Note that the T34 had the lowest rate of fire about 6 to 7 rounds per minute due to the fact they used two part percussion ammunition. Even the up graded Panzer IV with its upgraded gun had a rate of fire of about 10 to 11 rounds per minute as well as better.
With the KwK 40 L/43 and L/48 the tank carried 87 rounds. The standard Panzergranate 39 APCBC shell weighed 6.8 kg, had a muzzle velocity of 750 m/s and could penetrate 85 mm of rolled homogeneous armor plate at 60 degrees from horizontal at 1,000 m. The specialised anti-tank tungsten-core Panzergranate 40 APCR shot weighed 4.1 kg had a muzzle velocity of 930 m/s and could penetrate 100 mm of angled plate at 1,000 m.
Footnote 1 -- reads, "The full name of the document is, "An Evaluation of the T-34 and KV tanks by workers of the Aberdeen Testing Grounds of the U.S., submitted by firms, officers and members of military commissions responsible for testing tanks." The tanks were given to the U.S. by the Soviets at the end of 1942 for familiarization.") The condition of the tanks The medium tank T-34, after driving 343 km, became disabled and could not be fixed. The reason: owing to the extremely poor air cleaner on the diesel, a large quantity of dirt got into the engine and a breakdown occurred, as a result of which the pistons and cylinders were damaged to such a degree that they were impossible to fix. The tank was withdrawn from tests and was to be shelled by the KV and its "Z/ 3" (?) -- by the cannon of the M-10 tank. After this it would be sent to Aberdeen, where it would be analyzed and kept as an exhibit. The heavy tank KV is still functional. Tests are continuing, although it has many mechanical defects. The silhouette/configuration of the tanks Everyone, without exception, approves of the shape of the hull of our tanks. The T-34's is particularly good. All are of the opinion that the shape of the T-34's hull is better than that of any American tank. The KV's is worse than on any current American tank. Armor A chemical analysis of the armour showed that on both tanks the armor plating has a shallow surface tempering, whereas the main mass of the armored plating is made of soft steel. In this regard, the Americans consider that, by changing the technology used to temper the armored plating, it would be possible to significantly reduce its thickness while preserving its protective capacities. As a result the weight of the tank could be decreased by 8-10%, with all the resulting benefits (an increase in speed, reduction in ground pressure, etc.) Hull The main deficiency is the permeability to water of the lower hull during water crossings, as well as the upper hull during rain. In heavy rain lots of water flows through chinks/ cracks, which leads to the disabling of the electrical equipment and even the ammunition. The Americans liked how the ammunition is stowed. Turret Its main weakness is that it is very tight. The Americans could not understand how our tankers could fit inside during winter, when they wear sheepskin jackets. The electrical mechanism for turning the turret is very bad. The motor is weak, heavily overloaded and sparks horribly, as a result of which the device regulating the speed of the rotation burns out, and the teeth of the cogwheels break into pieces. They recommend redoing it as a hydraulic or simply manual system.
Armament The gun of the T-34 is very good. It is simple, dependable and easy to service. Its weakness is that the initial speed of the shell is significantly less than that of the American "Z/ 3" (3200 feet versus 5700 feet per second). Aiming/Back-sight The general opinion: the best in the world. Incomparable with any existing (well-known here) tanks or any under development. Track The Americans very much like the idea of steel tracks. But they believe that until they receive the results of the comparative performance of steel vs. rubber tracks on American tanks in Tunis and other active fronts, there is no basis for changing from the American solution of rubber bushings and pads.
The deficiencies in our tracks from their viewpoint results from the lightness of their construction. They can easily be damaged by small calibre shells and mortar bombs. The pins are extremely poorly tempered and made of poor steel. As a result they quickly wear and the track often breaks. The idea of having loose track pins that are held in place by a cam welded to the side of the hull, at first was greatly liked by the Americans. But when in use under certain operating conditions, the pins would become bent which often resulted in the track rupturing. The Americans consider that if the armour is reduced in thickness the resultant weight saving can be used to make the tracks heavier and more reliable. Suspension On the T-34, it is poor. Suspension of the Christie type was tested long ago by the Americans, and unconditionally rejected. On our tanks, as a result of the poor steel on the springs, it very quickly (unclear word) and as a result clearance is noticeably reduced. On the KV the suspension is very good. Motor The diesel is good and light. The idea of using diesel engines on tanks is shared in full by American specialists and military personnel. Unfortunately, diesel engines produced in U.S. factories are used by the navy and therefore the army is deprived of the possibility of installing diesels in its tanks.
