![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between 2005-10-08 and 2006-01-27.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.
Please add new archivals to Talk:T-34/Archive03. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. — Michael Z. 2006-07-14 02:07 Z
This is a pretty broad statement, so it requires very careful wording, but it seems to me to be essentially valid. The roots of the question are broader than merely the existence of the T-34; it's really about the respective philosophical approaches of the Soviets and Germans to military design and industry, and touches on Hitler's obsession with super-weapons, but the T-34 is an excellent symbol for this. Perhaps the topic should be expanded to a short paragraph (it's only touched-upon now), and then mentioned in the article's closing. — Michael Z. 2005-10-8 17:33 Z
This is from the book section about the IS-2 and 3 tanks, but "quantitative advantage" certainly refers to the huge T-34 production, and of course the T-34s were even lighter and cheaper than the IS tanks. I'd say this clearly supports and even surpasses the statement in question. — Michael Z. 2005-10-13 13:14 Z
T-34/76 and T-34/85 or T-34 and T-34-85. From what I've seen the former is the common use, but the Russian website uses the latter. Which is preferred? GraemeLeggett 18:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Okay, after two sets of concerted changes, we now have a mix of Soviet and German terminology in this article: T-34 Model 1942, T-34/85 and T-34-85. Apart from explaining the two naming schemes, we should use either consistently Soviet nomenclature or consistently German. Let's hold a straw poll and settle on one usage.
Soviet nomenclature: the Soviets called the main tank models T-34 and T-34-85, qualifying minor models by the production year: T-34 Model 1942, T-34-85 Model 1945; more specific differences are usually indicated by naming the factory of production. Advantages:
German nomenclature: the Germans called them T-34/76 and T-34/85, denoting minor design variants (not model years) like T-34/76C. They didn't recognize design variations in the T-34/85, which remained in production for years after the war. Advantages:
Keep in mind that we are not discussing the title of an article, so that Wikipedia:Naming conventions don't speak to this question, although those principles should be kept in mind. Any objections or suggestions about holding such a vote? — Michael Z. 2005-10-19 15:00 Z
I plead guilty to changing the nomenclature to reflect Soviet usage. I guess I didn't catch every one. Seems to me we should use the correct terms regardless of what the Germans did or what anyone was doing 30 years ago, particularly since the German terms are misleading and, frankly, we know now what is right. -DMorpheus
There have been several recent back-and-forth edits in the combat effectiveness section regarding the firepower of the T-34-85 compared to German vehicles armed with the L/48 75mm gun (the Stug-III and Panzer-IV were the original AFVs cited, although this would obviously apply as well to the Stug-IV and Jagdpanzer IV L/48).
I've spent several hours checking the references listed below. I am not an engineer so I may be mis-stating some of this - I welcome comments. The problem of armor penetration is not simple, and it is hard to find tests recording the same method of testing done with these two guns. Often the testing is solely German guns, or Soviet guns, so it is not as easy as you might expect to compare them. Ammunition type is a huge factor, as is slope of plate and hardness of plate. In most test reports, slope of plate at the target is normally 30 degrees, but not always. Without having hardness measures for each vehicle (and these would only be samples) it's tough to account for that. Finally, results from different tests are simply different, for unknown reasons.
Still, by taking the full range of figures supplied by all the sources, the 85mm gun is consistently quoted as outperforming the 75mm weapons on the Stug-III and Panzer-IV, as well as the towed 75mm PAK40. The difference is usually greatest at shorter (less than 1000 meter) range. AFAIK most WW2 tank-vs-tank combat took place at ranges less than 1000 meters. The only exceptions are the 75mm PAK41 taper-bore gun (a very rare weapon) and the L/70 mounted on the Panther. But the original text claimed superior firepower compared to the L/48, not the PAK41 or L/70.
I would be glad to post the figures here except that I don't know how to make a table (sorry). All are published sources including Zaloga and Grandsen (1984), Zaloga and Ness (1998), RAC Tank Museum (1975), John Ellis (1993), Foss (1974), Gander and Chamblerlin (1978), Hogg (1975), Macksey (1988), US Army TM-E 30-451 (1945) and a SHAEF report WO219/2801 done in March 1945.
A better, if more difficult, way to present this information is to include both armor penetration figures and armor thicknesses and slope for the major vehicles. Ideally, a table showing the ranges and aspects at which each vehicle can penetrate the other could be made. That would be the best measure of the comparative firepower of each vehicle.
