"At least half the first summer's total tank losses were due to breakdowns rather than German fire, although this also included old tanks in disrepair"
I understand that sometimes in Wikipedia "it's damned if you do and damned if you don't" but in looking over the article it seems that the use of Harvard style referencing and the use of separate Notes and References sections really effects the readability of the article and some are using it and some aren't. It's not just readability that suffers but using Harvard referencing negates much of the advantage that a wiki has over paper, namely the flexibility of an inline citation that combines reference citation information and an expository note that are grouped together rather than having one be separate from the other and that is linked right back to the sentence you were reading. The <ref></ref> system may seem cumbersome if you are repeating a reference that has different page numbers but I have found that happens less than you might think and there's much more to be gained by combining the two, namely because you can assign names to references that don't change and it's much easier to read a combined notes and references section that uses lots of written references and reliable web citations. I did some work on
T-55 that I hope shows better what I mean. Still working on a good combination of Notes, References and Bibliography that is functional yet easy to read using the wikicite template that's already here.
Awotter (
talk)
06:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
It's really weird that the article says the T-34 doubled its armor protection during the war. Indeed my references state that the glacis armor plate thickness had never increased. Some thickening the turret armor took place, but double? Unlikely. -Chin, Cheng-chuan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.225.70.94 ( talk) 16:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello.
Could someone please direct me to schematic drawings showing the layout in the T-34 turret, or try to explain the layout to me? I just can't see how a layout with no turret basket is practical
- How did the gunner stay in the sights? If he isn't in some way attached to the turret, he'd be sitting in the hull, and would have to move around along with the turret. Did the gunner have a seat hooked up in the turret roof?
- If the loader had to stand on the munitions on the turret floor, did that mean that he had to move around to keep up with the turret as it traversed? I can't see it happening in any other ways? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.109.86.72 ( talk) 19:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Many of those countries, listed as operators, have scrapped/retired their T-34s. I cannot provide reliable sources for all of them, but here are some:
Those I can provide as sources for the moment. I will try to find more and for now remove the stars from those states at the operators list.
-
Tourbillon
A ?
12:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Under the “Importance” subheading is the text: “The improved T-34-85 remained the standard Soviet medium tank with an uninterrupted production run until the end of the war.”
I have just read ‘THE T-34 RUSSIAN BATTLE TANK’ by Matthew Hughes & Chris Mann. ISBN 0760307016. In addition to tabulating T-34 production by year and type, they state categorically that there were no T-34s produced in 1945. So who is right? 192.190.108.28 ( talk) 04:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I've been hacking away at the BoPI page, trying to put some order and sense into it, though I'm just an aircraft historian, specialising in post-USAF B-26 Invaders. There's various accounts of the events, and accuracy of much BoPI data is suspect:- Cuban tanks are variously referred to as T-34s or Stalins. The shipping data also needs clarifying:- three LCUs or LCIs (Blagar, Barbara J, ANOther?), four LCVPs?(coded P-3, P-7 etc), four freighters, one LSD (USS San Marcos), but what sort of vessel was the Marsopa? Perhaps tank/ship nuts might like to investigate? PeterWD ( talk) 01:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
The following quote appears just under the section heading "Establishing and Maintaining Production":
"Quantity has a quality all its own" —attributed to Joseph Stalin
On the History Channel I have heard this precise quote attributed to Lenin, and there are several websites that also credit Lenin, including:
http://www.notable-quotes.com/l/lenin_vladimir.html
( Badlermd ( talk) 13:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC))
Here are some more quotations which may be useful. I don't know whether they should be introduced into the article, because the thesis of Mosier's book is controversial, and he is not specifically a tank expert. The book is mostly about the Western Allies and the Germans, but he felt it necessary to mention the Eastern Front and specifically the T-34 a few times. From John Mosier (2003) The Blitzkrieg Myth: How Hitler and the Allies Misread the Strategic Realities of World War II, HarperCollins [Perennial 2004], ISBN 0-06-000977-2.
. . . Soviet tank design was considerably more advanced than in the West. But the T34 was a major step forward even for the Russians. In 1941 (and in 1942) no one had anything even remotely comparable. —pp 176–77
In June 1941 the Germans had no tank capable of defeating the T34, or even surviving an engagement with it, as one hit from its 76-millimeter gun would destroy any German tank outright, while its own angled armor rendered it well nigh invulnerable to the low-velocity German tank guns—most of which were still 50 millimeters or worse. Only the 88 could stop a T34, and only at ranges n which gunners were loathe to operate. All the more so as the crews were composed of Luftwaffe personnel who had been trained to shoot at airplanes. Belatedly, and with a sense of panic virtually unique in the history of the German army, a whole series of crash programs were begun. —p 177
As we have seen, the entire German tank force was an overlapping series of failed designs. The truth is the only competent tank design to see any real use in the war was the Soviet T34. —p 181 [Mosier also counts the Centurion and Pershing as competent tanks, which “arrived on the battlefield too late to have any impact . . .”]
Perhaps more important than the superlatives is Mosier's discussion of the German response to the T-34, including some subjects not adequately covered in our article. He mentions upgunning Panzer III and IV tanks and Sturmgeschütz, building Tigers and Panthers, development of a low-profile antitank carriage for the 88, and especially the deployment of captured and domestic antitank guns mounted on towed carriages as well as in self-propelled Marders and Hetzers. — Michael Z. 2008-09-20 22:23 z
The recovering of the German captured T-34 that had been dumped in a lake in Estland, has been recorded on film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kKLbKHNquE . I think it should be added to the passage about the recovery which is already in the article, but due to health reasons (momentarily severe add which also affects my writing skills) I can't do it myself. I think the movie is too important not to mention here. Arnoldus ( talk) 14:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure where, but the fact that they rammed tigers should be included.-- Krasilschic ( talk) 00:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I hesitate to call that a "fact". I've never seen a really credible source make the claim. And, if true, what of it? DMorpheus ( talk) 22:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
All tanks types have probably rammed another in one case or another, most are accidental which was a particular problem in Korea due to heavy fog often setting in. Intentional ramming is normally a sign of desperation and requires a tank to have far superior mass and weight to be effective, somthing the T-34 did not have against the Tiger. A few cases had definitely happened, but the same is true of any other tank. It's not really worth mentioning. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.181.103.83 (
talk)
21:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I know an article about T-34 quite large in information, but in spanish. The link is this: http://www.militarwiki.org/wiki/T-34
I think it could be included in the external links. -ACB, el Mutie- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.145.254.162 ( talk) 13:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, this is IMHO a very good article on a significant tank. What it lacks to make it more complete is:
I've seen these sections in other articles (about tanks and military aviation), and really do add to the information provided.
Does anybody else concurs? Kind regards,
DPdH (
talk)
03:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
The BT tanks were cavalry tanks, very fast-moving light tanks, designed to fight other tanks but not infantry.
As I understand the relationship of tanks and infantry, tanks do not fight infantry, rather infantry is used to support and defend tanks from other infantry (sappers, anti-tank weapon crews, etc.) and tanks are used to attack hardened defenses in support of infantry advances.
Shouldn't this be written "The BT tanks were cavalry tanks, very fast-moving light tanks, designed to fight other tanks without infantry"? (Fighting without infantry support and not supporting infantry in its task.)
- Leonard G. ( talk) 02:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
See here at 3:40. Was watching this vid at CNN and suddenly, lo and behold, isn't that a T34!? I'm pretty positive that it is one although I'm not knowledgeable enough to tell exactly which model. Seems it's not unknown that they did use T34s there, only I didn't know that. Anyhow, if it's useful, here's a video showing one that works at least insofar that it swings its turret. 85.229.85.49 ( talk) 17:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Why does it say that it is still in service? And if it is which countries are using it?-- Coffeekid ( talk) 23:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
The T-34-85 is still being used by some African nations (Angola, for example) and I believe Egypt and Syria still use it as a self-propelled gun platform. Of course, this could have changed by now. My reference is pretty old. Cwjian ( talk) 06:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)\
This year, 9 T-34s were used on the victory parade in the red square. Duiring conflicts in Armenia (1992) some of these tanks, standing as memorials also were used. George-yuschenko ( talk) 16:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Recently have been reading through Robert Michulec's T-34 - Mythical Weapon and the points made in this large and very detailed book on the T-34 deserve inclusion, IMHO, in this article. Because so much of this book contradicts the conventional wisdom about the T-34, I think the best way to do so would be to discuss the issues this book raises as a separate section within this article. To attempt to integrate this book into the current article would require extensively re-writing this article, and discarding much of what others have written about the T-34. I personally think that is what should eventually be done, but don't think that it will be possible to do so without a massive fight, so I think a separate section would be the way to go for now.
