4 ms·

The T-34 Won the War: The Greatest Myth of World War II

2 points by rawgabbit 3y ago

ggm 3y ago
"Quantity has a quality all of its own" combined with "good enough if you don't care about manpower losses" I believe the IS-1 was a better tank. Certainly more powerfully armed. I was misled by slanders to believing the Sherman was at best mediocre and at worst earned the sobriquet "ronson" when it was survivorship bias: people lived to say how bad it was where other tank crews simply didn't come back. That said, it needed the up gunning to the British weapon which made the firefly. British tanks started bad but got better. By end of war they were pretty ok, and survived into the modern tank era sold on to other nations in volume and for engineering uses.
- nicbou 3y ago
  The Firefly was a flawed compromise. It made the Sherman an effective big cat killer, but affected its rate of fire and infantry fighting power. But yes the Sherman was an excellent tank for its job: to wage war on multiple continents from factories in America, with regard for logistics, maintenance, ease of transportation, crew comfort and crew survivability. It was a great example of pragmatism.
nicbou 3y ago
This is not a good article, in my opinion. I think that the Bovington Museum's "Tank Chat" series are a lot better at putting these numbers in context. A tank is not just a spec sheet, but the outcome of prewar doctrines, industrial power, and the bitter realities of war. The Soviets produced a tank that scared the first German units to encounter it. It was the threat that got them to replace their early anti-tank gun and to design the Tiger and the Panther. Above all, it was produced in prodigious numbers despite the entire production being moved to the Urals (right?) in the middle of an invasion. It was adapted to a bigger gun and turret and remained a credible threat until the end of the war. I didn't see a mention of its excellent cross-country capacity. It played a role in the dash through the German flank that resulted in the destruction of the 6th army. Sure, it had appalling crew comfort and a very short lifespan, but it was a successful design that got the job done. No one claims that it won the war on its own, but it was an effective design that deserves praise. The Bob Semple might have been the best tank design of the war, but it doesn't change the fact that it's the T-34 that entered Berlin.
- rawgabbit 3y ago
  Mark Felton has a YouTube video when the Nazis first encountered the KV1. It literally took days for the Nazis to destroy a lone tank. https://youtu.be/VIC-BdwwI1w https://youtu.be/VIC-BdwwI1w
- rawgabbit 3y ago
  The article dismissed the tanks cross country ability due to when the Americans got their hands on one at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds they were shocked by the poor design of the air filter and the poor manufacturing quality of the transmission. The T34 the US had a catastrophic engine failure and the Americans thought poorly of it.

2 points by rawgabbit 3y ago

ggm 3y ago

"Quantity has a quality all of its own" combined with "good enough if you don't care about manpower losses" I believe the IS-1 was a better tank. Certainly more powerfully armed. I was misled by slanders to believing the Sherman was at best mediocre and at worst earned the sobriquet "ronson" when it was survivorship bias: people lived to say how bad it was where other tank crews simply didn't come back. That said, it needed the up gunning to the British weapon which made the firefly. British tanks started bad but got better. By end of war they were pretty ok, and survived into the modern tank era sold on to other nations in volume and for engineering uses.

nicbou 3y ago
The Firefly was a flawed compromise. It made the Sherman an effective big cat killer, but affected its rate of fire and infantry fighting power. But yes the Sherman was an excellent tank for its job: to wage war on multiple continents from factories in America, with regard for logistics, maintenance, ease of transportation, crew comfort and crew survivability. It was a great example of pragmatism.

nicbou 3y ago

This is not a good article, in my opinion. I think that the Bovington Museum's "Tank Chat" series are a lot better at putting these numbers in context. A tank is not just a spec sheet, but the outcome of prewar doctrines, industrial power, and the bitter realities of war. The Soviets produced a tank that scared the first German units to encounter it. It was the threat that got them to replace their early anti-tank gun and to design the Tiger and the Panther. Above all, it was produced in prodigious numbers despite the entire production being moved to the Urals (right?) in the middle of an invasion. It was adapted to a bigger gun and turret and remained a credible threat until the end of the war. I didn't see a mention of its excellent cross-country capacity. It played a role in the dash through the German flank that resulted in the destruction of the 6th army. Sure, it had appalling crew comfort and a very short lifespan, but it was a successful design that got the job done. No one claims that it won the war on its own, but it was an effective design that deserves praise. The Bob Semple might have been the best tank design of the war, but it doesn't change the fact that it's the T-34 that entered Berlin.

rawgabbit 3y ago
Mark Felton has a YouTube video when the Nazis first encountered the KV1. It literally took days for the Nazis to destroy a lone tank. https://youtu.be/VIC-BdwwI1w https://youtu.be/VIC-BdwwI1w
rawgabbit 3y ago
The article dismissed the tanks cross country ability due to when the Americans got their hands on one at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds they were shocked by the poor design of the air filter and the poor manufacturing quality of the transmission. The T34 the US had a catastrophic engine failure and the Americans thought poorly of it.