Pending this, may I suggest that the original content be restored? DMorpheus
Yikes. Zaloga does write that the "Model 1942" entered production in 1941, and was built concurrently with the "Model 1943" with new turret, starting in early 1942. I always assumed that he used standard Soviet/Russian designations, though. This seems to confuse the whole issue. — Michael Z. 2005-12-1 22:41 Z
I have seen photos published in the west as early as June 1942 showing a hexagonal-turreted vehicle so there's no question they were being produced fairly early in 1942. I've also yet to see a Stalingrad-produced T-34 of any variant with the initial driver's hatch, which makes me wonder if this feature was less an "early" feature or something confined to a few early factories. I.e., maybe Stalingrad started out with the second-type driver's hatch on their first T-34s.
DMorpheus 15:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Could someone explain what and "MDSh" stands for? -- nyenyec ☎ 06:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
These canisters were part of the TDP (tankovoy dimoviy pribor) smoke system, and were replaced by BDSh canisters in the 1960 modernization programme. — Michael Z. 2006-01-19 03:45 Z
a very well-written article, i have a few suggestions which i think might improve it.
Doldrums 12:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone have any good quotes about the T-34's superlative qualities? I found the following at wikiquote:Tank. — Michael Z. 2005-12-20 20:04 Z
DMorpheus 23:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Wow, a great choice of quotations. I will add these to wikiquote:T-34, if you don't mind. — Michael Z. 2005-12-21 02:24 Z
Found another. — Michael Z. 2005-12-21 03:27 Z
1. Hexagonal turret of the T-34 (Wiki refers it to Model 1943) was developed in 1942! First T-34 with hexagonal turret appeared in Red Army in August-September 1942.
2. Correct designation for the flamethrower T-34 was TO-34 (not OT-34).
Source: http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=81&Itemid=50&lang=en
I've announced it elsewhere, but forgot to mention on this page that I've submitted this article for peer review, with the hope of polishing it up for a nomination for Featured Article. Please see the comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/T-34/archive1. — Michael Z. 2005-12-22 06:19 Z
Well, I got creative and added quotations at the start of some sections. Please be patient, and comment here instead of removing them immediately, so others have a chance to see them and comment too.
Citations are lacking for the Stalin quote (commonly cited) and the anonymous tanker (can't find anything except wikiquote [1]). It would also be nice to add another quote to the start of the "Combat history" section. The quotes seem appropriate for their respective sections, but could be shuffled around a bit. — Michael Z. 2005-12-23 06:43 Z
The article has been much improved. An exception form, I fear, the new stated production numbers. What exactly is the source for those?-- MWAK 19:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Since some sources are cited more than once, the Wikipedia:Footnotes templates won't work. I've used Harvard-style footnotes, which are perfectly acceptable under Wikipedia:Cite sources, and in some ways preferable (more commonly used in academia, more readable). — Michael Z. 2005-12-24 16:37 Z
Perret (1987:18) says "...it has seen action in Korea, Egypt, Syria, Vietnam, Cyprus, Angola and Somalia". Egypt, Syria and Cyprus should be added to the bottom of T-34#Combat history, but I don't know the specific conflicts or sides T-34s were served with. Can someone add more specific details? — Michael Z. 2005-12-29 19:57 Z
In Angola, both Cuban and MPLA forces used the T-34. I think we've left out the People's Republic of China, which is a major oversight. Cuba employed a few T-34-85s in repulsing the Bay of Pigs invasion. There are probably other African users we are leaving out. DMorpheus 02:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Given that this section is almost a summary of the whole article, why not change it to Conclusion?-- Sennaista 03:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
This article's peer review has been archived at Wikipedia:Peer review/T-34/archive1. The article has improved based on suggestions there and here, but there are a few items still outstanding. We should review these, and decide what to do about them. After that, perhaps this article can be submitted to FA. — Michael Z. 2006-01-12 17:57 Z
The following are still labelled as needing citations:
I think I can find a source stating the factory continued production while being encircled. Anything better? — Michael Z. 2006-01-12 17:57 Z
The "sub-human" comment can be toned down. Anyone have a reference for Jodl's diary, or a source attesting to the first confirmed use? — Michael Z. 2006-01-12 17:57 Z
I'll restate this as a superlative more directly reflecting some of the quotations in the article. — Michael Z. 2006-01-12 17:57 Z
Found this one on wikiquote, but nowhere else. Anyone have a citation, or even an uncited reference? — Michael Z. 2006-01-14 06:14 Z
An editor recently changed "was clearly the best tank in the world at the start of the Second World War" to "was the most technically advanced tank in the world in the early years of the Second World War". I changed this back to "clearly the best", because the latter text has some incorrect implications, and ignores part of the story.
