Can /k/ redpill me on the T34-85?

>>33453010
Its a tank. Made by slavs.

File: Ukraine tank bust through barracade.webm (1MB, 1140x540px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1140x540px

>>33453010
This is all you need to know anon.
>>33453017

>>33453017
A slavtank if you will.

>>33453010

It's a T-34, upgraded to a 85mm cannon and had a newer, better turret. It still sucks if you're not a midget manning those things.

>>33453010
They were pretty good.

>>33453010
It became relevant after U.S.A. gave powder compound for HVAT, in which would be the opposite of HEAT but just as good as APCR, in which 85mm D-5T would be about the same armor penetration performance of a 122mm D-25T.

>>33453056
Most T-34 Model 1943 used 76mm HEAT rounds to compensate for lack of initial armor penetration from APBC rounds and circulation of the 85mm D-5T.

The most A E S T H E T I C tank of the WW2.

>>33453010
The Tank the BTFO Nazi

Z A R O D I N U
A

R
O
D
I
N
U

>>33453010
Very good and reliable engine, best engine in WW2
Shittiest transmission.
Worst crew compartment
Good suspention and roadwheels for highspeed terrain rides abut bad for silhouette and internal space.
Very bad armour and cannon for later German tanks.
Front heavy.
Though in the right hands can kill 3 nazi mobile bunkers.
http://www.warrelics.eu/forum/history-research-third-reich-ww2/3-king-tigers-vs-t-34-85-a-272607/

>>33453041
That's not a tank, that's an APC.

File: British_Sherman_Firefly_Namur.jpg (1MB, 2623x1999px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2623x1999px

>>33453380
>The most A E S T H E T I C tank of the WW2
Anyone else willing to correct his mistake?

>>33453451
>Worst transmission
I believe you meant that for the Panzer IV

>>33453531
>Not the Panther.

>>33453531
I am talking about early T-34s their transmission broke down every 16km after 1942 T-34 had the most reliable five speed transmission in WW2

>>33453010
The T-34/85 was a decent design, poor armor, ergonomics and internal volume but a decent gun and cheap to manufacture.

The tank definition of just good enough to win.

What is there to redpill?

It was a tank designed to be easy to build in large numbers, effective and reliable. It easily excelled in each of those categories.

It was also a great upgrade over the regular T-34, with a powerful cannon that could destroy enemy tanks and with a good HE shell.

It wasnt the most comfortable tank to drive or fight in, mostly designed for russian tankers who are required to be short.

>>33453010
This tank eats ratel for breakfast

>>33453010
>get invaded
>invaders destroy factories
>pushed back to the outskirts of your capital
>need a tank
>a tank you can produce in numbers
>have t-34
>the tank's design is superior to its contemporaries during that time
>rapidly build tonks
>still needs to economize
>remove this part
>still moving
>remove even more parts
>still moving
>slowly being outdated, the 76 is becoming weak
>get an 85
>better production now with the invaders pushed back
>produce them in great numbers
>excellent against what most tanks the enemies deploy
>win the war
>be the best tank

>>33453010
Gun with slightly less performance than the KwK 36 that was mounted on a tank produced 30 times more than the Tiger I.

File: bmp-2 (5).jpg (530KB, 3582x2229px) Image search: [Google]

530KB, 3582x2229px

>>33453469
It's not an APC. It's an IFV. BMP-2, to be more precise.

>>33454502
literally this

>>33454502
/thread

>>33453517

it's disproportionate hunk of goofy looking metal

>>33454502
Nailed it anon

File: t-34 mod.1943 & qt.jpg (100KB, 1100x763px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 1100x763px

>>33454502
Pretty much this. Only that instead of "invaders destroy factories" it should have been "evacuate factories to Ural".

>>33454527

>Boieviya Machina Peheota

>Fighting vehicle infantry

Checks out.

