So we can all agree that the T34-85 was the best tank of WW2?

shitty sights, no radio, usually poorly trained crews. you can make a billion of these though

>>32859142
>best tank of WW2
>agree
First time on /k/?

File: T-34 a shit.png (48KB, 971x397px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 971x397px

>implying

Also, didn't we just fucking have this thread?

File: m4a3e8.jpg (307KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 1600x1200px

No

Why would someone bump this instead of just letting it die?

>>32860134
Yes, we did. People keep making them to shitpost.

>>32860156
/thread
Let it die now.

>>32860090
I'd like to point out that this was only possible because of the enormous factories the Soviets built in the Ural region, not because it was simple or cheap.

The T-34, when it was well made in high quality factories like Nizhny Tagil and especially during the last few years of the war, was manufactured with high quality steel and welds, optics for every crew member, and with cast aluminum injected diesel engines that were at least the equal of the Ford GAA and that the Germans decided they were not economically able to reproduce. An analysis performed on two T-34-85s captured in Korea estimated that it would cost about $50,000 each to build them in the U.S., roughly equal to the M4 Sherman, which was more advanced, more reliable, and benefited from high levels of quality control.

Similarly, the M4, despite being so advanced, was able to be produced on such a large scale due to the sheer size of the primary production facilities.

>>32859142
Best tank for Russian terrain.

>>32860266
You know, this makes me wonder. What, if anything, would have been a better alternative to the Christie suspension? The high travel gave the T-34 good speed and stability, but the suspension units being mounted internally took up a lot of the internal volume, and the lack of shock absorbers made life hell for the crew off road. Plus it was just a pain in the ass to repair or replace the individual suspension units. Their access panels were all bolted down, and you had to remove the turret to get at all of them.

I wonder if a bogie system like the Sherman's would have worked.

>>32860090
Which is exactly why it's the best tank of WW2.

It boggles me that people think the WW2 was anything other than a mass production race.

The Germans proved quantity > quality.

If it was a matter of the quality of the tank, the Germans would have won by a landslide.

>>32860428
By your logic then M4s are better. Cause more M4s were made than T-34/85s

>>32860447
>more tanks of "model name" were made than "modification name"

>>32860476
M4 is a variant

>>32860447
By your logic, there should have been A-10's doing strafing runs at Normandy.

How many M4's were mass produced during WW2?

>>32860541
Approx. 49,000 M4 Shermans built and a few hundred.

>A-10s strafing Normandy
Where in my logic does it imply this?

>>32860476
I'm not saying he's right, but the T-34-85 was hardly a limited production variant. It was more or less the Soviets' primary AFV from 1943 onwards.

>>32860428
No, they wouldn't. The Panzer IV was overweight and underpowered, and it was outclassed by the M4 and the T-34 in terms of armor and, until the introduction of the long barrel 7.5cm, firepower, and the M4 has it over both of them in reliability, ease of repair, and ergonomics.

The big cats had so many design flaws that it's almost not worth talking about. And even if they didn't, they were too resource intensive and limited in terms of what roles they could take on to be considered good all-around tanks.

The Germans just weren't as good as everybody thinks they were.

File: Comet_tank_1.jpg (139KB, 900x555px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 900x555px

>>32859142

Not even the best allied tank.

File: strv_m42-6.jpg (176KB, 850x542px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 850x542px

threadly reminder that pic related was the best WW2 medium tank design

>torsion bar suspension is much better at dealing with rough terrain than the Sherman suspension
>torsion bar suspension takes up way less space than the Christie suspension, resulting in more crew space
>fuckhuge turret because muh ergonomics
>fuckhuge turret because you might want to upgun the tank
>later upgraded and given an even bigger turret because why not

>>32860707
Comet was good, but I imagine it was a death trap if you had to get out of it in a hurry.

>>32859142

I doubt it.

>>32860733
>fuckhuge turret because bigger target

Also, HVSS was the better suspension system if you ask me. Gave good stability as well as a relatively smooth ride, and the bogie system in general made repairs a breeze. Torsion bars may not take up as much space as Christie springs, but they usually necessitated a bigger turret and a shorter basket, as well as less space for ammo stowage, as the Germans discovered with the Panther.

>>32859142
No, Firefly was.

>>32860772
Well, there's a reason the Abrams is torsion bar.

Mechanical simplicity, high mobility and lower space requirements are just good shit.

>>32860804
I'm not saying it's a bad system. It's good NOW, but back then its drawbacks were a bit more noticeable.

>>32859142
Why do people say "the best tank of WW2"?

WW2 was 6 years, tanks at the end were gonna be better than ones at the beginning, you might as well as "What was the best tank of 1945?" because that will give you the answer.

You should go by year.

What is the best tank of 1940/41/42.. etc.

I would say the T34 was the best tank of 1941.