This single statement summarizes what is covered at length in the article: that in 1941 the T-34 had the best overall design, the best-balanced and most effective mix of firepower, mobility, and protection (indeed it had just about the best of each), was designed for effective mass production. It clearly did not have the most advanced technology; it had an appropriate level of technology for its intended mode of manufacturing and employment.
The way this is stated in the intro is pretty important. It has to briefly sum up the article's conclusion on this point, and accurately reflect it. Please feel free to weigh in on the exact wording. — Michael Z. 2006-01-16 18:17 Z
First sentence is wordy. Current version is:
The T-34 is a Soviet medium tank, which was clearly the best tank in the world in the early years of the Second World War, and is often credited as the most effective and influential tank of the entire war.
How about:
The T-34 Soviet medium tank was clearly the best early-period Second World War tank and is often credited as the most effective and influential tank of the entire war.
Wendell 06:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Still repeats the word tank too much. How about one sentence to define it and set it in context, another to explain its significance: — Michael Z. 2006-01-18 09:56 Z
The T-34 is a Soviet medium tank produced from 1940–58. It was the world's best tank when the Soviet Union entered the Second World War, and is credited as the war's most effective and influential design.
Much improved. I will update article. Wendell 17:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I've created T-34 variants—please have a look, fix, and add (especially pictures). In the meantime, I'll be paring down this article's section to a brief summary. — Michael Z. 2006-01-19 05:42 Z
Recently added: "Only company commanders' tanks could be afforded to be fitted with radios." Was this because of the cost, or other reasons: lack of perceived need, requirement for training, tactical doctrine, or more than one reason? — Michael Z. 2006-01-27 00:30 Z
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between 2005-10-08 and 2006-01-27.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.
Please add new archivals to Talk:T-34/Archive03. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. — Michael Z. 2006-07-14 02:07 Z
This is a pretty broad statement, so it requires very careful wording, but it seems to me to be essentially valid. The roots of the question are broader than merely the existence of the T-34; it's really about the respective philosophical approaches of the Soviets and Germans to military design and industry, and touches on Hitler's obsession with super-weapons, but the T-34 is an excellent symbol for this. Perhaps the topic should be expanded to a short paragraph (it's only touched-upon now), and then mentioned in the article's closing. — Michael Z. 2005-10-8 17:33 Z
This is from the book section about the IS-2 and 3 tanks, but "quantitative advantage" certainly refers to the huge T-34 production, and of course the T-34s were even lighter and cheaper than the IS tanks. I'd say this clearly supports and even surpasses the statement in question. — Michael Z. 2005-10-13 13:14 Z
T-34/76 and T-34/85 or T-34 and T-34-85. From what I've seen the former is the common use, but the Russian website uses the latter. Which is preferred? GraemeLeggett 18:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Okay, after two sets of concerted changes, we now have a mix of Soviet and German terminology in this article: T-34 Model 1942, T-34/85 and T-34-85. Apart from explaining the two naming schemes, we should use either consistently Soviet nomenclature or consistently German. Let's hold a straw poll and settle on one usage.
Soviet nomenclature: the Soviets called the main tank models T-34 and T-34-85, qualifying minor models by the production year: T-34 Model 1942, T-34-85 Model 1945; more specific differences are usually indicated by naming the factory of production. Advantages:
German nomenclature: the Germans called them T-34/76 and T-34/85, denoting minor design variants (not model years) like T-34/76C. They didn't recognize design variations in the T-34/85, which remained in production for years after the war. Advantages:
Keep in mind that we are not discussing the title of an article, so that Wikipedia:Naming conventions don't speak to this question, although those principles should be kept in mind. Any objections or suggestions about holding such a vote? — Michael Z. 2005-10-19 15:00 Z
I plead guilty to changing the nomenclature to reflect Soviet usage. I guess I didn't catch every one. Seems to me we should use the correct terms regardless of what the Germans did or what anyone was doing 30 years ago, particularly since the German terms are misleading and, frankly, we know now what is right. -DMorpheus
There have been several recent back-and-forth edits in the combat effectiveness section regarding the firepower of the T-34-85 compared to German vehicles armed with the L/48 75mm gun (the Stug-III and Panzer-IV were the original AFVs cited, although this would obviously apply as well to the Stug-IV and Jagdpanzer IV L/48).