>>33453531
No. German tanks were better able to road march; that's how garbage the T-34s tranny was

>>33454502
Look, the Panther gets rightfully mocked for its disastrous combat debut at Kursk. However, not only was the T-34s combat debut disastrous, but it consistently performed poorly throughout WW2. And this gets it labelled best tank of the war, even though something like 80% of its 50,000 production ended up as total writeoffs by 1945.

Slavaboos I fucking swear

>>33454991
It won the war.

Not effectually, but winning counts for a lot.

history channel tier 10 top list tank

>>33454504
>Gun with slightly less performance than the US 76mm


fixed that for you

File: assburger has an option.jpg (12KB, 243x162px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 243x162px

>>33454759
It's Boyevaya Mashina PekhotY, Combat Vehicle (of the) Infantry, "(of the) infantry" indicating possession and therefore being in genitive case and having a genitive case ending ы.

>>33453517
no, it looks inbred. Like Britain itself. Just like their national animal, the bulldog.
Fucking sack of shit has literal incest leaking out of it

>>33454991
>However, not only was the T-34s combat debut disastrous
That's literally false by every metric short of running out of supplies and general unit organization AKA nothing to do with the actual tank.
If you spent 3 seconds to learn how Barbarossa went, you'd know that the Germans were completely unprepared to deal with T-34s and KV-1s, they're the reason that the Flak-88s were used as AT units.
If the Soviets weren't completely fucked over by their command, Barbarossa wouldn't have ended so terribly for them.

>>33454991
>80% of its 50,000 production ended up as total writeoffs by 1945.

Do you mean that 80% of them were destroyed or that 80% of the 50k that were produced weren't produced?

File: oreimo ass.jpg (42KB, 620x349px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 620x349px

>>33455587
>literal incest leaking out of it

You're saying that as if it's a bad thing.

>>33456217
>dat ear

>>33454991

>not understanding how soviet loss and production counting works

anon please

every time a soviet tank was shot up and later recovered and rebuilt, it was registered as destroyed and then re-registered as a new tank and sent out

this inflates both the loss count and the production count

i have no idea why the soviets did it this way, but they did.

>>33454502

Well... This

>>33454975

Bullshit.

>>33455627
>short of running out of supplies and general unit organization

Fuck right off. They and KV-1s were concentrated into 2 mechanized corps and 4 tank divisions in June of 1941, with ~600 T-34s and ~200 KV-1s. At this time, the most powerful tank in the German arsenal was the Panzer III with the 5cm gun, and many of the Pz IIIs in the initial phases of Barbarossa had the 3.7cm gun. They had the organization and concentration.

>they're the reason that the Flak-88s were used as AT units.

You're an idiot. Soviet sources will tell you that roughly 4% of T-34 losses in 1942 were the result of 88mm shells. The only thing that really changed in most of 1942 versus 1941 was the greater prevalence of 5cm guns. It is completely unreasonably to chalk any significant portion of Soviet T-34 losses to 88mm shells.

Even if you assume a generous 50% of the 2300 T-34 losses in 1941 were operational (running out of fuel, breaking down without being able to recovered, etc)1000 combat losses within 6 months of combat for any other vehicle would be a disastrous debut.

But for some bizarre reason, you're going to suck the T-34s proverbial dick as an effective weapon system? What the hell!

>>33453010
You made the best tank of WW2 threads

>>33457111
>Soviets
>organization and concentration
>Barbarossa
lol, I guess all those abandon tanks were just due to poor navigation, eh?
No, you fuck off. This is basic fucking fact, akin to denying the Holocaust happened.

Wikipedia isn't the best for all things, but for this it's pretty fucking explicit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_encounter_of_Soviet_T-34_and_KV_tanks

>>33457111
>The two stand-out formations, the 4th and 6th MCs, lost almost all of their T-34 and KVs during movement, not from any German attack

>During movement

File: 1471465783256.jpg (54KB, 305x444px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 305x444px

>>33457148
Want a cookie?

>>33458313
So, where'd the other 1700 T-34s lost between June and December go?

>>33453010

Embarrassing tank. They had to spam it to achieve any result. Truly awful.

