Did Nazi Germany have oil? Would Germany have curbed stomped everyone if they never invaded the Soviets? Tank sperging. Debate it all here.

[Fapcop]

You know, all I know about American-Soviet Lend Lease is that they got a bunch on jeeps and the Soviet tank crews liked the Shermans we sent them, mostly because they were roomier and more survivable than the T-34s if you got hit. Spring loaded escape hatches and all that, less likely to get stuck and burn to death. Yeah, I know, the Zippo thing, but we fixed that relatively early on.

Oh come now, the Sherman was garbage compared to the T 34.

Sure, more comfortable and with a higher finish. But it has a ridiculously tall profile, worse armor and gun that the T34, and the tracks and suspension was a nightmare on the Eastern front.

 

[PrimeRadiant]

Oh come now, the Sherman was garbage compared to the T 34.

Sure, more comfortable and with a higher finish. But it has a ridiculously tall profile, worse armor and gun that the T34, and the tracks and suspension was a nightmare on the Eastern front.

The Russians loved em and assigned their Shermans to the guards units. Shermans were much more reliable, mobile, well built, easy to maintain and had superior internal ergonomics that made commanding and controlling the tank much easier. Not to mention their excellent radios.

 

[Rubick]

Oh come now, the Sherman was garbage compared to the T 34.

Sure, more comfortable and with a higher finish. But it has a ridiculously tall profile, worse armor and gun that the T34, and the tracks and suspension was a nightmare on the Eastern front.

Hull armor of the Sherman was thicker. With later models having comparable front turret armor to T-34-85. Fairly certain Sherman were more reliable then the T-34's. Not to mention had the soft advantages going for it. Like internal space and ergonomics, one axis gun stabilizer, among others

It's arguably the best medium tank of the war. And please don't bring up the panther which was a heap of piss poor designed and made heap of shit.


BTW not even the Soviets were pleased with the T-34. As it's weakness were very much apparent and bad decisions in the design like narrow turret ring known.

Hence they were working on the T-34M






Introduction of torsion bar suspension vs Christie's suspension. A three-man turret and a commander cupola vs a two man turret without a command cupola until of course T-34-85. Superior transmission and transverse engine. And better armour profile. Overall pretty much a whole different and superior tank.



Unfortunately the war killed it. Now that would have been likely the best medium tank of the war.


Of course T-44 being a late war tank still could be counted as the best medium tank of the war. Otherwise it's the Sherman.

 

[Susanna]

Hull armor of the Sherman was thicker. With later models having comparable front turret armor to T-34-85.

But not as well angled. Angling the armour makes it more effective and saves on weight.

Fairly certain Sherman were more reliable then the T-34's. Not to mention had the soft advantages going for it. Like internal space and ergonomics, one axis gun stabilizer, among others

It's arguably the best medium tank of the war. And please don't bring up the panther which was a heap of piss poor designed and made heap of shit.


BTW not even the Soviets were pleased with the T-34. . As it's weakness were very much apparent and bad decisions in the design like narrow turret ring were known.

Hence they were working on the T-34M

View attachment 5753580


View attachment 5753581

Introduction of torsion bar suspension vs Christie's suspension. A three-man turret and a commander cupola vs a two man turret without a command cupola until of course T-34-85. Superior transmission and transferse engine And better armour profile. overall pretty much a whole different and superior tank.



Unfortunately the war killed it. Now that would have been likely the best medium tank of the war.


Of course T-44 being a late war tank still could be counted as the best medium tank of the war. Otherwise it's the Sherman.

Bear in mind that the T-34 was an early-war tank, the Sherman a mid-war tank, and the Panther a late-war tanks. Compare it to other tanks of its time and the T-34 was incredibly good. Of course latter designs were able to compete with it.

To clarify, the T-34 was designed around the same time the yanks were struggling to put the horrid M3 together, and the Germans were putting the Panzer III forth as their workhorse. Not that the Panzer III was necessarily bad, but there's a reason they ended up turning that production line over to StuGs and rearming the Panzer IV from infantry support to (mediocre) anti-tank.