The book unfortunately has gone out of print, and is now very difficult to find for sale. I seem to have gotten one of the last few copies.
Commments? Thoughts?
DarthRad ( talk) 18:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
The book is biased because Michulec states his intent to demythologize the T-34 in the preface, and his contempt for anything to do with the Soviets (versus German, American, or British) runs throughout the book, and is quite noticeable. This contempt is almost certainly related to the Polish POV of this author.
I did catch a couple of not quite kosher comparisons in the book, which I pointed out in the Amazon review. But otherwise, MIchulec has his facts correct in this book, and the book is quite good. They do match what has been said in a lot of other books about the T-34.
It's the conclusions that Michulec draws from his facts that are most likely to draw fire from T-34 fans. Some of the basic hard facts that point out the limitations of the T-34 are already in this Wiki article. However, several claims are still sprinkled in the article which Michulec proves to be false.
The "technological pacesetter" quote from Zaloga is almost certainly overblown if not completely false. Michulec points out the earlier French FCM 36 as its probable predecessor and you only have to click on the Wikipedia link to see the strong family resemblance (yes, the T-34 was probably a stolen bastard child of the French, ooh la la! - how about that for a quote in the Wiki article?).
The claims about the reliability of the T-34 are also demonstrably false, another contradiction of Zaloga's writing. The M4 was by far more reliable, which is backed up in one sentence in Dmitryi Loza's "Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks." Michulec's book is literally filled with photographs of just how shoddily the T-34 was put together, including a number (I lost count) of T-34s that were completely blown apart due to the shoddy welding of the hull armor. I have never, ever seen a photo of a German, American, or British tank where the hull completely came apart as a result of an internal explosion. There are many photos of such shattered T-34s in Michulec's book.
Although Zaloga is certainly one of the major tank historians of our time, I am quite suspicious now about his earlier works. In his most recent books, he has revised a number of key statements from some of his earlier works already.
I think Zaloga's earliest works on the Soviet tanks have to be considered the most suspicious, especially since most of them were written with information obtained prior to the fall of the Soviet Union. Soviet propaganda about the T-34 still had a very strong effect. [Note, a controversial claim about the Soviet 122mm gun being able to penetrate a Panther tank from front to back is attributed to Zaloga's 1984 book, and is almost certainly Soviet propaganda, IMHO - this is still in the Wiki articles about the Panther tank and the IS-2 tank].
Finally, Michulec gives the figure of 45,000 destroyed T-34s, which would make it not "the finest tank in the world", which is what is currently stated in this T-34 article, but "THE MOST DESTROYED TANK IN THE WORLD". I'm all for substituting the latter quote in place of the first one, since the hard numbers are there to prove it, but, still this would be a controversial thing to do.
The combined sum of Michulec's views of the T-34 show that this was not a great tank at all, possibly not even a great tank in 1941, but that it was merely a tank that was produced in massive numbers and overwhelmed the Germans by sheer numbers.
That happens to be a commonly expressed opinion about the M4 Sherman, unjustly so, and in fact would appear to be more appropriate for the T-34.
It's mainly having to fight against the weight of all the quotes from authors like Zaloga and Lidell Hart that makes integrating Michulec's book into this article difficult. A lot of that stuff I think is just outdated, and the truth will come out with further works, as more authors, hopefully Zaloga himself, go to Russia to find out the real facts. The window of opportunity may be closing, as Russia seems to be developing a strong pro-Soviet nationalism again.
DarthRad ( talk) 00:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, you got me there. There are photos of other tanks that have come apart. But look at that photo of the T-34 I posted. The degree to which this tank came apart is much worse than your photos. It is not even the worst of the blown up T-34s from this book. I could have posted a couple others that were not even recognizable as tanks anymore - they were scattered in such pieces. It's really the sheer number of photos of completely disintegrated T-34s in Michulec's book that is impressive.
The photos of the tanks that you found do look more like they could have been bomb hits - the center of the tanks and tracked wheels look like they are collapsed down from a gigantic hammer blow from above, rather than an internal explosion making everything, including the side panels, come apart. That photo of the Sherman looks like a gigantic mine hit from below - most of the rest of the tank is still in one piece.
And so I think Michulec's explanation for the multiple photos of T-34s that are literally just completely blown apart has to be accepted for what it is. It might not be the reason for all of the tanks, but to see so many of them with their hull armor plate completely separated and blown apart, one has to come to the conclusion that yeah, something was seriously deficient in the construction of the T-34.
Some of the specifics of Michulec's other information are hard to back up with other sources, such as the his data on the low wear rates of the T-34's engine and main gun. There basically are no other sources that come close to being this specific with this information. Other sources deal only with generalities - Zaloga's statement that the T-34 was a durable tank, Dmitryi Loza's statement that it was no where near as durable as the M4 Sherman (he fought in both tanks, and clearly loved the M4 lots more).
Much of Michulec's information is so specific that it sounds very credible. The 45,000 destroyed T-34s number makes sense if you consider how many T-34s were produced and how many must have been left at the end of the war. If the Russians produced over 58,000 T-34s, surely it was to replace their losses, and not because they had 30,000 or 40,000 tanks at war's end.
The T-34 thus gets the title of "most destroyed tank of all time" over the M4 Sherman - fewer Shermans were produced and there were a lot of them still left over at war's end. But again, I don't know of any hard data as to how many M4 Shermans were actually destroyed during WWII, so this is just a guess. This is something that one should be able to find out, somewhere. One of these two tanks surely owns that title.
Anyway, this is why I am hesitant to insert information from this book into this article, except as a separate item so that people know that there is another viewpoint that may become the predominant one if or when more research comes out from post-Soviet Russia. Zaloga's books on Soviet tanks are mostly from Soviet era information.
You should get this book! I would love to get your opinion of this book.
DarthRad ( talk) 08:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
One additional point - Michulec does make very clear that there was a huge difference in the quality of the T-34s produced during the worst of the wartime emergency of WWII and the later T-34s produced after the war. Some T-34s were produced in Poland even. The differences are quite striking in the many photographs of the T-34s from wartime vs. those produced later. The armor of the wartime T-34s was poorly cast, turrets did not fit smoothly into the hull, etc. Photos of the very early T-34s and the late T-34s show very nice looking armor. He says the early T-34s had mechanical teething problems, and the mechanical reliability suffered also during the wartime, but improved considerably in the late model T-34s. All of this makes a great deal of sense, especially combined with his descriptions of how late and how hard it was for the Soviets to move their factories eastward with the Germans attacking (the main Factory 183 was re-built almost anew - Michulec says only about 10% of the parts and personnel were transferred successfully to the Urals, due to the late start of the transfer). Western sources generally seem to assume that the Soviets miraculously moved all of their industry to the Urals well in advance of the German invasion without any problems, but Michulec documents otherwise. All in all, despite Michulec's obvious anti-Soviet tone, he paints a fairly complete and consistent picture of what was happening during that time.
And so if Zaloga and others have examined T-34s, they most likely examined the nice shiny ones produced later. Michulec's book on the other hand thoroughly documents with photographs all the warts of the wartime T-34s.
DarthRad (
talk)
18:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Well all right, at least we are getting some debate on the subject.
Paul Siebert - The main contribution of the FCM 36 was the sloped armor on all sides, with the slope of the hull continuous with the turret, so that the tank ended up with a pyramidal shape and a very small turret. This was exactly the same shape of the T-34 which appeared some 3-4 years later than the FCM 36 and yet the T-34 gets all the credit and accolades as a "revolutionary design" for its sloped armor. Well, the French came up with that idea first (p. 247-248 in T-34 Mythical Weapon). Michulec goes further and points out that the pyramidal shape was highly impractical as it resulted in a tiny turret that was all but nonfunctional as the two crewmen could barely aim, load, and fire the gun. This was why the initial "flat turret" with the steeply sloped sides was replaced by the slightly larger, and less steeply sloped "hexagonal turret" (p. 245). The later T-34-85 turret was hardly sloped at all in order to maximize space to fit the larger gun and three crewmen.
