunsights, tanks without weather sealing for the electronics, tanks sent out without radios. Really, a lot of these tanks were just plain terrible and the rate of breakdowns was apalling. Even on paper, the T-34 was mid with it's driver's hatch cut through the glacis plate and using the Christie suspension without any modificiations.
Still, a shit tank is better than no tank and the T-34s were produced in large numbers.
Yes. It was absolute dogshit in practice and acceptable in paper. It's only good thing was that if it's armor didn't break once hit by a 37mm, then it could advance and still use fuck-you 76.2mm (and then 85mm) HE to blow whatever kraut was in the general area of the tank (because it's optics suck ass). I'd they has made an actually competent tank (or at least kept with good production methods) it'd wouldn't have performed so fucking underwhelmingly, and that's not even tackling it's reliability problems. There's a reason the spearhead divisions had either Shermans (or any lend lease vehicle for that matter) with heavy tanks besides them, while T-34s were what you used to just spam at the enemy.
Ab so frigging lutely. T34 was an active hinderance to the war effort. Even a somewhat mediocre tank would have been objectively better. Hell even many prior russian designs would have been better. For reasons explained in the video above.
People only think the T34 was good because of Russia's insane amounts of propaganda spending. The tank was shit. I mean fuck German designs weren't the best either. God damned always zoomed in gunner signs "oh but they're night vision" great so you can't find shit in the IR spectrum either, real helpful! But the T-34 took the cake as possibly the worst tank of the war. And I'm counting the surplus bullshit partisans used. Because no other vehicle caused nearly as much damage to its nation as it.
jesus christ it was just a matter of time i suppose. what a piece of shit video
Shoo shoo gonzalo
I think Lazerpig goes a bit too even if the T-34 was pretty shit.
If you really want to see a Soviet War Winner, look at the PPsh-41. They were cheap enough that the Soviets could field millions of them and just one at close range could savage a squad of bolt action armed germans.
>and just one at close range could savage a squad of bolt action armed germans.
Have you ever handled one? The fast rate of fire is nice but it's also empty pretty fast and the real world isn't a CS:GO match.
Also every German squad had a machine gun and squad leaders tended to carry their own smg.
That's where the cheapness came in. You could throw thousands at a position, loose 90%, and still have enough firepower to pull through. In many ways it was like the Sten with a larger magazine. The PPSh is a crude thing but generally quite reliable. Since both armies were still mostly infantry a submarchine gun like that wold have a far greater influence on the war than a tank.
Bro what the fuck kind of video game garbage are you shitting out of your fingers today?
> You could throw thousands at a position, loose 90%, and still have enough firepower to pull through.
Are you retarded? That's not how it worked and Russians didn't have unlimited capacity to ferry ammo to any point either.
>In many ways it was like the Sten with a larger magazine.
No it wasn't. Those guns are very different aside from the relatively simple manufacturing.
>The PPSh is a crude thing but generally quite reliable.
No it wasn't and the mags often had issues and only worked with certain guns.
>Since both armies were still mostly infantry a submarchine gun like that wold have a far greater influence on the war than a tank.
How the fuck are you going to break through a line defended by even a single machine gun with submachine guns?
You underestimate the usefulness of a machine gun and artillery and tanks all at once.
You're literally just half a step removed from WWI thinking, but in the wrong direction because while they underestimated SMGs for a long time at least they understood artillery.
Actually, scratch that, they understood the effect of machine guns on infantry pretty quickly too, you're just a retard.
>Are you retarded? That's not how it worked and Russians didn't have unlimited capacity to ferry ammo to any point either.
Didn't say they did, merely that they could.
>No it wasn't. Those guns are very different aside from the relatively simple manufacturing.
They're both open bolt blowbacks.
>No it wasn't and the mags often had issues and only worked with certain guns.