Some interesting trivia about this is that in order to bypass Versailles treaty limitations on armoured vehicle development, the Germans worked through their Swedish semi-allies. The Swedish Landsverk L-60 line was basically designed by the same Germans who latter made the Panzer line, and were actually remarkable from a technical viewpoint. First use of torsion bars, for example.

 

[Freedom Fighter]

In one way, yeah, but the T-34 used diesel, which is super difficult to catch on fire.

To note, almost all (all except two M4A4s, according to lazy wikipedia browsing) USSR-leased Shermans were of the M4A2 subtype, which used Diesel engines.

 

[geckogoy]

To note, almost all (all except two M4A4s, according to lazy wikipedia browsing) USSR-leased Shermans were of the M4A2 subtype, which used Diesel engines.

One shining attribute of the sherman is it was extremely modular so as to resist supply chain fluctuations, almost every component had 2 or 3 permissible alternatives you could install in its place if the preferred one was not available.

This mainly applied to the various gasoline engines that were supported, but that design aspect is also why it was relatively straightforward to make diesels for the russians

 

[Susanna]

This mainly applied to the various gasoline engines that were supported, but that design aspect is also why it was relatively straightforward to make diesels for the russians

Yeah, if you didn't want your tank to have an aircraft engine you could instead opt for two bus engines tied together with duct tape.

 

[Tamerlane]

The Russians loved em and assigned their Shermans to the guards units. Shermans were much more reliable, mobile, well built, easy to maintain and had superior internal ergonomics that made commanding and controlling the tank much easier. Not to mention their excellent radios.

They where good and they got assigned to gaurd units and t34s went to gaurd units. They also both where assigned to regular units. They considered both to be fine medium tanks.

 

[geckogoy]

Yeah, if you didn't want your tank to have an aircraft engine you could instead opt for two bus engines tied together with duct tape.

No that was the british

 

[Susanna]

View attachment 5753692
No that was the british

Are you sure? Chrysler A57 was the "five car engines strapped together" one, and I'm pretty sure Chrysler is a yank company.

 

[Gondola Enjoyer]

By Allah I will fedpost if you retards keep being completely wrong about WW2 tanks any longer.

The early war T-34s were genuine pieces of shit, the regular, non-command tanks didn't have fucking radios, and had to communicate with signal flags. Their visibility was ass, the crew comfort was fucking atrocious, the two man turret had the commander overworked as shit. Some of these never really improved, such as the crew comfort and visibility being awful all the way up to the end-war T-34-85s.

The Sherman wasn't nearly as shit as people think it is. The sherman's short 75mm was also better than the 76mm used on the most common T-34s plus, the commander could actually fucking see and find targets, and the gunner had a sight that didn't suck dick. The sherman was also one of the more survivable tanks after getting penetrated, because of the (as mentioned) spring loaded hatches and generally good internal layout that let the crew get out. The T-34's driver's hatch is a genuine fucking abomination and if you think you can get out of that quickly, you're full of shit. The bow gunner didn't even get a roof hatch, he just had to be an expert contortionist and turn himself into a pretzel in the notoriously cramped tank to get out.

But in the end, none of those flaws mattered compared to Germany's output, because the tanks were good enough and could be pumped out in ridiculous numbers, and while the T-34's reliability wasn't that great all things considered, it was mostly simple to fix, or in the worst case, replace.

 

[Susanna]

it was mostly simple to fix

Well, as long as you didn't have suspension problems. As an engineer, that Christie suspension frightens me. Makes sense, it was made in the USA.

 

[Rubick]

Bear in mind that the T-34 was an early-war tank, the Sherman a mid-war tank, and the Panther a late-war tanks. Compare it to other tanks of its time and the T-34 was incredibly good. Of course latter designs were able to compete with it.

Was it though compared to panzer IV ? Especially when you account the panzer IV turret with commander cupola and 3 men crew ? There is a reason why the much maligned by western historians Kulik cancelled procurement of T-34s tanks after trials in November-December 1940. whome got overruled by Kharkov plant leadership and Commissariat of Industry. It wasn't because of him being a cavalry man despite of what western historians peddle.