File: big mac.jpg (171KB, 1500x1180px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 1500x1180px

>>33453775
>It wasn't the most comfortable tank to drive or fight in

...was rather fun to destroy though.

File: t-34-85.18541.jpg (158KB, 1080x758px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1080x758px

best korea

File: kore.jpg (314KB, 690x552px) Image search: [Google]

314KB, 690x552px

pointy end toward enemy, right?

>>33454991
Because a destroyed/immobolised T-34 can be easily replaced by building more T-34s.

Unlike a Panther.

>>33459628
For what it is worth, T-34 production in 1941 was half of the Panthers total production run

read this for "redpill"

http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html

>>33459522
>>33459546
>>33459564
>>33459596
>>33459607
>>33459693
>>33459773

Daily reminder that large portion of North korean armor was knocked out by air power. Not just "kill claims" but actual evaluation of T-34's in the field to find the cause for for it being knocked out.

>>33459808
this one was "courtesy of fox company"
if you mean to include artillery as air power than yes you are right.

File: 1490394744880.gif (898KB, 280x210px) Image search: [Google]

898KB, 280x210px

>redpill

File: William_F._Dean.jpg (18KB, 541x681px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 541x681px

>>33459522
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Dean

William Frishe Dean, Sr. (August 1, 1899 – August 24, 1981) was a United States Army major general during World War II and the Korean War. He received the Medal of Honor for his actions on July 20 and 21, 1950, during the Battle of Taejon in South Korea. Dean was also the highest ranking American officer captured by the North Koreans during the Korean War.

File: NK T-34 losses.png (328KB, 1584x2000px) Image search: [Google]

328KB, 1584x2000px

>>33459863
I see your reading comprehension really shines.

File: NK t-34 losses 2.png (1MB, 2432x3168px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2432x3168px

>>33459952

>>33456710
>this inflates both the loss count and the production count
>this inflates the production count
if comrade Stalin is sending you and your extended family to a luxurius gulag for not making your production targets, you get creative.

File: source.png (519KB, 2256x3168px) Image search: [Google]

519KB, 2256x3168px

>>33459976
And then we have the source right here.

You wont have a hard time finding it.

File: siblings can't fall in love.jpg (330KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

330KB, 1920x1080px

>>33456217
siblings can't fall in love, it's impossible.

>>33454527
BMPs are APCs. APCs with a cannon are still APCs...

Also you don't need to be redpilled OP. Communist weaponry is always bad and should be treated as such.

>>33460275
Fuck of retard, you don't even know how to use ellipses correctly. Its an IFV.

>>33460380
Help, I'm getting billied on the internet.

>>33460004
That makes sense even if not true.

File: 74.jpg (61KB, 320x304px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 320x304px

>>33460063
>siblings can't fall in love, it's impossible

>>33462160

As far as I'm aware it was for record keeping purposes. Instead of having tank no. x being built, destroyed and rebuilt several times, with associated records, they just struck it from the record and put up a new entry for the same tank.

>>33459952
>>33459976
>>33460017
So, the difference between WWII, where air was largely ineffective against armor, and Korea, is mostly due to having an area-effect weapon (napalm)?

Or does the tactical situation (tanks in the open, with less AAA) make up a lot of the difference?

>>33454975
No they had automatic transmission with hydrolic power ask any engineer they will tell thats the most stupid combination.

>Soviet tanks were shi-
Although the Germans now knew where they were being attacked from, they could only spot Lieutenant Kolobanov's tank, and now attempted to engage an unseen enemy. The German tanks got bogged down when they moved off the road onto the surrounding soft ground making them easy targets. Twenty-two German tanks and two towed artillery pieces were knocked out by Kolobanov's tank before it ran out of ammunition.[1] Kolobanov ordered in another KV-1, and 21 more German tanks were destroyed before the half-hour battle ended. A total of 43 German tanks had been destroyed by the five Soviet KV-1s (two more remained in reserve).

For their actions, Lieutenant Kolobanov was awarded the Order of the Red Banner and Andrej Usov was awarded the Order of Lenin.