I've spent several hours checking the references listed below. I am not an engineer so I may be mis-stating some of this - I welcome comments. The problem of armor penetration is not simple, and it is hard to find tests recording the same method of testing done with these two guns. Often the testing is solely German guns, or Soviet guns, so it is not as easy as you might expect to compare them. Ammunition type is a huge factor, as is slope of plate and hardness of plate. In most test reports, slope of plate at the target is normally 30 degrees, but not always. Without having hardness measures for each vehicle (and these would only be samples) it's tough to account for that. Finally, results from different tests are simply different, for unknown reasons.
Still, by taking the full range of figures supplied by all the sources, the 85mm gun is consistently quoted as outperforming the 75mm weapons on the Stug-III and Panzer-IV, as well as the towed 75mm PAK40. The difference is usually greatest at shorter (less than 1000 meter) range. AFAIK most WW2 tank-vs-tank combat took place at ranges less than 1000 meters. The only exceptions are the 75mm PAK41 taper-bore gun (a very rare weapon) and the L/70 mounted on the Panther. But the original text claimed superior firepower compared to the L/48, not the PAK41 or L/70.
I would be glad to post the figures here except that I don't know how to make a table (sorry). All are published sources including Zaloga and Grandsen (1984), Zaloga and Ness (1998), RAC Tank Museum (1975), John Ellis (1993), Foss (1974), Gander and Chamblerlin (1978), Hogg (1975), Macksey (1988), US Army TM-E 30-451 (1945) and a SHAEF report WO219/2801 done in March 1945.
A better, if more difficult, way to present this information is to include both armor penetration figures and armor thicknesses and slope for the major vehicles. Ideally, a table showing the ranges and aspects at which each vehicle can penetrate the other could be made. That would be the best measure of the comparative firepower of each vehicle.
Pending this, may I suggest that the original content be restored? DMorpheus
Yikes. Zaloga does write that the "Model 1942" entered production in 1941, and was built concurrently with the "Model 1943" with new turret, starting in early 1942. I always assumed that he used standard Soviet/Russian designations, though. This seems to confuse the whole issue. — Michael Z. 2005-12-1 22:41 Z
I have seen photos published in the west as early as June 1942 showing a hexagonal-turreted vehicle so there's no question they were being produced fairly early in 1942. I've also yet to see a Stalingrad-produced T-34 of any variant with the initial driver's hatch, which makes me wonder if this feature was less an "early" feature or something confined to a few early factories. I.e., maybe Stalingrad started out with the second-type driver's hatch on their first T-34s.
DMorpheus 15:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Could someone explain what and "MDSh" stands for? -- nyenyec ☎ 06:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
These canisters were part of the TDP (tankovoy dimoviy pribor) smoke system, and were replaced by BDSh canisters in the 1960 modernization programme. — Michael Z. 2006-01-19 03:45 Z
a very well-written article, i have a few suggestions which i think might improve it.
Doldrums 12:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone have any good quotes about the T-34's superlative qualities? I found the following at wikiquote:Tank. — Michael Z. 2005-12-20 20:04 Z
DMorpheus 23:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Wow, a great choice of quotations. I will add these to wikiquote:T-34, if you don't mind. — Michael Z. 2005-12-21 02:24 Z
Found another. — Michael Z. 2005-12-21 03:27 Z
1. Hexagonal turret of the T-34 (Wiki refers it to Model 1943) was developed in 1942! First T-34 with hexagonal turret appeared in Red Army in August-September 1942.
2. Correct designation for the flamethrower T-34 was TO-34 (not OT-34).
Source: http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=81&Itemid=50&lang=en
I've announced it elsewhere, but forgot to mention on this page that I've submitted this article for peer review, with the hope of polishing it up for a nomination for Featured Article. Please see the comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/T-34/archive1. — Michael Z. 2005-12-22 06:19 Z
Well, I got creative and added quotations at the start of some sections. Please be patient, and comment here instead of removing them immediately, so others have a chance to see them and comment too.