As for your point about the dysfunctionality of the T-34-76, the early T-34-76 models were the most dysfunctional because of their tiny, steeply sloped turrets and the weak L-11 gun. The larger hexagonal turret (appearing in the summer of 1942), which was designed to allow for installation of the more powerful F-34 gun was much more functional, but it was still a two man turret lacking a commander. That problem was not fixed until early 1944 when the T-34-85 finally rolled off the production lines with a three man turret. The T-34-76 models thus ALL shared this problem of having nearly blind crewmen trying to fight on the battlefield. The Germans found it very easy to pick them off like ducks because the tank crews had a very limited field of vision, and no way to communicate with other tanks. There is a description in Healy's Zitadelle of an episode at the Battle of Kursk where the Soviet T-34s were charging in and the Germans would just leisurely pick off the T-34s one by one, with all the surviving T-34s completely oblivious to the mass destruction around them. That was in July 1943. Michulec's book does show that the Soviets started installing a commanders cupola on the hexagonal turret in the summer of 1943 (p. 123). Probably finally learned from the heavy losses of the Battle of Kursk that the tank crews needed to be able to see what was going on around them.
Michulec points out that the tank that the Germans most likely did fear and have a lot of trouble with was the KV-1. The KV-1 had the really tough armor that was resistant to the early German guns (the T-34's thin side armor could be penetrated by the weak guns of the German tanks of 1941) and it had the three man turret that made it a formidable fighting machine on the battlefield. The T-34-76 crews could simply not see well enough and function inside that tiny turret well enough to be a serious threat to German tanks. The problem with the KV-1 of course was twofold - it was very slow and sluggish and did not travel through bad terrain very well, unlike the T-34. And it carried the name of the later disgraced Kliment Voroshilov. Which is probably why in the Soviet retelling of history, the KV-1 gets only a very brief mention. All the glory gets heaped on the T-34s, which the Germans had no reason to fear because it was not much of a threat to them on the battlefield, due to its dysfunctional tiny two man turret and much weaker armor. Michulec points out that the German generals, especially Guderian, in all probability confused the KV-1 and T-34 in their memoirs, thus adding to the myth of the T-34 while continuing to bury the KV-1's true contributions.
DarthRad ( talk) 09:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
DMorpheus - I think you are being a bit harsh with Michulec's book. But at least you recognize the huge amount of work that he put into this thing. Yes, the photos and drawings are INCREDIBLE. I think rather than calling the text "awful", it would be more accurate to describe its two major flaws:
1. The book was translated by somebody for whom English was a second language. Not quite as bad as the translation for the movie "Alexander Nevsky", but a bit difficult to understand sometimes.
2. Michulec goes overboard with his obvious anti-Soviet ranting. Somebody should have just edited all this out, and it would have made the book more professional.
But, if you are able to slug through the difficult translation and filter out the anti-Soviet bias, what you find is that Michulec has packed his book chock full of facts, and he does reference most of his major facts. Unfortunately those references all seem to be in Russian or Polish or German. But I think that is where this book shines over books by Zaloga.
Here's an excerpt (p. 161):
The relocation of the production, the starting of new assembly lines, usually in great haste, and the loss of many sources of raw materials, had a pronounced effect on the quality of the produced T-34s. If in mid-1941 the failure rate of the vehicles can be described as moderate, after 1941 it was closer to being catastrophic....
As late as the second half of 1944, Red Army tank units tried to replace all tank engines with more than 30 hours of operation. This was done to try to guarantee that the engines would be able to function for 75-100 hours during the coming attack. This seems logical since the factory's peacetime guarantee in the first half of 1941 was only 150 hours, and, therefore, expecting only 100 hours of operation at the front appears reasonable. It could not be otherwise, since during the period 1942-1943 the Soviet industry reached its technological bottom. As a example, at the beginning of 1942 almost every tank had faulty side clutches. The total service life of the tank also declined steeply. Tanks that were repaired by field workshops and returned to duty broke down very frequently, reducing the combat strengths of the tank corps by up to 50%....
Of course, with time, the quality factors of the T-34 started to change for the better, but it is doubtful that the Soviets were able to reach a satisfactory level of production before the end of the war....
DarthRad ( talk) 09:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Finally, there is Michulec's figure of 45,000 destroyed T-34s. Does anybody dispute that number or think that it is an exaggeration? I believe that the weight of the evidence is that the number must be right, or very close. The Soviets rushed to produce 58,000+ T-34s for a very good reason. In most of the major battles of the Eastern Front, the Soviets lost huge numbers of tanks to the Germans, even when the battle was a win for the Soviets. The Germans got to be the best in the world at knocking out tanks.
So, unless you think that the Soviets finished the war with more than 13,000 T-34s (enough tanks to equip more than 30 tank divisions) then that number sounds about right, and so for whatever the reasons were, (and lots of good reasons have been given as to why this happened) the T-34 wins the title of "the most destroyed tank of all time". And that is not a joke, I'm being serious here. It's the logical conclusion if you accept that 45,000 number, just as the 45,000 number is the logical conclusion if you understand why 58,000 tanks were produced.
Q.E.D.
DarthRad ( talk) 09:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
DMorpheus - OK, my bad, I didn't do my reading about the KV-1 and I misread Michulec's book. That comment about the three man turret of the KV-1 was NOT from Michulec's book. That was my own "original source" contribution. You are absolutely right. The third man in the KV-1 manned a rear facing machine gun and was pretty useless. The KV-1 had the same deal as the two man T-34 turret with the commander having to be the gunner. You are also correct about the narrow pyramidal turret of the T-34 mostly mounting the F-34 gun, and the hexagonal turret being installed later (summer of 1942). [The hexagonal turret was put in to make the turret more functional as the narrow pyramidal turret was a tight squeeze]. Let me emphasize that these were MY MISTAKES not Michulec's because in re-checking the facts in his book, he has them correct. I got them wrong.
Michulec's point about the KV-1 is still valid. Its heavy armor was what stymied the Germans in 1941. The T-34's thinner side and rear armor made it much more vulnerable, even in 1941. As a defensive weapon, which is pretty much what the Soviets were doing in 1941, the KV-1 was much tougher for the Germans to handle. The reason that the KV-1 was phased out in 1943 was that by then, the Soviets were mounting increasing numbers of offensive tank assaults, and the KV-1 was way too slow and sluggish to do those Soviet style tank-infantry banzai charges (or "Hoorah!" charges). More importantly, by then, the Germans had also upgraded all of their AFVs to at least the 7.5 cm KwK 40 and their infantry had large numbers of the equivalent Pak 40, which could knock out the KV-1s with ease. And the KV-1's 7.62 cannon was exactly the same as the T-34. And it was lots more expensive than the T-34. So of course the KV-1 was dropped. There was no reason for its existence anymore by 1943. The Soviets did try the KV-85 "upgrade" for about 130 tanks. The IS-2 of course was the ultimate upgrade.
Michulec goes into excruciating detail analyzing Guderian's memoir - Panzer Leader. He points out that Guderian constantly refers to difficulties in the 1941 battles against T-34s when in reality he must have meant the KV-1. Michulec breaks down the details of one particular battle (Mcensk) to prove that the "T-34s" that were troubling the Germans had to have been KV-1s. The T-34 had much weaker side and rear armor than the KV-1 and the Germans did not have problems shooting them up at the Battle of Mcensk.
OK, you want corroborating evidence about how ineffective the T-34 was? If you don't believe Michulec, how about Mark Healy? Here's an extended excerpt from Healy's Zitadelle (2008) - page 176:
Skipping to p. 177:
Healy goes on to state that the Germans had only 278 total write-offs for all AFVs at the Battle of Kursk (the phase ending July 17, 1943), whereas estimates for Soviet losses are in the range of 1,254 -1,614 for that same phase. He gives an estimate that the Soviets lost a total of 6,064 AFVs for the Battle of Kursk and the followup counter offensives that ran through the month of August, 1943.
So why is this important? Because the numbers and historical evidence clearly show that the Soviets "won" the Battle of Kursk at a great cost, as they did almost all of their battles against the Germans. The T-34 was integral to the Soviet victory, yes indeed. But the Soviets won with the T-34 primarily by overwhelming the Germans with massive numbers. That is a point which is frequently made about the
M4 Sherman on the Western Front. Why is it not allowed to make the same claim about the T-34? All of the data points to this concept being even more true for the T-34 than for the M4 Sherman.
Jentz's Panther and Tiger books have range penetration data done by the Germans which prove that the armor and firepower of the T34-85 was very close in performance to the 76mm M4 Sherman. Other data show that the T34-76 firepower was similar to the M4 75mm gun. So although very different in design, the two tanks tracked each other remarkably in their performance, accomplishments, and in the large numbers knocked out by the Germans.
The difference is that years of Soviet propaganda and mistaken identity in the memoirs of the German generals have created the myth of the T-34.