The Soviet victory was the result of a well-planned ambush on advantageous ground and superiority of weapons. Most of the German tanks in this battle were light tanks armed with only 37 mm guns. The German tank guns had neither the range nor the power of the 76 mm main gun of a KV-1. After the battle, the crew of No. 864 counted a total of 156 hits on their tank, none of which had penetrated the armor.

>>33460017
>ASSIFIED
In all seriousness though, would a t-34-85 covered in napalm be hot enough to burn out the crew?

>doctrine demands you operate fully buttoned and practically blind

What did the Red Army mean by this?

>>33453669

T-34/85 had pretty decent armor, well sloped, the welds are ugly and the oversized turret was full of shot traps but all in all not bad. Ergonomics were not so much "poor" as simply nonexistent.

>>33455562
I miss that autistic womanizing prick.

>>33465221
They've meant a doctrine superior to that of Nazis.

>>33453010
This kills the fascist

>>33465257
You accidentally ended your sentence short.
Obviously you meant to write "They've meant a doctrine superior to that of Nazis at getting slaughtered by the fuckload because they couldn't see where they were, where the enemy was and what was going on in general."

File: berlin.jpg (40KB, 807x600px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 807x600px

>>33465425
No, I ended it right how it was meant to be ended. Just like Russia ended Nazis, rolling SU-152 over burning mechanised nazi zoo.

>>33464262
Both, also the aircrafts were much better in general. There were also people calling in air strikes so early CAS as we know it was being developed in Korea.

>>33465204
The napalm will leak in anywhere it can and burn the roadwheel rubber thus the vehicle become immobile= knocked out. Crews usually evacuate from the Tank if it has been burnt too hard or there are still jets above trying to bomb it.

The Napalm with some time and good splash will cause a chain of events where the fuel get so hot that it burns, same with ammo and the engine get damaged too much etc.

>>33465447
>Just like Russia ended Nazis,
And then the West ended the Soviet Union, so what of it?
Of course neither Germany's loss of WW2 or the Soviet's loss of the cold war has anything to do with how badly Russia was mauled by Germany's vastly superior armored warfare doctrine.

>>33454502

This

Questo

Ceci

Diese

этo

>>33465447
>23 countries fighting against the nazis
>russia ended nazis tovarich)))))

>>33465586
Yeah honestly New Zealand did most of the work

>>33455228
Only won by using numbers. Fact is the STUG III G, Panther, and Tiger I & II ate this shitty tank for breakfast. One on one with the above mentioned tanks/ assault gun will result in T-34-85 getting destroyed.

>>33466084
>let me discard one of the most important factors so I can return to my retardedly basic video game historian level of waffling on about tank duel wankery
Truly enlightening shit, my good friend.

File: 2008127234836_60.jpg (25KB, 340x216px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 340x216px

>>33466084
Which is why a single T-34 didn't destroy 3 King Tigers right?

>>33464371
One Kv1 got shot right at to the turret ring nad it disabled the slew, KV1 still countinued to kill by using the hull traverse.

>>33466084
Remember this >>33466137 story wehraboo kid.

>The unit had disembarked earlier at Kielce with 45 King Tigers but by the time it had reached the vicinity of Ogledow on the evening of 11 August 1944, it was down to only eight tanks. The rest had broken down during the 45 km road march, mainly due to reduction gear failures.

A massive amount of German tanks had overhardened armour. Made it brittle, liable to crack when hit.

>>33465257
Superior at losing tanks to on-paper obsolete German designs, sure

>>33466169
The T-34 also had this issue; it's part of why everyone in the tank tended to die when hit by 75mm high velocity guns

>>33466919
That dependet on the factory they've been made and the date. Slavs didn't give a fuck about standarts when it come to T-34s

>>33466943
I could have sworn both the Aberdeen example and Korea examples showed very high hardness armor

File: 1455951505658.jpg (70KB, 800x535px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 800x535px

>>33455587
>savage
here's a good looking tank

>>33466154
>>The unit had disembarked earlier at Kielce with 45 King Tigers but by the time it had reached the vicinity of Ogledow on the evening of 11 August 1944, it was down to only eight tanks. The rest had broken down during the 45 km road march, mainly due to reduction gear failures.

that's.. sad. Were germans transmissions this bad or just on thisese heavy tanks?