>>32860797
>breech takes up over half the internal volume of the turret

>gunner and loader can barely fit inside, never mind do their jobs quickly and efficiently

>best anti-tank round available was useless past 500 yards

Yeah, no. This >>32860156 is the best example of a hole punching Sherman. The 76mm was good enough without the drawbacks, and it was more accurate then the 17, even when the 17 was firing ordinary shells, never mind SVDS rounds.

>>32860883
Regardless of your pick, this should be anybody's first consideration. That, and "what job did it perform/was expected to perform most often", and "what tank did it come up against most often".

Saying a Sherman was outclassed by a Tiger doesn't mean much if Shermans rarely ever faced Tigers in actual, real world engagements.

HOW MANY FUCKING TIME ARE YOU GOING TO POST THIS

>>32860941
If you're just saying "What was the best tank" you're just asking what tank was best, based on its design, for doing the job of, well, being a tank.

The Tiger still outclasses the Sherman until 1944, by which point the 76mm gun on it is good enough that the firepower advantage of the Tiger doesn't off-set the mechanical unreliability.

>>32860883
The T-34 mod.1941 was actually complete garbage. Considering that the later marks and T-34-85 still had lots of mechanical problems, the mod.1941 had significantly more of them. In addition to being the most unrefined version mechanically, it was severely hamstrung by lack of radio equipment, two man turret resulting in often fatal lapses in situational awareness, the armor was quite soft leaving the turret vulnerable to even 37mm AA guns, and the original L-11 76mm gun was really, really bad.

>>32860999
Does it really outclass the Sherman to any significant degree though? A 75mm Sherman firing M61 rounds can penetrate a Tiger with a good flank shot from 2.5 kilometers, and had a chance of penetrating it frontally inside 100 meters.

The KwK 36 is definitely better than the M3, don't get me wrong. I'm just putting forth the idea that perhaps the gulf between the two may not have been as wide as we think. The M3 was still a highly accurate medium velocity gun with a wide variety of high quality shells available to it. I think we don't give it enough credit in these discussions.

>>32860862
No, back then it's drawbacks were not status quo. There is a difference.

>>32860388
The Chrsitie suspension using up space is just a book meme. Not only does it not take up that much space, it could just as easily be redesigned to not do so.

>>32861115
But it wasn't. Not in this case. Have you ever examined the inside of a T-34 closely? The suspension units, side armor slopes, and internal fuel tanks left very little space for the crew, leading to the T-34's infamous issues with crew comfort, safety, and ergonomics.

>>32859142
I fucking hate WW2 threads on /k/

>>32860733

>sweden
>ww2


You have absolutely nothing to contribute to this thread.

Maybe it had good suspension, maybe it didnt, but who the fuck cares when it was only used for guarding masive stockpiles of surströmming in some obscure swedish town which name nobody cant pronounce.

>>32861143
Nothing stops the Christie from being redesigned to use less space.

>>32861059
That's a bit of a stretch m8, the shell would have to hit the lower side armor plate, missing the tracks and wheels and at an almost perpendicular angle, which it wouldn't because at that range the shell would be nosing down at a fairly sharp angle. It would actually be more plausible for you to say that a Sherman could pierce the engine deck of a tiger from 2.5 kilometers out.

>>32861276
I know, but the Russians didn't do that. That's my point.

>>32861311
The side and rear armor were both 60mm, were they not? And I'm not saying it would be a good idea to take a shot from that distance. I'm just saying that, in theory, an M61 shell can still penetrate a Tiger's side armor from that range.

>>32861276
I'm sorry but what does that have to do with the T 34 or other tanks that used that type of suspension? In that era, Christie spring suspension took up a large amount of space that could be used for a more spacious crew compartment or fuel storage, and it was never redesigned to take up less volume than it needed to at the time. Any tank that used Christie springs would have been better off using torsion bar suspension, the problem being that torsion bars needed hard to acquire alloys to be useful.

>>32861344
The plates were 80mm thick, with the rear armor slightly sloped, the lower side plate was 62mm thick and mostly covered by the tracks and road wheels. The M3 75mm firing the M61 shell would just barely be able to penetrate that from about 500 meters away, or if it fired M72 solid shot, from a little short of 800 meters away.

Tank vs Tank is dumb. The bigger impact that tank had was on fucking up everything that wasn't a tank. There's a reason why most combat loads were basically 3/4 of HE and the last quarter being AP.

>>32861414
True, but then what could a T 34 85 do that any other semi armored thing with at least two machine guns and and a cannon that fire a decent sized HE shell couldn't do? Have a catastrophic engine failure after travelling 350km?

File: StuG_III_ausf_B_1941.jpg (95KB, 1308x827px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 1308x827px

technically the most effective per unit armored vehicle of ww2 was the Stug III

>>32861490
Actually, once you got to the T-34/85 the V2 engine was very reliable. Operation Bagration and all the other ones couldn't have happened if the Tank engines would crap out like that.