>My experience has been that, with good (not overloaded) drum magazines or stick magazines, the PPSh-41 is very reliable. Original drum magazines were, I believe, serial-numbered to the gun, and those worked most reliably
But more to the point, the PPSh-41 was a bigger contributer to the war than the T-34. Disregarding that the early model T-34 was a piece of shit and even later T-34s were mid, the fact is that while about 50,000 T-34s and T-34/85s were made 6 MILLION PPSh-41s were made. For the aggressive shocktrooper like tactics you need to support a tank breakthrough you need a highly mobile and hard hitting weapon that can clear out AT positions. This is esspecially useful in urban combat where tanks are weak and in the latter days of WW2 when the Red Army started to use massed artillery to support infantry pushes.
>Didn't say they did, merely that they could.
But they literally couldn't, that's the point. Moving supplies to an area in a set amount of time brings restrictions no matter how much they have stored somewhere.
>They're both open bolt blowbacks.
>My experience has been that
Wrong century, moron.
>But more to the point, the PPSh-41 was a bigger contributer to the war than the T-34.
The mosin was a bigger contributer than both, but that's not the point you tried to make.
>The mosin was a bigger contributer than both, but that's not the point you tried to make.
It is in a roundabout way. The T-34 just wasn't a war winner. It needed disproportionate logistics due to parts breaking down all the time and disproportionate infantry support because the periscopes were generally shit. The PPSh-41 was a dinky submachinegun but it was far more cost effective than the T-34.
I think we can all agree that Russian mothers from 1910-1925 were the most cost effective war winners
>Original drum magazines were, I believe, serial-numbered to the gun, and those worked most reliably
Nice self own moron. That was his point. You needed mags matched to each gun. It’s not like STANAG where if it works in one gun it’ll work in another.
He sounds like a gay and I won't spend time finding out what the retard thinks, but he can't be too far off the mark when he's shitting on the t34.
He is a gay. No, literally I'm not insulting. He's also an scotsman, and an alcoholic, tho that one's redundant. Still, man knows his tanks, and is really good at dismantling bollocks.
>man knows his tanks
have you actually watched any of his tank videos?
yes, all of them
Lazerpig thinks being drunk while making a video is makes him funny and entertaining. Also he loves bragging about being a homosexual. He's an annoying piece of shit and he deserves no credibility
if the panzerfaust had been mass produced a few years earlier it wouldn't have mattered as much
but as the war was it was a influential weapon with good enough performance
The ones operated by Muscovites were terrible, the ones operated by Ukrainians performed excellently
The Sherman mogged the T-34 in every aspect save for a slightly worse gun.
The Sherman was also two years newer, which, while not sounding like much on paper was a lot in terms of WWII tank design. The first batch of (400) T-34's had already been produced when the M4 Sherman was in the drawing-board stage. WWII was a period of incredibly rapid advancement in tank design and manufacture. When Operation Barbarossa took place in June 1941, the Panzer III, T-26, and BT-series tanks were considered top of the line, battle-proven designs, and by late 1943, they weren't considered fit for frontline service. The Soviets and Germans both had tens of thousands of tanks in service while the Americans had a few hundred light tanks, the US had to do a lot of catching up in terms of its armored forces and organization, US histories of the early war fully acknowledge it, the US Secretary of the Army even said that "at the outset of the war, the United States did not possess even a fourth-rate army." That the US ended the war with a first class army is one of the great feats of reform.
No. It did legitimately spook the germans at the start. It's just by the mid-late war it was on equal footing.
>No. It did legitimately spook the germans at the start.
It was literally killed by the hundreds during early barbarossa.
The KV spooked them and because soldiers just reported the
>new russian tank model
reports got a bit confused.
But it did speed up the existing new tank programs considerably.
The design was good, put soviets didn't do much quality control in order to spam them, so they ended up really fucking bad in most ways
>The design was good,
No it wasn't, read the thread.
it seems like everyone who's shitting on the t-34 judges it solely on its ability to take out other tanks. I think that's a bit myopic. Seems to me that the main role of tanks in WW2 was to assault entrenched enemy positions and to provide cover for infantry. All the talk about spalling, poor welding, sub-par ammunition, and shitty work conditions for the crew completely ignores the fact that most of these issues don't really matter when the tank is up against infantry that doesn't have a PaK 43. There were certainly many things that could destroy a T-34 during WW2 but the MG42 sure as shit couldn't.