>>33466137
Michael Wittman took out over a dozen T-34s in his STUG III B which mind you had the 7,5 cm howizter not the high velocity 7,5 cm. T-34 is a shitty tank

>>33467886
>As the StuG was designed to fill an infantry close support combat role, early models were fitted with a low-velocity 7.5 cm StuK 37 L/24 gun. Low-velocity shells are lightly built of thin steel and carry a large charge of explosive to destroy soft-skin targets and blast fortifications. Such shells do not penetrate armour well. After the Germans encountered the Soviet KV-1 and T-34 tanks, the StuG was first equipped with a high-velocity 7.5 cm StuK 40 L/43 main gun (spring 1942) and in the autumn of 1942 with the slightly longer 7.5 cm StuK 40 L/48 gun.
Ahahahah fucking bullshit

>>33453355
The Soviets used the ZiS-5 85mm for the T-34/85. the D-5T was a shittier 85mm.

>>33467676

problems with german industry under wartime pressure led to the transmissions not working as intended

tl;dr they sucked

>>33468672
The T-34s had a problem of spalling and a well placed HE shell below the turret will result in a one hit KO

File: T34 weld.jpg (233KB, 999x749px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 999x749px

>>33465238
>the welds are ugly

>>33455627
Most German tanks had a cannon that would Penetrate a T34. The 50mm Pak 38, and the 50mm in the PZIII could kill a T34 with ease. The reason they switched to the PZIV with the long barreled 75mm was to knock out KVs.

>>33459792
>blogspot
>redpill
sure

>>33470438
Meh, the long 50s could, the shorter 50s had a lot of trouble doing so. Never mind the 37s. Guess which of these was the least common?

>>33467383

>Hey Hans
>I know how to make an aesthethic tank
>Take a cereal box and add a frying pan on top
>That will surely look good

kys

>>33470438

>The 50mm pak 38 could kill a T-34 with ease

On what planet? Krypton

Unless you were shooting the sides at a distance where you would scrape the paint with the muzzle break you couldn't do shit.

There was APCR, but APCR was as available as women willing to fuck you.

>>33470452
so you didnt read it then?
very well done and informative site, too bad for you.

>>33468672
Do you know that infantry support includes fighting tanks, right? And BTW 7.5 cm L/48 gun. HE shell carried more explosives than 7.5 cm L/24 HE.

>III. The Sturmartillerie, (equally true if they are in the form of armored vehicles or consist of armored and motorized field guns) is, on the other hand, a weapon to assist the normal Infantry Division. Their use during the attack corresponds to the Escort Artillery of the last war, that is, the elite of the light Artillery. In order to make them useful for other purposes, such as on the defensive, there is an additional requirement for the ability to be used as part of the normal Artillery — in an indirect fire role, into the main battle area (usually a distance of 1 kilometers) at a minimum. Finally, they would be a superb offensive anti-tank weapon, and could replace the divisional anti-tank element in this role.
>....
>Being armored and motorized permits the assault artillery to fight in among the Infantry, which means the immediate combined effect at the right moment against decisive targets in a quantity which the artillery in rear positions is not able to deliver.
>The gun must be able to take enemy machine gun emplacements out of action with a few rounds. It must also be able to knock out enemy tanks, in comparison to them it has inferior armor, but a superior ability to observe and shoot first.
>It must also be able to knock out enemy tanks,
>It must also be able to knock out enemy tanks,
>It must also be able
>It must
>...
>signed,
>von Manstem

>>33467886
Shaped charge kraut space magic.

