adiekmann wrote: ↑
Fri Jul 03, 2020 12:01 am
JaM2013 wrote: ↑
Thu Jul 02, 2020 4:08 pm
my fault, it was supposed to be 20000 tanks, but not all were T34. in 1942 they lost 6600 T34 tanks(15100 total), in 1943 it was 14 700 T34 (23500 total tank lost) and in 1944 they lost 13700 T34 out of 23700 tanks lost. Overall, out of 54550 T34 manufactured during WW2, 44900 were lost ( 83% loss rate) btw in 1941 they lost 2300 T34 and 900 KV tanks, out of 20500 tanks lost by Soviet Red army(it counts tanks with units and delivered to units till end of the year)...
more details here:
http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/the- ... rformance/
fully agree especially with this quotation:
Of the total of 20 500 Soviet tanks lost in 1941, approximately 2 300 were T-34s and over 900 were mostly KV heavy tanks.(7) Even if the T-34’s loss ratio was better than seven for every German tank, it was still most likely in the region of four or five to one. Frankly, if 2 300 of any new Wehrmacht tank type had been lost within six months of its first deployment, even with a loss ratio of one to one (let alone 0.2-0.3 to one), then most WWII historians would have described the tank’s combat record as an unmitigated diaster.
I read much of the Wikipedia article just now in addition to what I've read in the past. It must be repeated here: A large contribution to heavy Soviet tank loses (including the T-34) was poor training and command by their crews, especially when compared to the Germans. This cannot be overestimated. So, these loss statistics can give the appearance of the T-34's capabilities being over-rated, but that would be misleading in and of itself.
I've seen elsewhere in forums where someone asks, "What would win, an M1 Abrams vs. a Leopard 2 A6?" Replace either of those with any modern battle tank and the answer is, "it depends." They all have the ability to destroy the others, so it comes down to tactics, use of cover, positioning, etc. In short, the skill/training of the crew.
Recent reports of the Turkish army's Leopard 2 tank loses to ISIS fighters on their boarder with Syria have brought some to question how good the Leopard 2 tank really is. But once again, experts have commented that it was their poor use that resulted in their destruction. So, even in modern times we see how much training and skill of the crew plays a hugely important role.
Same can be said about fighter vs. fighter aircraft in aerial combat.
Problem of PC2 is it only takes best possible values and ignores everything else... T34 had mediocre visibility. Commander had to load the gun, therefore could not observe the battlefield and find possible targets, instead, it was gunner who was searching for targets through his gunner sight, which had limited field of view, therefore he did not see if somebody was flanking the tank, which is exactly how German tankers managed to get close to them and destroy them by firing into weak sides.. 2man turret also meant internal space was cramped, ammo was hard to manipulate therefore rate of fire suffered, and was usually 3-4x lower than rate of fire of Panzer IV.. (Panzer III had even higher due to lighter 5cm ammo). T34 had terrible hatches, which were practically impossible to open, so if tank got penetrated and ammo started burning, crew was doomed inside, which is main reason why there were 3.1 dead per every destroyed soviet tank during WW2... (US Shermans had 0.5 dead per destroyed tank) Also, these tanks did not even have radios, therefore in combat, unit of T34 tanks fought all on themselves, company commander could not command his unit because he was operating the gun of his own tank and had absolutely no idea whats going on around him... so T34 design was responsible for particularly bad tactics of soviet tank units...
This meant that no matter how experienced crew was, they died with the tank - so T34 was responsible for Soviet tankers not getting more experienced
because they just did not usually survived tank destrouction, which happened very often (83% of T34 tanks were destroyed as showed in statistics)
So its beyond me how you wanna have T34 portrayed as a super tank.. when it was never superior to German mediums... and as I said, Hard Attack values given to them are completely ridiculous, F34gun was nowhere near effectivity of KwK40 in Panzer IV, and was even worse than US 75mm M3 inside of Sherman tank.
and regarding your comparations of M1 and Leo2 etc - these tanks are practically identical in their design... they share several technologies and differ in few minor design choices based on country preference... of course combat between these two would depend more on tactics and crew... T34 vs German tanks in WW2 was something completely different... German tanks had superior internal ergonomics... they were first tank designed "modern way" with 3-man turret, so each crew member had strict role and did not had to do other things while in combat... commander was searching for new targets, gunner fired the gun and loader loaded it... that gave German tankers huge advantage against tanks with different designs like French or Soviet (French tanks were even worse than T34, they had 1-man turret and no proper hatch so commander who was also a loader and gunner had to get out of turret through rear door to look for targets..)
German tanks lacked the armor initially against huge 76gun.. thing is, to exploit it, you need to hit them.. and to hit them, you need to see where they are.. if you cant.. it really doesnt matter if they have 30mm or 50mm armor on them... and one thing - Soviet tank ammo was of very bad quality manufacturing wise but also technologically. they used uncapped ammunition, which was a lot less effective against German Face Hardened armor.. which means that 50mm Face Hardened armor on Panzer IIIJ or Panzer IVF was actually capable stopping 76mm AP round at distances greater than 1000m (it increased armor toughness by 15-20% in average). Both PzIIIJ and PzIVF had gun mantlet 55mm thick which was also curved, this means that turret front on these tanks had resistance against soviet AP rounds much higher than usually mentioned (main reason why these turrets were not up-armored later, but front hull was).. at the other side, T34 front turret was 45mm thick welded plate, or 52mm thick when turret was cast.. Cast armor had usually lower resistance.. Soviets rated both welded and cast turret to have approximately same protection... which means that both Panzer IIIJ and Panzer IVF had better protection on the turret front than T34 in 1941...
and it also means that because Germans used Face Hardened armor on their tanks, these tanks armor was weaker when they were hit by capped ammo (APCBC) which western allies used on their tanks.. Sherman initially started with M72 AP (uncapped) round, which had reduced performance against FH armor, but later got new M62 APCBC, which had much higher penetration against such armor (M72 AP penetrates 75mm at 500m vs FH armor, where M62 penetrates 95mm in same conditions)
So again, its beyond me how T34 got its values so high and everybody else is set so low... it has no base in actual history data and i guess whoever is responsible for unit stats, nitpicked certain things without overall picture...