Zaloga points out in the preface of Armored Thunderbolt that the M4 Sherman also used to have a mythology built around it. When I was a child, the phrase "built like a Sherman tank" was a common term of praise for any sort of durable machinery, and the M4 Sherman was often credited with helping win WWII. Today, it gets ripped with derogatory terms like "Ronson", etc. while the T-34 continues to bask in its Soviet era propaganda of "best tank of all time".
DMorpheus, your last point about the T-34 having the best balance of firepower, armor, and mobility in 1941 is absolutely true. BUT, the clear cut missing flaw that you continue to fail to mention is the extremely poor ergonomics of the T-34, which is the point that Michulec rants about for pretty much his entire book. Healy only spends about a page and a half of Zitadelle to make the same point - I've pretty much quoted most of that section - and it comes across much more professionally as a result. But that's not to say that Michulec's book is awful just because he keeps repeating himself about a fact that you don't seem to want to hear about the T-34.
Calling the The T-34 a "revolutionary design" or "technological pacesetter" (the term used in the current article) falsely implies that the Soviets were the ones who came up with all those new technological concepts. No, no, no, no, no, NO! As you yourself just stated, the sloped armor was well known by the time of the T-34's design, was already in use by many tanks (including the frontal armor of the U.S. M2 Light Tank), and the roadwheel suspension came from Christie's BT series of tanks. And the French also were using diesel engines in their tanks. So the T-34 was very much a COMBINATION of several earlier innovations, not a "revolutionary design". "Revolutionary design" and "Technological pacesetter" are inaccurate terms and should NOT be used to describe the T-34.
hohum - if the the title of "most destroyed tank of all time" bothers you, then the quote from Lidell Hart calling it "the best tank of all time" should bother you even more. The first title is actually TRUE - there is all that hard data I gave you backing it up. The second title is ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE and the quote comes from Lidell Hart, a writer who has more recently been discredited as a shameless self-promoter who probably had a lot less influence on tank theory than he would like historians to believe. The only "best" category that the T-34 really excelled at was in being produced by the Soviets faster than the Germans could destroy them.
DarthRad ( talk) 09:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
DMorpheus - OK, you make some very good points. I think I will for now abandon this "T-34 as Myth" project until one of the major English speaking tank historians writes something that will be more acceptable to everybody. Don't see that this is getting anywhere right now. Since Zaloga recently revised a good chunk of his former writing with Armored Thunderbolt, he would be the ideal candidate to do something new on the Soviet tanks also. Zaloga did get some acknowledgements from Michulec in T-34 Mythical Weapon so they were in touch.
At the same time, unless somebody comes up with bigger numbers for the M4 Sherman, the T-34 still owns the title of "most destroyed tank of all time". I think the title of "best tank of all time" is a big mistake, but there are just too many T-34 enthusiasts at present to wipe that off of this Wiki page.
The fact that the T-34 was the most destroyed tank of all time was certainly due to a combination of factors - horrible Soviet tactics and training, superb German anti-tank capabilities, and the gigantic nature of the war on the Eastern Front. However, the limited capabilities of the T-34 against German guns and armor after 1941 was also a big part of this story, just like it was for the M4 Sherman. And that's what needs to get emphasized whenever people get too enthusiastic about the T-34.
Paul Siebert - the Wright brothers' aircraft had a number of new technological INVENTIONS. It was not just a glider and an engine. They filed a number of patents for their discoveries on how to control the aircraft, etc., and in fact became consumed by their desire to protect their patents, spending enormous time filing lawsuits against everybody. They just about stopped designing new and better aircraft because they spent so much time on the lawsuits. I honestly can't think of a single thing that the Soviets invented with the T-34. So your analogy is not correct here, but I digress...
DarthRad ( talk) 18:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
"..there are just too many T-34 enthusiasts at present to wipe that off of this Wiki page."
Kindly do not insult your fellow editors. The fact is that the sources are heavily in favor of the current content as opposed to the silliness Michulec writes. This is not a question of anyone's "enthusiasm" , is simply a question of reliable sources and a fair weighing of lots of them.
Regards,
DMorpheus (
talk)
21:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, a lot of causes for a tank to be written off without being destroyed by enemy. And if Michulec is right, 80% of T-34 never reached the front, breaking down somewhere along the way :) In reality, in WW2 a lot of tanks got destroyed several times... Some crews kept on swaping tanks as they got KOed from under them, and some tanks got several crews killed in them. After all a KOed WW2 tank if not burned down was easy repair: patch the holes, swap the engine or gun if needed, and wash the blood from the inside. Wheter that was actually done or not depended mostly on the surrounding situation: what were your forces doing, atacking or retreating, were there spare crews, or a recovery team at hand. For example, if you are in the middle of an attack operation, for when the tank gets fixed the frontline can be a 200km away. And if there are new (and better) tanks arriving continuosly, why waste time with a broken down tank? Just leave it there to rot or send it back to the melting furnace. And some tanks simply wore down. It's not for nothing that the lifespan of the things was measured in hours.
190.134.10.151 (
talk)
04:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and when a tank get blown to bits it usually means the ammo on board detonated, either due to a directo hit to the ammo racks or after a fire. It has nothing to do with the "build quality" of the tank, but with the nature of the ammo on board and where it is stored. Loza was of the idea that soviet HE shells were more powerfull that the US, but in turn had a higher chance of going high order once the tank was set on fire (he supposed it was due to different explosive composotion). 190.134.25.206 ( talk) 18:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I partially removed Milanetti's recent changes, reverting to a version vetted by Hohum. This article is a featured article, and should not be subjected to poor writing skills. A featured article is supposed to be a shining example of our best work.
Milanetti changed the second sentence. The previous version was Although its armour and armament were surpassed by later tanks of the era, it has been often credited as the most effective, efficient and influential design of World War II.
Milanetti's version was: Although its armour and armament were surpassed by later tanks of the era, and –in the early years of the conflict - its trasmission was the most primitive of the time it has been often credited as the most effective, efficient and influential design of World War II.
This sample was enough to display the unsuitability of the editor's English composition skills. So... what's the next step? Is an editor here willing to rewrite all the poorly written non-native-speaking edits that are applied to this article? Binksternet ( talk) 22:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
The entry for the T-32 redirects to this T-34 entry. I don't think it should; the T-32 was a Yugoslav tank and a totally separate model to the T-34. How does one go about removing redirects in order to create the T-32 entry? Noisms ( talk) 17:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
One of the most frequent problem with wikipedia articles is the lack of, let's say, a 'center'. What do i say? I mean, if a reader came here, it's likely that he could be confused. T-34 article, even if featured, it's a mess. I'd want a paragraph in wich i could find a basic description of a typical T-34 tank: internal, ammunition stores, armour thickness, etc. In this article, quite long, it's badly needed this neat description. Instead, there is not even a complete description of the 'famous' sloped armour; its hardness, quality, alloy, but even, the thickness and angle. I did not found it, and this is basically bad. The basic datas, when availables, are scattered all around. Instead, there is a lot of 'he said that', opinions, even referenced, that not really help the reader.
A paragraph in which you could find: armour thickness of a 'typical' T-34 (ex, the first T-34A, or T-34/85), engine, trasmission, tracks (lenght and widht, type etc.), weaponry (gun, machine-gun, elevation, ROF, ammunition store etc), sight system and whatever else. If you'll submit such article in a magazine, it's likely it would be trashed. Until this reorganization and rationalization, T-34 article will be just a mess and i'd prefer far more the simpler but well organized wwii page: http://www.wwiivehicles.com/ussr/tanks-medium/t-34.asp, easy to read, and easy to use in order to find everything you need. It should been taken as example of a user's friendly page, and it's far different than wiki article.
I added atleast the armour thickness, but there is a lot of work to do.-- Stefanomencarelli ( talk) 21:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I am slightly confused as to the suspension system used in the T-34. According to the infobox it is a Christie suspension, while in the article is stated that the suspension was changed to a torsion bar system in 1942. The article on the Christie suspension is not quite clear on what characterizes a Christie suspension, except that it is considerably different from a torsion bar suspension. Could anybody enlighten me about this? --παγκρἃτωρ/pankrator 06:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pankrator ( talk • contribs)
All T-34s had a Christie suspension; no production T-34 had a torsion-bar suspension. Briefly, christie's design used long-pitch tracks and large wheels, each independently suspended from swing arms attached to very large vertical coil springs inside the hull. At the time it was invented around 1930 it allowed for far higher speeds than any other suspension. In many incarnations it also allowed for convertability between tracked mode and wheeled mode (for example the BT series of tanks). However, the T-34, and other christies such as the British Cromwell, did not have a wheeled mode.