The deficiency of our diesels is the criminally poor air cleaners on the T-34. The Americans consider that only a saboteur could have constructed such a device. They also don't understand why in our manuals it is called oil-bath. Their tests in a laboratory showed that: - the air cleaner doesn't clean at all the air which is drawn into the motor; - its capacity does not allow for the flow of the necessary quantity of air, even when the motor is idling. As a result, the motor does not achieve its full capacity. Dirt getting into the cylinders leads them to quickly wear out, compression drops, and the engine loses even more power. In addition, the filter was manufactured, from a mechanical point of view, extremely primitively: in places the spot-welding of the electric welding has burned through the metal, leading to leakage of oil etc. On the KV the filter is better manufactured, but it does not secure the flow in sufficient quantity of normal cleaned air. On both motors the starters are poor, being weak and of unreliable construction. Transmission Without doubt, poor. An interesting thing happened. Those working on the transmission of the KV were struck that it was very much like those transmissions on which they had worked 12-15 years ago. The firm was questioned. The firm sent the blueprints of their transmission type A-23. To everyone's surprise, the blueprints of our transmission turned out to be a copy of those sent (?). The Americans were surprised, not that we were copying their design, but that we were copying a design that they had rejected 15-20 years ago. The Americans consider that, from the point of view of the designer, installing such a transmission in the tank would create an inhuman harshness for the driver (hard to work). On the T-34 the transmission is also very poor. When it was being operated, the cogs completely fell to pieces (on all the cogwheels). A chemical analysis of the cogs on the cogwheels showed that their thermal treatment is very poor and does not in any way meet American standards for such mechanisms. Rolling friction clutches Without doubt, poor. In America, they rejected the installation of friction clutches, even on tractors (never mind tanks), several years ago. In addition to the fallaciousness of the very principle, our friction clutches are extremely carelessly machined from low-quality steel, which quickly causes wear and tear, accelerates the penetration of dirt into the drum and in no way ensures reliable functioning. General comments From the American point of view, our tanks are slow. Both our tanks can climb an incline better than any American tank. The welding of the armor plating is extremely crude and careless. The radio sets in laboratory tests turned out to be not bad. However, because of poor shielding and poor protection, after installation in the tanks the sets did not manage to establish normal communications at distances greater than 10 miles. The compactness of the radio sets and their intelligent placement in the tanks was pleasing. The machining of equipment components and parts was, with few exceptions, very poor. In particular the Americans were troubled by the disgraceful design and extremely poor work on the drive/ gear/ transmission links/ blocks (?) on the T-34. After much torment they made new ones and replaced ours. All the tanks' mechanisms demand very frequent adjustments/ fine-tuning. Conclusions, suggestions 1. On both tanks, quickly replace the air cleaners with models with greater capacity capable of actually cleaning the air. 2. The technology for tempering the armor plating should be changed. This would increase the protectiveness of the armor, either by using an equivalent thickness or, by reducing the thickness, lowering the weight and, accordingly, the use of metal. 3. Make the tracks thicker. 4. Replace the existing transmission of outdated design with the American "Final Drive," which would significantly increase the tanks' maneuverability. 5. Abandon the use of friction clutches. 6. Simplify the construction of small components increase their reliability and decrease to the maximum extent possible the need to constantly make adjustments. 7. Comparing American and Russian tanks, it is clear that driving Russian tanks is much harder. A virtuosity is demanded of Russian drivers in changing gear on the move, special experience in using friction clutches, great experience as a mechanic, and the ability to keep tanks in working condition (adjustments and repairs of components, which are constantly becoming disabled). This greatly complicates the training of tankers and drivers. 8. Judging by samples, Russians when producing tanks pay little attention to careful machining or the finishing and technology of small parts and components, which leads to the loss of the advantage what would otherwise accrue from what on the whole are well designed tanks. 9. Despite the advantages of the use of diesel, the good contours of the tanks, thick armor, good and reliable armaments, the successful design of the tracks etc., Russian tanks are significantly inferior to American tanks in their simplicity of driving, maneuverability, the strength of firing [reference to speed of shell], speed, the reliability of mechanical construction and the ease of keeping them running. Signed -- The head of the 2nd Department of the Main Intelligence Department of the Red Army, General Major of Tank Armies, Khlopo... (end missing: Khlopov?)