Also, the 85mm had a really nice HE round.

>>32861414
Given that nothing distinguishes a tank from another tank in a tank vs other scenario apart from the asanine, that was a dumb statement to make.

>>32861490
The T-34 had a good engine

>>32861546
the 85 mm HE was a good round, yes the engine was quite reliable, it was the transmissions that were bad, so bad in fact that it wasn't uncommon to see crews carrying a spare transmission with them so that if they lost the transmission they could quicly change it out

>>32861552
Actually, no, a lot does.

How far can it go on a full tank of fuel?
(What is the fuel supply situation for your army?)

How much ammo can it carry?

How reliable is it's engine and drive system?

Can it drive for 100's of kilometers on it's own treads or does it need to be train-transported everywhere?

High heavy is it? Ergo, which bridges can you use? What do you need to recover a damaged vehicle?

How common are spare parts?

How big is it? How does that effect your logistical network? Does it require specialized transports?

>>32861583
The spare transmission on the back was a thing of the earlier T-34, certainly not by the time of the T-34/85.

>>32861618
Well then they weren't going to get far, because the design of the T 34's transmission never changed during it's lifetime, and it was not the production quality that held it back but rather an extremely shitty design. I would have only gotten worse later in the war as the soviet union ran out of good quality steel and metallurgists.

>>32861651
>would have only gotten worse later in the war as the soviet union ran out of good quality steel and metallurgists.

Why would they be losing metallurgists late war? Why would they be losing quality steels while they liberate production areas from the Nazis?

>>32861618
The issue was that the transmission wasn't very good to begin with, the later war models were slightly improved (actually had surface hardened steel where it needed it), but the design was far from good.

>>32861682
Admittedly, I'm not hugely familiar with the details of the transmission. If there were problems the weren't holding up the late war red steamroller.

What books talk about this issue?

>>32861618
the big issues were resolved in some models lat ein the war with the new 5 speed gearbox, the trouble was manufacturing negligence, the fact that it was a nonsyncro, clutchless manual, which ive driven a truck with one of those, it is damn near impossible to shift, and you had to get it perfect, otherwise you will thrash the transmission, which then compunds the quality control issues, and even late in the war, most units did not recieve the revised transmission, the "good" transmission was not swapped in until after the war was already over, and it still suffered from its own share of problems. then there is the suspension which rendered the vehicle unstable in rough terrain due to a lack of shock absorbers, the optics on the tank were crap, the armor suffered from spalling due to an execcively bad brinell rating.

File: T34-024.jpg (139KB, 750x375px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 750x375px

>>32861760
thats the transmission they used, 4 spd manual without a clutch or syncros, n-1 isnt bad, 1-2 is really hard to shift 2-3 requires superhuman strength, 3-4 is like holy hell how do they expect superman to shift this, and downshifting is twice as bad

>>32861806
To be fair the five speed was a significant improvement, but was still no where near as good as comparable designs from the other powers.

>>32861760
Really any book that goes into the T-34 technical details will likely bring it up, it was one of the biggest issues the tank had to overcome, next to the absolutely horrible early air filters it had.

>>32861806
I think drivers carried hammers to shift gears.

How did T-34s fare against, say:
>Panzer IVs
>Tigers
And how would they fare against a Sherman?

>>32860700
what design flaws?
teething problems aside (july 43 for tiger i , june 44 for panther) they were excellent given the state of the war and the conditions they fought in.

>>32861541
i thought hetzers did better

>>32863461
Well, we don't have to speculate on that last one. M4A3E8 Shermans with 76mm guns went up against T-34-85s quite frequently during the Korean War. In terms of armor, firepower, and mobility, they were considered to be equal. But the Shermans usually came out on top because their crews were by far the better tankers compared to their opponents, and the Sherman was of course more reliable and rarely ever broke down. Which, incidentally, is why they were in use rather than the M26 Pershing, which was finally available in numbers.

>>32863493
The Panther had rather poor ergonomics for a Western tank, and very little consideration was given to crew comfort and safety. The use of power take off for the turret traverse in the Ausf A was a dumb idea, especially since the Ausf D used a hydraulic system that was independent of the engine's speed, and the traverse gearing was weak and overloaded. The gunner had no periscope, and the gunsight had a very narrow field of view, and it got even narrower on the high mag setting. These two factors combined meant that the Panther lagged behind its contemporaries in the amount of time it took to spot, acquire, and engage a target at anything but long range. The bow gunner's optics were even worse, though admittedly this wasn't as important. The engine was prone to catching fire and tended to experience a significant breakdown after 1500 km or so, and the final drive was notoriously unreliable and difficult to maintain. The transmission was solid, but it took much longer to swap out than did a Sherman's. 12 hours on average versus 2 to be exact.

The Tiger I was good for the role it was designed to fill, but it was underpowered for its size, and it could've done with beefier suspension and a more robust transmission.

>>32860120
Kek