Christie suspensions are relatively easy to manufacture and do not impose any height penalty on the tank hull. However, they do impose a width penalty. The hull must accomodate relatively large-diameter springs, narrowing the useful space inside the hull.
Torsion-bar suspensions, which were invented in the later 1930s and began to see use just before WW2, also use individual suspension systems for each wheel. However, the torsion bar runs along the bottom of the hull from side-to-side. This imposes a slight height penalty but the height of a torsion bar is far less than the width of a christie coil spring tower. So, it is far more efficient in terms of using up hull volume. They are harder to manufacture, however. Early uses of the torsion-bar design would be, for example, the German Panzer III or Soviet KV series.
Since 1945, most tanks have used some variant of the torsion-bar system. Regards, DMorpheus ( talk) 22:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Really? The title itself is not neutral, and what was revolutionary about the T-34? Everything about the tank had been done before. It should be renamed "History" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.114.227 ( talk) 02:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Agree that "Revolutionary Design" is highly inaccurate. This subheading title does not reflect the content of what is written in this article, which clearly shows that the T-34 was an Evolutionary Design influenced by the experience with previous Soviet tanks. Just look at that photo lineup in the article of the BT and A-20 tanks which preceded the T-34. The Christie suspension and sloping armor, etc., key characteristics of the T-34 were already in place before the T-34 came into being.
So there, I made the change. DarthRad ( talk)
As for putting Mellenthin's quote right next to a subheading of "Revolutionary Design", the juxtaposition creates an incredibly false and misleading conclusion. There were several reasons that Germany had nothing comparable to the T-34, and none of those reasons had anything to do with the T-34 being a "Revolutionary Design". Germany had only slowly started up its tank industry, secretly breaking the Treaty of Versailles in the early 1930's (aircraft production violations of the Treaty started earlier). The German Army recognized a need for better tanks, as the early versions of the Tiger I design were already underway in 1937-1938, well before the invasion of Russia. Most of all, it is a well known historical fact that Hitler was so encouraged by Chamberlain's appeasement policy that he jumped the gun and started WWII before his armed forces were completely ready and fully armed with all the best weapons on the drawing boards. Also, German military intelligence during WWII was abysmal (helped no doubt by the fact that many Abwehr were anti-Nazis, including Canaris, the head of the Abwehr) and had absolutely no advanced knowledge of the state of Soviet tank development. The German Panzer III and Panzer IV were adequate to deal with the Soviet BT and T-26 tanks that were known to the Germans from the Spanish Civil War and the Soviet-Finland Winter War. Information about the approaching arrival of the Soviet T-34 and the KV-1 tanks undoubtedly would have accelerated German tank design/production efforts. In any case, WWII was a constant arms race in which each side tried to leapfrog the other side with new designs and all armies would end up at one time or another with outclassed tanks on the battlefield. This would later happen to the T-34 vs. the Panther and Tiger tanks. DarthRad ( talk)
The revolutionary thing about the T-34 was that it was the first tank to achieve the fine balance of armour, mobility and firepower for its time. All other tanks before it were deficient in at least one area (The British Matildas, the early German Panzers, most of the French tanks (excepting the SOMUA S35). Many of the ideas used on the T-34 may have been thought of before, but the T-34 was the first to combine all of them together into one package, much like how many of the elements of the AK had been done before, but the AK was one of the first to put them all together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.138.146 ( talk) 15:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
While they did come up with the name the first assault rifle was probably the cei-rigotti Pharoahjared ( talk) 19:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Granted, it was a race, but the same could be said of any tank, past or present. The T-34 just happened to get it right at the right time. Again, all other tanks were deficient in 1 or another of these 'hard' factors, whereas the T-34 managed to get it 'right' when it came out. One other thing 'revolutionary' about the T-34 was the ease with which it could be made, which was unprecedented for any other tank before it.
The fact that all post war tanks were influenced by the T-34 (or by the Panther, which was itself influenced by the T-34) does speak volumes as to what a benchmark it was in tank design.
Frankly, if the M4 had arrived around the same time as the T-34, it would have been remembered along with the T-34 as a revolutionary design, but it came a year later, as it happened. It's a little unfair, but that's how things turned out.
The Tiger I had terrible mobility strategically, and adequate tactical mobility at best. And of course, it was terribly expensive to produce. Sure, it had firepower and armour, but to stem the tide of T-34s and Shermans, it would have had to destroy at least 10 T-34s/Shermans for every Tiger lost (which it certainly didn't).
The T-34-85 was far superior to the Panzer IV (slightly better armour, far more mobility, equal in firepower, far easier to produce) and was the equal of the M4A3 E8. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.186.209 ( talk) 15:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
More shuld probably be added? Syria used T-34 tanks in the israeli-arab war of 1967. What about the T-34's perfomance in this conflict? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.110.193.21 ( talk) 10:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
A whole bunch of information, including references on the T-34's ww2 combat performance was added in July 2012. Admittedly, some parts of the writing is not encyclopaedic or perhaps contains too much opinion. But instead of re-writing, editing or updating the newly added content, certain posters keep deleting ALL OF IT, including all the properly referenced data and reverting to a previous version. This, IMO, is unacceptable as it does not allow the subject topic to be altered or new contributions to be made. Instead it would behove contributers to read through and edit out the conjecture and un-reference opinions! And yes wikipedia is a synergistic effort, and no the current article is not perfect and not without bias/conjecture!
142.162.25.82 (
talk)
14:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I have found a photo of misaligned plates here on the T-34: http://worldoftanks.com/news/1031-chieftains-hatch-devils-due/, but am not sure that this is not copyrighted. The info on the image says 'the website does not supply ownership info'...too bad, as it is a great photo and would allow us to add information on the workmanship of the T-34! Tempsperdue ( talk) 02:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Can somebody make a photo of Czarnkowski czołg T-34 for Commons? Thank you.-- 95.129.137.176 ( talk) 13:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
How is it possible to make such a general, vague, and sweeping assessments by calling 'x' tank "the best tank of world war 2"? The sheer number of factors are overwhelming and extremely situational. Many times during this article have such references been made, taking a non-neutral point of view and citing less than fair sources with seemingly no external reasoning other than invoking nationalistic pride. Instead of saying "x" tank is "better" than "b" tank, we should present the specifications in a non-POV way and let the reader come to his/her own conclusion.
I move to remove all mentioning of such cases, and replace them with side by side statistical breakdowns, or perhaps a new comparison article instead. This way the reader can draw their own conclusions based of the specifications of the tanks.
76.181.103.83 ( talk) 21:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Jade rat
I am all in favor of removing all of these excessive "enthusiast" superlatives about the T-34, and in fact believe this phenomenon of T-34 worship deserves its own section in this article - e.g., "The T-34 as Myth". There are very simple reasons as to how this T-34 worship got started after all, mainly in the memoirs of the defeated German generals who had all sorts of motives to inflate the reputation of this Soviet tank. Unfortunately the main sources that currently help to debunk this myth are from Soviet or former Soviet-bloc countries, and so have been slow to make it into acceptance among the moderators of this article. But sooner or later, one of the major Western tank historians will write a terrific and updated book about the T-34 based on this new post-Soviet information and thoroughly debunk this myth. The truth is out there already.
Meanwhile, it's very frustrating, and I find these designations of the T-34 as finest this or greatest that or "progenitor of the modern tank" to be every bit as annoying as all the references on Wikipedia that, three years ago, quoted Belton Cooper (author of "Death Traps") as saying Gen. Patton was the person responsible for stunting the development of the M4 Sherman and M26 Pershing. This falsehood was widely repeated across the Internet. In a single book, Zaloga's "Armored Thunderbolt" provided the documentation that completely crushed that falsehood into oblivion once and for all. Zaloga's recent book "T-34-85 vs. M26 Pershing" had a nice section describing how in the Korean War, the M26 Pershings greatly over-matched the T-34-85 whereas the M4A3E8 Shermans were equal to the T-34-85. Since Zaloga is readily accepted on these Wikipedia articles, as fast as one of his books come out, I have entered his stuff in and it never ever gets challenged. So, here's an appeal to Steven Zaloga, if you're reading this, I'm sure you've seen some of this new post-Soviet stuff out now about the T-34. Your 1988, 1994, and 1996 books about the T-34 are getting to be a bit long in the tooth. Write something new, Please! DarthRad ( talk)
An editor has nominated this article for FAR. However, as the first step (of notifying interested editors on the talk page to see if work can be completed without a FAR) was not completed, the FAR has been placed on hold so that this notification can be placed. Here is the text of the FAR nomination, as a starting place for work. Nikkimaria ( talk) 12:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Copied text:
Looking at the article, and comparing it to the criteria:
Just bumped into this FAR by chance, and thought I'd give a few thoughts about this article, since I happen to have a bit of knowledge on the subject.