Soviet studies in 1942 concluded that their sloped armor was highly effective versus the 37mm, 50mm's and 75mm L/24 but was ineffective versus high velocity shells of 75mm or larger.
Contrary to the myth, the Soviets only thickened the turret armor. The glacis on all models remained at around 45mm, per Soviet sources (the hull's side armor of the T-34/85 was thickened to 60mm, but not the front).
As vision blocks were so crude, T-34 drivers often left their hatches open about a hand's width, even in combat. Even then they could not see except directly ahead.
If the tank flamed, the radio operator almost never escaped. He had no hatch. The extra seconds to follow the driver out or to go out through the turret were fatal.
Soviets found that their diesel T-34's burned more frequently than their gasoline powered tanks. To fit the tranny into the rear meant moving the fuel cells forward near the crew and the ammunition. Diesel does, in fact, explode at the temperatures caused during armor penetration and cordite fires. If a fuel cell was not full when it was hit it very often blew up.
During fire, fumes accumulated in the turret as the T-34 (all models) lacked adequate ventilators. Loaders often passed out due to these fumes in extended combat. Also, lacking a turret basket, the loader had to shuffle his feet as the turret traversed. With expended shell casings on the floor he was at risk of not only tripping but had difficulty in accessing the ammo boxes under his feet. Soviet tankers claim that loaders would try to keep their hatches open in hopes of ejecting as many of the spent casings as possible while trying to keep their feet and service their gun.
There are other issues but that is about all I have time for right now. Catch you later.
P.S. After researching the T-34 much better I have changed my mind. In my previous assertion on the best tank of WWII I said it was the Sherman over the T-34 by a nose, but now I put it behind by more than a length (in racing terms).
This message has been edited. Last edited by: wicingas,
The original document I found on line was "An Evaluation of the ... The medium tank T-34, by workers of the Aberdeen Testing Facilities. When I tried to access it today I got a message that the site had exceeded its download limits.
I did request under the Freedom of Information Act from the U.S testing facilities any information on the testing of the T34 but I have heard nothing as yet.
Some of the recommendation the U.S made was incorporated in the T34/85's later revisions such as the transition and turret and it appears they improved the steel which we found to be substandard.
What I found interesting was just how bad it leaked. You did not need a gun to knock it out all you needed was firehouse. The water would poured in and soak the electric motors.
Also the hull leaked when going across streams.
A Molotov cocktail must have be hell on them.
Perhaps what is why during the Hungering revolution we saw students throwing bottles of gasoline at the Russian tanks?
They would put a pie plate or something similar in the street. The tank would think that perhaps it was a mine and stop and while the tank was stopped they would sneak up and fire bomb it.
My other reply has to be approved but I have not heard back from my Freedom of Information Request.
Here is a link you might be intrested. http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/4635/library/russian_tanks/evaluation_of_russians_tanks_at_aberdeen.htm
Here is some other info that I found.
In terms of mobility, the T-34's wide track, good suspension and large engine gave it unparalleled cross-country performance. First-generation German tanks could not begin to keep up.
In terms of ergonomics, the T-34 was poor, despite some improvements during the war. All 76 mm-armed versions were greatly hampered by the cramped two-man turret layout. The commander's battlefield visibility was poor; the forward-opening hatch forced him to observe the battlefield through a single vision slit and traversable periscope. He was also over-tasked by having to fire the main gun. In contrast, most contemporary German, British, and U.S. medium tanks had much superior three-man turrets with commander, gunner and loader. The three-man turret layout allowed the tank commander to concentrate on leading his crew and co-ordinating his actions with the rest of his unit, without having to manage an individual task such as laying or loading the gun. This makes an enormous contribution to crew effectiveness. The T-34-85 corrected this problem, which had been recognised before the war. Many German commanders liked to fight "heads-up", with the seat raised and having a full field of view. In the 76 mm-armed versions of the T-34, this was impossible (Zaloga & Grandsen 1984:135–7).