But because of this conclusions from Main Directorate of Automobile and Armored Forces of the Red Army (GABTU)

1. Танк Т-34 по вооружению, снарядостойкости, типу и запасу мощности двигателя и радиусу действия должен быть преобладающим в системе вооружения танковых войск К.А. в силу широких возможностей тактического использования этого класса танков. Поэтому конструкция танка данного типа должна быть особо тщательно отработана.

2. В представленном на испытания виде, танк Т-34 не удовлетворяет современным требованиям к данному классу танков по следующим причинам:
а) Огневая мощь танка не может быть использована полностью вследствие непригодности приборов наблюдения, дефектов установки вооружения и оптики, тесноты боевого отделения и неудобства пользования боеукладкой.
б) При достаточном запасе мощности двигателя и максимальной скорости, динамическая характеристика танка подобрана неудачно, что снижает скоростные показатели и проходимость танка.
в) Тактическое использование танка в отрыве от ремонтных баз невозможно, вследствие ненадежности основных узлов – главного фрикциона и ходовой части.
г) Полученная на испытаниях дальность и надежность связи для танка данного класса недостаточна, что обусловлено как характеристикой рации 71 ТК-3, так и низким качеством ее монтажа в танке Т-34.

3. Для устранения перечисленных принципиальных дефектов танка необходимо:
а) Расширить габариты башни и боевого отделения, что даст возможность устранить дефекты установки вооружения и оптики.
б) Разработать заново укладку боекомплекта.
в) Заменить существующие приборы наблюдения новыми более совершенными.
г) Переработать узлы: главный фрикцион – вентилятор, коробку перемены передач и ходовую часть.
д) Увеличить гарантийный срок дизель-мотора В-2 минимум до 250 часов.
е) Увеличить дальность и надежность радиосвязи путем установки рации, обладающей большим радиусом связи и улучшения качества монтажа.

Can you honestly tell me that anything in this conclusion is not correct? Conclusions formalized into T-34M program.


Edit


BTW you're wrong about the land lease there is one area especially. The Soviet chemical industry. Which wouldn't have functioned without Americans. And without it. The Soviets would have lost and both of us wouldn't have been born.

Anyway.

Hohol hiding hole being fabbed.

 

[More AWS-8Q Than You]

By Allah I will fedpost if you retards keep being completely wrong about WW2 tanks any longer.

The early war T-34s were genuine pieces of shit, the regular, non-command tanks didn't have fucking radios, and had to communicate with signal flags. Their visibility was ass, the crew comfort was fucking atrocious, the two man turret had the commander overworked as shit. Some of these never really improved, such as the crew comfort and visibility being awful all the way up to the end-war T-34-85s.

The Sherman wasn't nearly as shit as people think it is. The sherman's short 75mm was also better than the 76mm used on the most common T-34s plus, the commander could actually fucking see and find targets, and the gunner had a sight that didn't suck dick. The sherman was also one of the more survivable tanks after getting penetrated, because of the (as mentioned) spring loaded hatches and generally good internal layout that let the crew get out. The T-34's driver's hatch is a genuine fucking abomination and if you think you can get out of that quickly, you're full of shit. The bow gunner didn't even get a roof hatch, he just had to be an expert contortionist and turn himself into a pretzel in the notoriously cramped tank to get out.

But in the end, none of those flaws mattered compared to Germany's output, because the tanks were good enough and could be pumped out in ridiculous numbers, and while the T-34's reliability wasn't that great all things considered, it was mostly simple to fix, or in the worst case, replace.

One of my favorite things is the pictures of the absolutely blown out Shermans are because the Germans figured out it only took an average of 3 days to get a disabled Sherman back in the field, so they'd shoot them until they exploded or burned down. At the end of the day, both the Sherman and T-34 were good enough and both got better. At least replacing a Sherman's transmission could be done in the field in a matter of hours, we didn't have to send our fancy cat back to the factory and remove the entire top of the tank.

Germany should have just built more StuGs, those guys did the heavy lifting.

 

[Susanna]

At least replacing a Sherman's transmission could be done in the field in a matter of hours, we didn't have to send our fancy cat back to the factory and remove the entire top of the tank.

Pretty sure T-34 could easily be swapped in the field, the engine deck isn't welded, it's bolted. There are pictures of T-34 driving around with spare transmissions strapped to the back because it was a known problem for a while and spare parts were abundant (oh, how jealous the Germans must have been when they saw their enemy had so many poor quality transmissions they could just carry spares, when they were lucky to get enough to keep one in three tanks rolling).