Your own personal assertion about the quality of particular works isn't relevant. To say one source is better than another, you'll need to show peer review showing that it is better, which can also be implied by how much other respectable historians reference their work. ( Hohum @) 18:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
The article is far too opinionated and biased. Statements are made about the T-34 being the "best" when such a thing is completely subjective to situation and enormously complex. In the opening paragraph such statements are made on three separate instances — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.135.164.254 ( talk) 15:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article, File:P82-2l.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 15 November 2011
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 22:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC) |
The article claims this is an example of the design's durability. It's nothing of the sort. An absence of rust and degradation would be entirely expected after being submerged in an anaerobic environment. Bogs routinely offer up well-preserved artifacts from thousands of years ago. This whole section should be deleted IMO, as the restoration of an individual T-34 isn't particularly noteworthy, even if it was unusually well preserved. 2p0rk ( talk) 22:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
The sentence about the three man turret giving the commander the ability to focus on commanding the tank while leaving the operation of the gun to the gunner and loader does not require a citation, it is obvious isn't it? Imagine standing in the two man turret, spotting a target, then having to crawl down into the gunners seat, swivel the turret and find the target again through the very limited field of vision of the gunsight, and then hit the target: ridiculous, what were they thinking? If anything the Soviets should have made the commander the loader in the two man turret. Loading the gun only takes a couple of seconds, and then the commander can be up again searching for targets and directing the gunner and driver. Any tank commander or crew member could explain this. Azeh ( talk) 09:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
The following section seems unbalanced:
:::Although in theory an effective overall shape, armor suffered from build quality issues, especially of plate joins and welds, as well as the use soft steel :::combined with shallow surface tempering, all this was noted by US engineers at the Aberdeen Proving grounds.[8] ::::'In a heavy rain lots of water flows through chinks/cracks, which leads to the disabling of the electrical equipment and even the ammunition.
When we consider the T-34 was one of the best-protected tanks in the world in 1941, this section is a bit silly in its unbalanced description. DMorpheus2 ( talk) 20:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that we consistently use one or the other, and not mix both usages in the article. I suggest this mostly for the sake of good style.
Having said that, the Soviet and Russian usage is T-34-85, not T-34/85. This usage has been adopted much more commonly in newer English-language sources than T-34/85. The T-34/85 usage is a bit dated and, I'd guess, probably derived from the German usage of T-34/76 (a designation not generally used by the Soviets or Russians). Since this is a Soviet-era piece of equipment, not German, I suggest we use the Soviet/Russian usage.
Regards, DMorpheus2 ( talk) 14:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
The Slash comes from Finnish sources. For example the infantry rifle M/28-30, or submachine gun M/31. 69.60.229.207 ( talk) 03:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Soviet fully tracked AFV production from June 1941 to May 1945 was 99,150 (this includes all types of fully tracked assault and self-propelled guns) vehicles. An additional 11,900 tanks and self-propelled guns were received via Lend Lease.[88][89] In comparison, the Germans, who are often criticised for producing too few, albeit higher quality tanks replete with too many refinements and excessive quality control during production, produced a total of 26,925 tanks, 612 command tanks, 232 flame tanks, 10,550 assault guns, 7,831 tank destroyers, and 3,738 assault and self-propelled artillery AFVs, between 1938 and May 1945.[90] For a combined total of around 49,900 fully tracked AFVs. Soviet tanks had a generally rough and ready finish, and lacked many ergonomic and refinement features which were deemed essential by German and to a large extent by Allied tankers as well.[citation needed] That there were more Soviet tanks produced during the war than were destroyed (approximately 44,900 of the 55,550 T-34s produced were lost), regardless of the individual tactical performance of each, ultimately helped to win the war. The Soviets mass produced more fully tracked AFVs, and more T-34s in particular than the Germans did total fully tracked AFVs. It can be argued that it was exactly the emphasis on refinements, manufacturing quality and subtleties of design which gave German tank crews significant edge in combat at the tactical level. The Soviets achieved strategic success, but paid an exceptionally high price; approximately 44,900 of the T-34s were lost out of a total of 96,500 fully tracked AFVs lost compared with only 32,800 for the Germans (this includes all SP guns, SP artillery, and several thousand vehicles captured when Germany surrendered on the East Front) during all of WW2; a global loss ratio of 2.94 to 1 in favour of the Germans.[91][92]
That's all very interesting stuff about armored combat in WW2 but its not really about the T-34 is it? Certianly, far more specific conclusions could be drawn. DMorpheus2 ( talk) 16:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I tagged Italy and the Russian Liberation Army (ROA) usage. I am aware of no documentation at all of any Italian usage of the T-34. I've seen one blurry, obviously-retouched photo showing Regio Escercito troops near an STZ-produced T-34. No evidence that it is operational; from the photo it could be disabled/abandoned. It is impossible to tell.
The ROA was never in combat until the last few days of WW2 in Prague. While there is no doubt they had a few T-34s, they were issued from German stocks, not captured by the ROA from the Red Army.
Finally, although I did not tag it, some of the Finnish T-34s were bought from the Germans, not all were captured.
regards, DMorpheus2 ( talk) 18:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I've made a recent project out of acquiring better citations for this article. I copied the entire article to my laptop, traveled to various libraries and used bookstores(usually on other projects) and, wherever there was a "citation needed" tag, I'd search the indices of books on the shelves, and frequently I found something. The mainspace content has been edited with all these references in the past couple of days as a result of this compilation of research conducted over the past several weeks. There's one section that I just can't find anything for, so I've simply deleted it. If any of you can do better, I encourage you to replace the section in the mainspace with citations. Intuitively the content does make a lot of sense but I just can't find any sources to support it.
There were many support vehicles and even civilian tractors and cranes built on the T-34 chassis starting during the war and continuing at least into the 1990s. The vast majority of these were conversions of old or damaged tanks and self-propelled guns.
The article was delisted from the Featured Articles during FAR here. Criteria can be found here. I've just addressed all of the 1c issues (fully referenced). Would someone please help with the 2c issues (consistent citation style)? I do not believe it would be all that difficult to restore this one to Featured Article status, but it would be a bit tedious ... Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 16:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
__________________________________________________
"One can recognise the widely exported Czechoslovakian-built T-34-85s by a semi-conical armoured fairing (like a rear-facing scoop) on the left rear slanting side-panel of the engine compartment sponson. citation needed"
This 'fairing' is an small armored housing for an infantry call button or 'door bell' and I have seen them on Soviet-produced vehicles from factory 174 also. So, I suspect this is a postwar add-on, not a recognition feature unique to Czech vehicles. DMorpheus2 ( talk) 18:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
When did the USSR stop using this tank? We need to add this info in. I DO NOT believe any made it to 1991, but who knows?
74.51.57.78 ( talk) 19:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
In the "Use in other countries" subsection, there's an indication that the USSR used the T-34-85 until at least 1968. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 18:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
The statistics in the operational history part come from my site: http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.gr/2013/01/tank-strength-and-losses-eastern-front.html http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.gr/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html
Thanks a lot for copying my work without mentioning me or my site! Also maybe you didn’t understand it 100% but some of the German strength data for AFV’s are my e-s-t-i-m-a-t-e-s not all come from Jentz’s book. If you copy my information you should mention my site as your SOURCE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paspartoo ( talk • contribs) 12:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
The article has a lot of useful information, but it is painfully clear that it has been worked on at length by two major editors with the same set of sources. The amount of repetition and redundancy is enormous, running from sentences to whole paragraphs of identical information. For example:
"Even during the Battle of France, the Germans' 37 mm PaK 36 anti-tank gun had earned the nickname "Door Knocker" among German crews, due to its inability to penetrate anything but the lightest tank armour, though it worked very well at announcing the presence of the gun crew. The PaK 36 proved to be completely ineffective against the T-34, earning the contemptuous nickname "Door Knocker" from German troops"
As for paragraphs, to pick one example (there are more), the following appears in its entirety twice:
"From the point of view of operating them, the German armoured machines were more perfect, they broke down less often. For the Germans, covering 200 km was nothing, but with T-34s something would have been lost, something would have broken down. The technological equipment of their machines was better, the combat gear was worse."
It's also poorly organized, with the Mobility section just being a list of ways it broke down, though this is separate from a section on Reliability. Production, armour, and gun information is widely scattered, despite their being sections for such things, and heavily repeated as well. Finally, the introduction is way too long, containing far too much irrelevant information for a reader who should just be getting an intro to the topic.