Turret of the T-34-85, with commander's cupola allowing all-round vision (introduced partway through the production run of the T-34 Model 1943)Visibility from the driver's seat was also poor. Tactically, this affected the driver's ability to use terrain to their advantage, since he could not see folds in the ground as well, or have as wide a range of vision as in some other tanks.
Interior of a T-34-85 tank viewed from the driver's hatch, showing the ammunition boxes on which the loader had to stand in the absence of a turret basket. In the foreground is the driver's seat.The loader also had a difficult job due to the lack of a turret basket (a rotating floor that moves as the turret turns). This problem was shared with many other tanks, for example, the US M-3 Stuart. The floor under the T-34's turret was made up of ammunition stored in small metal boxes, covered by a rubber mat. There were nine ready rounds of ammunition stowed in racks on the sides of the fighting compartment. Once these initial nine rounds were fired in combat, the crew had to pull additional ammunition out of the floor boxes, leaving the floor littered with open bins and matting. This distracted the crew and degraded their performance (Zaloga & Grandsen 1984:137).
Other key factors diminishing the initial impact of T-34s on the battlefield were the poor state of leadership, tank tactics, and crew training, a consequence of Stalin's purges of the Soviet officer corps in the late 1930s, aggravated by the loss of the best-trained personnel during the Red Army's disastrous defeats in 1941. Many crews went into combat with only their basic military training plus seventy-two hours of classroom instruction. These problems were exacerbated by the T-34's poor ergonomics and lack of radios during the early war, making it practically impossible to co-ordinate tank units in combat. German tank soldiers found that the Soviet armour attacked in rigid formations and took little advantage of terrain (Zaloga & Grandsen 1984:126–27, 135). By 1943–44 these problems had largely been corrected, although Soviet crew training never reached the level of German training.
I would have to agree with the TRUE experts not the people of the boards, they make their living studing the weapons and they all say that the t-34 was the best and here is somthing to kill your idea of it being the worst. Philip Trewitt wrote the book Armored Fighting Vehicles in the year 1991 that the some countries at the time still use the T-34/85 in their army. Where is the Shermans at 1991, oh yeah, in the museams. Your idea, goes down the toilet if people still use something from WWII to 1991 is amazing and kill your idea
Oh, by the way, The Sherman was the only tank I found with the problem of fire thanks to their ammo. That is a sign of a bad tank that every one of the tank quickly explodes from the ammo from only ONE round. American Made dose not mean the best in the world boys and girls. Also by my sources is that the Russians hated are American tanks but loved are trucks and jeeps. Hell everyone liked the jeep, even the Germans.
You need to study more tanks. While it is true that "American made" does not mean it is the best, in a comparison of the T34 and Sherman, the T34 is the easy loser.
Shermans initially had problems with cordite fires due to the stowage of ammunition in their sponsons. This was corrected in later production models with the introduction of wet stowage. The ammo was removed from the sponsons and relocated to water protected boxes in the floor and a water protected ready rack. This reduced the likelyhood that a Sherman would catch fire down to around 10-15%.
Soviet studies found that their T-34's burned nearly 25% of the time. Part of the T-34's ammo was stored in the turret without any protection. Compounding this was the fact that fuel cells were installed in the crew compartment in order to make space for the rear-mounted transmission (diesel or gas doesn't matter, the flash points for both are easily exceeded under these circumstances and Soviet tankers often talk about those fuel cells igniting).
Another tank with the ammo storage problem was the German Panther which, like the early Shermans, used sponson storage. This was a major complaint, among others, that General Guderian wrote about in a letter from June 1944 when he demanded the Panther be modified. The German response to the sponson storage was nearly identical to the first American response: Weld thin sheet metal around the ammo. It didn't work for the Americans and it didn't work for the Germans.