Can you honestly tell me that anything in this conclusion is not correct? Conclusions formalized into T-34M program.

Nope, the T-34 wasn't perfect. But for its time, it was fucking incredible. It had good armour, good gun (yeah, 76mm was outpaced pretty quickly, but when other tanks were lucky to get 45mm instead of 37mm, the 76mm was still great both for antitank and antiinfantry roles), and excellent mobility. What would the alternative have been? Slapping more armour on a T-60 and rushing it into production? Making a bigger T-50 (in which case you may as well just make a T-34 anyway)? What were the yanks making at the same time, M3 and a few even worse export tanks? Germans had the Panzer III, which actually was pretty good, but it didn't measure up to the T-34, and the 38(t) was better anyway. Sweden's m/39 genuinely was good, but so tall. French tanks with their ridiculous one-man turrets maybe?
It's easy to say "T-34 sucks, let's make T-34M instead", but that's pushing development back several years, and in the meantime the best you'll have available are BTs, which were just worse T-34s. Similarly the lack of radios or good optics weren't something T-34M would have solved anyway, those were issues caused by the underdeveloped industry. The T-34 was designed for each tank to carry a radio, there just weren't enough radios available, which is why only command tanks were given them. When radios did become available, they came standard on all tanks.

 

[Rubick]

Of course due to the war T-34 was used because nothing close in the Soviet pipeline was better that was close to being ready.. But it was though far from incredible. Panzer IV arguably was better. Until T-34-85. But it was far from a great tank also. And certainly wasn't better then Sherman especially later models. Which is really what we are talking about here.

 

[Susanna]

Of course due to the war T-34 was used because nothing close in the Soviet pipeline was better that was close to being ready.. But it was though far from incredible. Panzer IV arguably was better. Until T-34-85. But it was far from a great tank also. And certainly wasn't better then Sherman especially later models.

Sure. But consider the production. If you make a few T-34 and then pivot to T-34M as soon as possible, you're still completely overhauling your production lines, because the two tanks despite looking really similar, were actually very different.
I think if the Soviet Union had done this, the tank production lines would have been as big of a mess as the German ones. The uparmed Panzer IV, as you say, was actually pretty good (though I don't agree that it was better, it wasn't), and could be produced in high numbers. But Panther was better, so the production lines were switched over to produce that instead. Only, because you're now making something entirely new, output will initially be very low, and the tank will have reliability issues that a tank which has already been in production a few years would have already solved.

Many mediocre T-34s are much better than a handful of T-44s or Panthers.

 

[Rubick]

Sure. But consider the production. If you make a few T-34 and then pivot to T-34M as soon as possible, you're still completely overhauling your production lines, because the two tanks despite looking really similar, were actually very different.
I think if the Soviet Union had done this, the tank production lines would have been as big of a mess as the German ones.

It wouldn't have been that big of a overhaul. (tooling alone would have been the same) And the biggest bottleneck would have been the transmission in terms of manufacturing. But i do agree it would have still hampered the production line to much.

Also, anything is better then a Panther. Like i said unbelievable inefficient and crap design of a tank.

 

[Just Some Other Guy]

M4 Shermans were fine for what they were. T34s were fine for what they were. The Soviets used both for the same tasks and found no detriment to that.

Now the British tanks though...those were bad. Both the US and Soviets could dunk on Brit army tech any day, same as how the US and Japan could shove the Royal Navy into the locker without thinking.

At the end of the day just come together and make fun of Brits.

 

[Kane Lives]

M4 Shermans were fine for what they were. T34s were fine for what they were. The Soviets used both for the same tasks and found no detriment to that.

Now the British tanks though...those were bad. Both the US and Soviets could dunk on Brit army tech any day, same as how the US and Japan could shove the Royal Navy into the locker without thinking.

At the end of the day just come together and make fun of Brits.

It took the Brits till what, the Cromwell to finally field a tank that isnt a retard brick (Churchill, Matilda) or paper tank (Crusader lol).

Though to their credit, it was a Churchill which disabled the first Tiger to be captured.