I've gone through and made lengthy edits that have condensed things into their proper sections. In doing so I've deleted a great deal of redundancy. Note that while the trimmed word count appears high, the vast majority really was just repeated info (there were also little bits on German tanks and performance that were too detailed for this Soviet tank article, and/or were unsourced).
I have added no new information. Cheers. 94.232.219.141 ( talk) 22:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Palindromedairy ( talk) 16:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
DMorpheus2 ( talk) 19:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
This sentence, though sourced, is incorrect: "Starting with the Model 1943, cold-rolled armour plate (similar to that used for the tank hull) was welded in a sloped hexagonal design, improving turret armour protection.[48]" Although there were some welded turrets manufactured in the initial narrow design (the so called "Model 1941" or sometimes "Model 42" designs with the single large hatch), all the hexagonal turrets were cast or stamped. None were welded. I wonder if this is a mistranslation. DMorpheus2 ( talk) 19:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
The whole General reliability section is completely focused on early models of the T-34. The tank itself was one of the most reliable tanks during the war, however if one were to read the article one would think that the T-34 was not at all reliable, The models of late 1941 were reliable and the models of 1942 and 1943 were highly reliable able to travel far greater distances and require far less maintenance than any German tank. Nor123Nor ( talk) 17:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia comrades, I see you’ve changed the T-34 page once again! Regarding the reliability of the T-34 model 1943: http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.gr/2013/01/german-evaluation-of-captured-soviet.html Regarding the reliability of the T-34/85: http://www.scribd.com/doc/230672358/ENGINEERING-ANALYSIS-OF-THE-RUSSIAN-T34-85-TANK?in_collection=4556464 Paspartoo ( talk) 14:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
The second paragraph of the Overview section draws a strange comparison with the Sherman M4, as if assuming the reader is familiar with the details of this machine. The article should stand on its own and I find this paragraph out of place and inconsistent. In particular, it makes the statement: "Both were an approximately even match for the standard German medium tank, the Panzer IV." However, elsewhere in the article it is stated in the Operation Barbarossa subsection of Operational history: "...but the T-34 was a notable exception, superior to any tank the Germans then had in service." Stating that the Sherman M4 was "approximately equally matched with the Pz IV" is also a stretch, but this could be an article in itself. At best, I don't think this parallel adds anything to the article. At worst, it's just incorrect. If it must be retained, the comparison should be reduced in scope to compare the "backbone of the armoured forces" and designed for simplicity and mass production aspects and leave out any comparison of performance. CptCaveman76 ( talk) 09:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
"Both were an approximately even match for the standard German medium tank, the Panzer IV." I feel the same way about this statement, Cpt. A big part of the historical importance of the T-34 is its superiority to German tanks in the early phase of its service life. Notreallydavid ( talk) 10:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I believe the following quotation may be misleading and a misquote. It is found in the Barbarossa subsection of the Operational history section :
Adolf Hitler later said, "If I had known about the Russian tank's strength in 1941 I would not have attacked".
The cited reference is: Correlli Barnett, ed. (1989). Hitler's Generals. Weidenfeld and Nicolson. p. 456. ISBN 0 297 79462 0.
I believe in this quotation, Hitler was referring to Soviet tank strength in general i.e. referring to numbers rather than the qualities on the T-34 in particular. I think the apostrophe is mis-placed and that it should be "Russian tanks' strength" instead of "Russian tank's strength"
I do not have access to the source material, perhaps someone who has could check this out. CptCaveman76 ( talk) 09:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I've reviewed the entry introducing and its given source. None of those cited source following the origin quote, it rather seems viewed from a selective personal preference, which concluded to that synthesis WP:SYN. That's obviously not within the meaning of our guidelines. I suggest we discuss this to gather consensus for speedy removal and rephrasing.
1) "The T-34 was a Soviet medium tank which had a profound and lasting effect on the fields of tank tactics and design. First fielded in 1940, it has often been described as the most effective, efficient, and influential tank design of World War II"
Chris Mann and Hughes does not in the slightest preconize what is described; it's more likely a mixing up of the ref. from achtungpanzer.com: "when introduced into production in June of 1940, was the most advanced tank design in the world. It was superior to any other tank in the world, including feared German tanks. Its revolutionary design featured sloped armor, speed, hitting power and low silhouette along with reliability and low production cost"
It was miles away from being efficient and effective at its introducing. The new T-34 suffered from serious teething problems regard to their clutches and transmissions. Mechanical breakdowns accounted for at least 50% in 1941. Only 27% of 7'000 tanks were in good enough mechnical condition to last more than a few days of fighting before suffering mechanical breakdwons. [1] However, I rather want to take Zaloga and Grandsen wording in agreement to Field-Marshal Ewald von Kleist: "The combadt début of the T-34 in the summer of 1941 revealed it to be unquestionably the finest tank design of its time. The revolutionary combination of thick, angled armour, heavy firepower and superb mobility placed it in a class above its closet German contemporaries, the Pz Kpfw III and Pz Kpfw IV (D and E)" - Which gives a fair settlement and factual view, apart from some sweeping and creative wki-editors. WP:NPOV
It would also replace the uncourced and heavy inflated second dublicated statement: "At its introduction, the T-34 possessed the best balance of firepower, mobility, protection, and ruggedness of any tank. Its 76.2 mm (3 in) high-velocity gun was the best tank gun in the world at that time"
2) " German tank generals von Kleist and Guderian called it "the deadliest tank in the world"
Where this quote is coming from? I couldn't find, neither in the cited book(Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War II pp.110-170) which I've rewieved as well, nor in the recovered wepages: 1, 2 Thanks, regards Bouquey ( talk) 19:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Kleist and Guderian don't called it "the deadliest tank in the world".
Check source 1: Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War Two, Grandsen, Zaloga - the article not only fails to give the page in the reference, but also misleading it with an Guderian and Kleist citation. Guderian is solely mentioned at page 123 and von Kleist ist not even memoired in the entire book !
Check source 2: https://web.archive.org/web/20120330022217/http://www.theeasternfront.co.uk/Commanders/german/guderian.htm - dont emphasize that quote.
It's clearly that some editors are liying here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FileDivaM ( talk • contribs) 12:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
"The T34 was a revolutionary advance in tank design because it was able to combine unprecedented improvements in mobility, protection and firepower in a single vehicle. The design innovations included the Christie type, independent suspension combined with an extremely wide track allowing for high speed cross-country mobility and the increase in overall weight associated with increased armor. The increase in overall armor thickness combined with the use of highly sloped armor provided unprecedented protection in a medium tank for its day, this protection was complimented by the use of a diesel fueled engine decreasing the risk of fire caused by fuel, making the new tank one ofthe safest in the world. The use ofthe 76mm gun that was capable of effectively using both high-explosive and armor-piercing ammunition provided a marked increase in firepower over any of the T34's contemporaries". P.11
From TWO WAYS TO BUILD A BETTER MOUSETRAP Thesis by Major David Frederick McFadden B.S. Ohio State University 2002. Irondome ( talk) 20:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I like the way the lede section looks now. Let's keep it that way. I do remember reading Guderian saying that the T-34 was the "deadliest" tank in the world in 1941. It was in either "Achtung Panzer" or "Panzer Leader." But the quotes we're using now are well sourced so let's keep them. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 06:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
A major advance and far more powerful, T34-85 should have separate article. Rcbutcher ( talk) 07:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
(moved from my talk page ( Hohum @) 21:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC))
As you have revert my as copyvio; I want to inform you that the sentence in the lede:" Although its armour and armament were surpassed later in the war, it has been often credited as the most effective, efficient, and influential tank design of World War II" is also clearly a copyvio.
Why I can't add my edit? All points on the sentence are adressed in the article, and as far the WP:LEAD goes, we should: "include mention of consequential or significant criticism or controversies".