The "best" depends upon your expert. The T-34 is no where near the best tank. It was not as innovative a machine as people think. Its flaws are numerous and were often fatal. Post-war tanks were built better than their wartime counterparts but it was never a great vehicle. Mediocre at best. Prior to hostilities with Germany, the Soviets purchased two Pzkpfw III ausf E's one of which they dismantled for study and the other they put through the paces. Except for armor and gun, they were shocked to learn that the German tank was superior to their T34. It even out ran the T34 despite that tank's supposed high speed. Looking at the T34 as an ex-tanker I would never want to go into combat in one. In fact, the Soviets went to war with the T34 only because it is what they had when war broke out. They wanted and were working on a better tank. If not for the German invasion the T34 would have disappeared from history.
True, the Soviets speak ill of the Sherman and other lend-lease tanks. Much of it was propaganda. For example, their own tests confirmed that their 85mm was inferior to the Sherman's 76mm.
As for the T34 still being on inventory in 1991, that is not a testimony to its quality. Most likely, the users could not afford to purchase more modern equipment. I can't think of a post-Korea battle where T34's have even made an impression, but I know of a few where they brewed up nicely. As for the Sherman, even though its time had long past, modified models were taking out what were then modern Soviet-made tanks while in Israeli service.
Remeber that YOU ARE NOT AN EXPERT, JUST SOMEONE WHO TYPES ON THE BOARD. If your wondering why I the only one going agianst you guys, maybe because everyone else knows you guys don't know much, I'm just saying. The Super Shermans, that was an way upgunned and way uparmored tank to fix the problems. As my books read, they chucked for the British Centarion because it was a WHOLE LOT BETTER THEN THIER SUPED-UP SHERMAN.
Not an expert? Neither are you. If only experts are allowed to say anything on these boards, what are you doing on them? I have an entire library of books written by various experts of varying qualifications. Some agree with you and some don't, like those experts at Aberdeen Proving Grounds who examined the T34 in late 1942 and pointed out the flaws they found. I personally have studied tanks most of my life and have been a tanker.
Now that long withheld information is finally becoming available for the T34, it is not the wonderful machine that Soviet propaganda had once pretended it was. I also didn't say the Israelis should have kept the Sherman in service. It was well past its prime. I merely pointed out that an obsolete machine was still winning battles when it more properly belonged in a museum, and during a time for which the much vaunted T34 was not impressing anybody. I also note that you are not providing any data to support what little you are saying. Debates depend upon the presentation of information, none of which you are supplying. I can supply a list of reasons why I am not impressed by the T34 while all you do is whine about what some "expert" who supports your view wrote (I personally prefer to acquire information that both supports and opposes my position, it is called thinking and it is one reason why I go on these boards--even if I don't change my mind I often pick up information of interest). Do you have your own thoughts or are you just one of these people who believes whatever he reads: "An 'expert' said, I believe it, that settles it" is not a position but it does save some from the difficulties of thinking for themselves. I am open to debate. I am not interested in whining and griping.
<< Remeber that YOU ARE NOT AN EXPERT, JUST SOMEONE WHO TYPES ON THE BOARD. If your wondering why I the only one going agianst you guys, maybe because everyone else knows you guys don't know much, I'm just saying. The Super Shermans, that was an way upgunned and way uparmored tank to fix the problems. As my books read, they chucked for the British Centarion because it was a WHOLE LOT BETTER THEN THIER SUPED-UP SHERMAN. <<
Normally I would not insult my own intelligence by responding to such an idiot-
No one considers themselves experts here. Still there are those who people like to talk to and those who are pretty stupid(and cant turn off Caps lock). Anyway, if you were not such an idiot, I would waste my breathe and say that Israel actually did use the Super Sherman in 1973. If you were such an expert in history, I’m sure you would know why and how reserve super Shermans took out T-62s. O well, I’m too lazy to enlighten a moron.
I don't know where you are with your FOA request but if it hasn't worked by now it may not. After going through over half a dozen military and civilian government agencies, somebody finally told me that a lot of records from that time were auctioned off to privately owned archives. The only one I have recieved a response from was National Archives at College Park. They have Aberdeen records but not the one on the T34. They are also very pricey (75 cents per page and you have to buy records by lot number, which can have several hundreds of pages meaning a few hundred dollars). Just FYI. Good luck.