They lost 55,000 of them so no
we'll see how it really performs soon enough...
The T-34 was a horrible POS. Everyone even a little knowledgeable about ww2 era tanks were aware of this fact since forever. Only those who have no knowledge and play tank video games think differently (due to the "if it’s on tv it must be true" effect).
what you assert is pretty much the opposite, save substitute "youtube" for "tv"
>heat treat the steel to the point its so brittle that even non pens will red mist the crew because steel shards splinter off from each hit
>also meant they cracked from non penetrations
>factories rushed out tanks during the war so often had shitty welding or parts missing
>extremely cramped and uncomfortable for the crew
Meme tank tier
and yet it almost-singlehandedly forced Germans to rethink their tank lineup. Not only that, but when they did, they fucked up by making the new tanks too heavy
How though, Germany was already fighting T-34s at the start of Barbarossa, albeit in small numbers, and they didnt have problems with it then. If any tank caused them to rethink the design it was the KV-1 due to it being so heaviky armoured the 57mm guns struggled to penetrate it but the 75mm guns handled it much better.
Most T-34s in museums were built after ww2 and were built to much higher standards than the ww2 ones as the USSR wanted to sell them to its slaves in the Warsaw pact and other communist countries.
>and yet it almost-singlehandedly forced Germans to rethink their tank lineup.
Half of them were knocked out by 57mm guns.
gay moron, garden gnome baseball bat
so dank it made the KV85 obsolete
No it’s actually underrated
On paper, it was a decent tank for its time, on par with the Panzer III.
However, due to all of the Soviet industry getting roflstomped at the start of the invasion, they had to move all of their tank production beyond the Urals and cut every corner imaginable in order to crank these things out in the numbers they did, which means the vast majority of WW2 production T-34's were a load of crap and the only ones that have survived to this day were the ones they built after WW2.
Lazerpig did a really good overview of the T-34 and its performance in WW2 if you have a spare hour to kill:
I always found the rushing of T-34 production to be such a dumb self fulfilling cycle
>Build shitty T-34s to meet quotas
>This means the T-34s are more likely to need replacing due to getting k/o'd easier
>this means production quotas are to replace all the tanks
>this means you cut corners and build shitty T-34s
>repeat ad nauseam
depends who's doing the rating
your boomer uncle who thinks they singlehandedly btfo'd the nazis who had no answer to it? yeah he is overrating it
It was a decent strategic weapon (cheap / fast to produce) and a shitty tactical weapon (poorly made, features missing).
It made sense for the USSR to shit out a million bad tanks at the time and it paid off for them. Germany could have learnt a lot form the USSRs "good enough" attitude and it would have helped the German war efforts.
>It made sense for the USSR to shit out a million bad tanks at the time and it paid off for them. Germany could have learnt a lot form the USSRs
The Russians were heavily bailed out from their allies in numerous aspects. If the Russians just made a flat-out better designed tank, the result of the war wouldn’t have changed, but at least whatever they cranked out would have been better than the tank that got molested by Shermans in the next major war.
Shermans where built on the other side of the world from the war. They were a vastly superior tank but you don't get to take you time when the factories building your tanks are being shelled and bombed.
Were Soviet factories really bombed that much by the luftwaffe compared to the pounding the German ones received by the Americans and Brits? Especially after the Battle of Britain?
No Russia didn't get anything close to the complete destruction Germany and Japan got but they got a whole lot more than the US.
>but they got a whole lot more than the US.
Damn, the Russians received more tonnage than a single paper balloon with a mortar shell attached to it?
It's a shame we had to walk this complete circle to get back to
I was making a joke. I understand your point.