File: scottygermantank.jpg (93KB, 800x468px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 800x468px

ahem

sherman was an objectively better tank.

both in it's production numbers along with it's general reliablity and quality, combined with it's elbow-room

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/the-t-34-in-wwii-the-legend-vs-the-performance/

>The combat results for 1941 show the Soviets lost an average of over seven tanks for every German tank lost. (5) If all German fully tracked AFVs (assault guns, tank destroyers, SP artillery, etc) and losses from Germany’s allies are included in the German figures, then the ratio drops to 6.6 to 1 in the German favour.
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.

The T34 looked good on paper but was a pile of dogshit.

>>33472114
And the fact that (((God's Choosen))) used them in the 1960s-1970s to BTFO T54s/T62s.

Meanwhile the T34 got dumped by the Soviets as soon as they could as it sucked ass.

>>33472120
>shit tank
>shit crew
>unimpressive production numbers
>still beat Germany
how

>>33459697
T-34 went cheaper as months goes by.

>>33472510
Because dumbasses can't comprehend a calculation any more complex than K/D, and can't even be bothered to find the right fucking numbers to plug in to the formula.

>>33472865
Did they go on sale?

>>33472865
But money costs have very little meaning in the Soviet economy. While the man hour costs did certainly improve, iirc they improved less than the ruble cost

>>33471451
40+% of T-34s knocked out in 1942, according to Soviet sources were by 5cm shells. This makes it the single most numerous T-34 killer in 1942, more than airpower, artillery, and 88mm shells combined

>>33460275
>>33460380
ifvs are apcs with arbitrarily big caliber.

i think the semantic distinction mostly comes at the point where they can engage lightly armored targets versus just providing anti infantry fire.

>>33472510
well stalin was preparing to fight germany like a madman when hitler didn't even looked in his direction for a good while yet.

the most important part of this was not actual arms production but the building of facilities that can produce them en mass much closer to the front lines than german facilities.

that is one was to win a war.

>>33475044

Because that was the most numerous caliber of the German army.

The lengths Panzerjager units had to go through to knock out a T-34 with a Pak 38 were ridiculous and the Panzer 3's weren't much better either.

Also the amount of available T-34's at that time mustn't have been too high since Stavka was still unfucking it's self at that time.

>>33475510
>The lengths Panzerjager units had to go through to knock out a T-34 with a Pak 38 were ridiculous and the Panzer 3's weren't much better either.

It couldn't have been ridiculously difficult, considering the almost 7000 T-34s they lost in 1942

>>33475203
Nonesense Hitler craved for that caucasus oil and He wanted that his übermanch race would be the one that counqured Moscow.

>>33459792
Checked that against my own copy of Soviet Causalities and Combat Losses.

The link is bullshit that intentionally misquotes its sources.

File: 1305647279724.jpg (48KB, 700x499px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 700x499px

>>33459596

Jesus christ, that thing looks SMALL compared to those guys.

It's hard to think about fitting 4-5 people inside...

File: 1335010664257.jpg (110KB, 720x951px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 720x951px

>>33472120
>operationbarbarossa.net

>>33453010
It is like the glock, stupid, mass produced shit

>>33470393
its a feature!

File: 17499350_1156587724451783_3714531057932990319_n.jpg (42KB, 640x472px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 640x472px

>>33453010
Garbage. They just made a ton of them and had a ton of commies who were expendable bodies to die in them.

>>33453623
No it didn't, by virtue of most tanks not receiving it even well into '45.
>>33453531
Panzer IV didn't have a godless, clutchless horror for a gearbox that needed a sledgehammer to shift.

>>33453517
Sure, he meant the Panther

>>33467886
The StuG probably killed them with hollow charge (HEAT) ammo, as hollow as your skull.

>>33472114
/thread

File: Air_Sea_ww2.png (127KB, 884x466px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 884x466px

>>33465447
>Just like Russia ended Nazis
*thinking man emoji*

>>33459546
what happened to the barrel to make it banana peel out like that? Squib?

File: 1471526407814.jpg (1MB, 1600x1800px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x1800px

>>33471431
now that's just rude