Citations are lacking for the Stalin quote (commonly cited) and the anonymous tanker (can't find anything except wikiquote [1]). It would also be nice to add another quote to the start of the "Combat history" section. The quotes seem appropriate for their respective sections, but could be shuffled around a bit. — Michael Z. 2005-12-23 06:43 Z
The article has been much improved. An exception form, I fear, the new stated production numbers. What exactly is the source for those?-- MWAK 19:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Since some sources are cited more than once, the Wikipedia:Footnotes templates won't work. I've used Harvard-style footnotes, which are perfectly acceptable under Wikipedia:Cite sources, and in some ways preferable (more commonly used in academia, more readable). — Michael Z. 2005-12-24 16:37 Z
Perret (1987:18) says "...it has seen action in Korea, Egypt, Syria, Vietnam, Cyprus, Angola and Somalia". Egypt, Syria and Cyprus should be added to the bottom of T-34#Combat history, but I don't know the specific conflicts or sides T-34s were served with. Can someone add more specific details? — Michael Z. 2005-12-29 19:57 Z
In Angola, both Cuban and MPLA forces used the T-34. I think we've left out the People's Republic of China, which is a major oversight. Cuba employed a few T-34-85s in repulsing the Bay of Pigs invasion. There are probably other African users we are leaving out. DMorpheus 02:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Given that this section is almost a summary of the whole article, why not change it to Conclusion?-- Sennaista 03:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
This article's peer review has been archived at Wikipedia:Peer review/T-34/archive1. The article has improved based on suggestions there and here, but there are a few items still outstanding. We should review these, and decide what to do about them. After that, perhaps this article can be submitted to FA. — Michael Z. 2006-01-12 17:57 Z
The following are still labelled as needing citations:
I think I can find a source stating the factory continued production while being encircled. Anything better? — Michael Z. 2006-01-12 17:57 Z
The "sub-human" comment can be toned down. Anyone have a reference for Jodl's diary, or a source attesting to the first confirmed use? — Michael Z. 2006-01-12 17:57 Z
I'll restate this as a superlative more directly reflecting some of the quotations in the article. — Michael Z. 2006-01-12 17:57 Z
Found this one on wikiquote, but nowhere else. Anyone have a citation, or even an uncited reference? — Michael Z. 2006-01-14 06:14 Z
An editor recently changed "was clearly the best tank in the world at the start of the Second World War" to "was the most technically advanced tank in the world in the early years of the Second World War". I changed this back to "clearly the best", because the latter text has some incorrect implications, and ignores part of the story.
This single statement summarizes what is covered at length in the article: that in 1941 the T-34 had the best overall design, the best-balanced and most effective mix of firepower, mobility, and protection (indeed it had just about the best of each), was designed for effective mass production. It clearly did not have the most advanced technology; it had an appropriate level of technology for its intended mode of manufacturing and employment.
The way this is stated in the intro is pretty important. It has to briefly sum up the article's conclusion on this point, and accurately reflect it. Please feel free to weigh in on the exact wording. — Michael Z. 2006-01-16 18:17 Z
First sentence is wordy. Current version is:
The T-34 is a Soviet medium tank, which was clearly the best tank in the world in the early years of the Second World War, and is often credited as the most effective and influential tank of the entire war.
How about:
The T-34 Soviet medium tank was clearly the best early-period Second World War tank and is often credited as the most effective and influential tank of the entire war.
Wendell 06:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Still repeats the word tank too much. How about one sentence to define it and set it in context, another to explain its significance: — Michael Z. 2006-01-18 09:56 Z
The T-34 is a Soviet medium tank produced from 1940–58. It was the world's best tank when the Soviet Union entered the Second World War, and is credited as the war's most effective and influential design.
Much improved. I will update article. Wendell 17:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I've created T-34 variants—please have a look, fix, and add (especially pictures). In the meantime, I'll be paring down this article's section to a brief summary. — Michael Z. 2006-01-19 05:42 Z
Recently added: "Only company commanders' tanks could be afforded to be fitted with radios." Was this because of the cost, or other reasons: lack of perceived need, requirement for training, tactical doctrine, or more than one reason? — Michael Z. 2006-01-27 00:30 Z