CobhamLaine ( talk) 19:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I have removed it, thanks. CobhamLaine ( talk) 20:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
The site www.achtungpanzer.com doesn't seem do be the genuine source of the sentence. Its lead is completely different, therefore it should not be credited and referred as such origin, even when it was mentioned in 2008. A reason why Harold may took it as his own intellectual property. CobhamLaine ( talk) 21:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I only see that you are discrediting Harold A. Skaarup as historian by removing its following citation. Can you track it down? How could you be sure that it is clearly WP:CIRCULAR? CobhamLaine ( talk) 21:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
"At least half the first summer's total tank losses were due to breakdowns rather than German fire, although this also included old tanks in disrepair"
I understand that sometimes in Wikipedia "it's damned if you do and damned if you don't" but in looking over the article it seems that the use of Harvard style referencing and the use of separate Notes and References sections really effects the readability of the article and some are using it and some aren't. It's not just readability that suffers but using Harvard referencing negates much of the advantage that a wiki has over paper, namely the flexibility of an inline citation that combines reference citation information and an expository note that are grouped together rather than having one be separate from the other and that is linked right back to the sentence you were reading. The <ref></ref> system may seem cumbersome if you are repeating a reference that has different page numbers but I have found that happens less than you might think and there's much more to be gained by combining the two, namely because you can assign names to references that don't change and it's much easier to read a combined notes and references section that uses lots of written references and reliable web citations. I did some work on
T-55 that I hope shows better what I mean. Still working on a good combination of Notes, References and Bibliography that is functional yet easy to read using the wikicite template that's already here.
Awotter (
talk)
06:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
It's really weird that the article says the T-34 doubled its armor protection during the war. Indeed my references state that the glacis armor plate thickness had never increased. Some thickening the turret armor took place, but double? Unlikely. -Chin, Cheng-chuan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.225.70.94 ( talk) 16:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello.
Could someone please direct me to schematic drawings showing the layout in the T-34 turret, or try to explain the layout to me? I just can't see how a layout with no turret basket is practical
- How did the gunner stay in the sights? If he isn't in some way attached to the turret, he'd be sitting in the hull, and would have to move around along with the turret. Did the gunner have a seat hooked up in the turret roof?
- If the loader had to stand on the munitions on the turret floor, did that mean that he had to move around to keep up with the turret as it traversed? I can't see it happening in any other ways? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.109.86.72 ( talk) 19:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Many of those countries, listed as operators, have scrapped/retired their T-34s. I cannot provide reliable sources for all of them, but here are some:
Those I can provide as sources for the moment. I will try to find more and for now remove the stars from those states at the operators list.
-
Tourbillon
A ?
12:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Under the “Importance” subheading is the text: “The improved T-34-85 remained the standard Soviet medium tank with an uninterrupted production run until the end of the war.”
I have just read ‘THE T-34 RUSSIAN BATTLE TANK’ by Matthew Hughes & Chris Mann. ISBN 0760307016. In addition to tabulating T-34 production by year and type, they state categorically that there were no T-34s produced in 1945. So who is right? 192.190.108.28 ( talk) 04:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I've been hacking away at the BoPI page, trying to put some order and sense into it, though I'm just an aircraft historian, specialising in post-USAF B-26 Invaders. There's various accounts of the events, and accuracy of much BoPI data is suspect:- Cuban tanks are variously referred to as T-34s or Stalins. The shipping data also needs clarifying:- three LCUs or LCIs (Blagar, Barbara J, ANOther?), four LCVPs?(coded P-3, P-7 etc), four freighters, one LSD (USS San Marcos), but what sort of vessel was the Marsopa? Perhaps tank/ship nuts might like to investigate? PeterWD ( talk) 01:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
The following quote appears just under the section heading "Establishing and Maintaining Production":
"Quantity has a quality all its own" —attributed to Joseph Stalin
On the History Channel I have heard this precise quote attributed to Lenin, and there are several websites that also credit Lenin, including:
http://www.notable-quotes.com/l/lenin_vladimir.html
( Badlermd ( talk) 13:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC))
Here are some more quotations which may be useful. I don't know whether they should be introduced into the article, because the thesis of Mosier's book is controversial, and he is not specifically a tank expert. The book is mostly about the Western Allies and the Germans, but he felt it necessary to mention the Eastern Front and specifically the T-34 a few times. From John Mosier (2003) The Blitzkrieg Myth: How Hitler and the Allies Misread the Strategic Realities of World War II, HarperCollins [Perennial 2004], ISBN 0-06-000977-2.
. . . Soviet tank design was considerably more advanced than in the West. But the T34 was a major step forward even for the Russians. In 1941 (and in 1942) no one had anything even remotely comparable. —pp 176–77
In June 1941 the Germans had no tank capable of defeating the T34, or even surviving an engagement with it, as one hit from its 76-millimeter gun would destroy any German tank outright, while its own angled armor rendered it well nigh invulnerable to the low-velocity German tank guns—most of which were still 50 millimeters or worse. Only the 88 could stop a T34, and only at ranges n which gunners were loathe to operate. All the more so as the crews were composed of Luftwaffe personnel who had been trained to shoot at airplanes. Belatedly, and with a sense of panic virtually unique in the history of the German army, a whole series of crash programs were begun. —p 177
As we have seen, the entire German tank force was an overlapping series of failed designs. The truth is the only competent tank design to see any real use in the war was the Soviet T34. —p 181 [Mosier also counts the Centurion and Pershing as competent tanks, which “arrived on the battlefield too late to have any impact . . .”]
Perhaps more important than the superlatives is Mosier's discussion of the German response to the T-34, including some subjects not adequately covered in our article. He mentions upgunning Panzer III and IV tanks and Sturmgeschütz, building Tigers and Panthers, development of a low-profile antitank carriage for the 88, and especially the deployment of captured and domestic antitank guns mounted on towed carriages as well as in self-propelled Marders and Hetzers. — Michael Z. 2008-09-20 22:23 z
The recovering of the German captured T-34 that had been dumped in a lake in Estland, has been recorded on film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kKLbKHNquE . I think it should be added to the passage about the recovery which is already in the article, but due to health reasons (momentarily severe add which also affects my writing skills) I can't do it myself. I think the movie is too important not to mention here. Arnoldus ( talk) 14:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure where, but the fact that they rammed tigers should be included.-- Krasilschic ( talk) 00:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I hesitate to call that a "fact". I've never seen a really credible source make the claim. And, if true, what of it? DMorpheus ( talk) 22:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
All tanks types have probably rammed another in one case or another, most are accidental which was a particular problem in Korea due to heavy fog often setting in. Intentional ramming is normally a sign of desperation and requires a tank to have far superior mass and weight to be effective, somthing the T-34 did not have against the Tiger. A few cases had definitely happened, but the same is true of any other tank. It's not really worth mentioning. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.181.103.83 (
talk)
21:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I know an article about T-34 quite large in information, but in spanish. The link is this: http://www.militarwiki.org/wiki/T-34
I think it could be included in the external links. -ACB, el Mutie- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.145.254.162 ( talk) 13:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, this is IMHO a very good article on a significant tank. What it lacks to make it more complete is:
I've seen these sections in other articles (about tanks and military aviation), and really do add to the information provided.
Does anybody else concurs? Kind regards,
DPdH (
talk)
03:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
The BT tanks were cavalry tanks, very fast-moving light tanks, designed to fight other tanks but not infantry.
As I understand the relationship of tanks and infantry, tanks do not fight infantry, rather infantry is used to support and defend tanks from other infantry (sappers, anti-tank weapon crews, etc.) and tanks are used to attack hardened defenses in support of infantry advances.
Shouldn't this be written "The BT tanks were cavalry tanks, very fast-moving light tanks, designed to fight other tanks without infantry"? (Fighting without infantry support and not supporting infantry in its task.)
- Leonard G. ( talk) 02:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
See here at 3:40. Was watching this vid at CNN and suddenly, lo and behold, isn't that a T34!? I'm pretty positive that it is one although I'm not knowledgeable enough to tell exactly which model. Seems it's not unknown that they did use T34s there, only I didn't know that. Anyhow, if it's useful, here's a video showing one that works at least insofar that it swings its turret. 85.229.85.49 ( talk) 17:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Why does it say that it is still in service? And if it is which countries are using it?-- Coffeekid ( talk) 23:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
The T-34-85 is still being used by some African nations (Angola, for example) and I believe Egypt and Syria still use it as a self-propelled gun platform. Of course, this could have changed by now. My reference is pretty old. Cwjian ( talk) 06:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)\
This year, 9 T-34s were used on the victory parade in the red square. Duiring conflicts in Armenia (1992) some of these tanks, standing as memorials also were used. George-yuschenko ( talk) 16:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Recently have been reading through Robert Michulec's T-34 - Mythical Weapon and the points made in this large and very detailed book on the T-34 deserve inclusion, IMHO, in this article. Because so much of this book contradicts the conventional wisdom about the T-34, I think the best way to do so would be to discuss the issues this book raises as a separate section within this article. To attempt to integrate this book into the current article would require extensively re-writing this article, and discarding much of what others have written about the T-34. I personally think that is what should eventually be done, but don't think that it will be possible to do so without a massive fight, so I think a separate section would be the way to go for now.
The book unfortunately has gone out of print, and is now very difficult to find for sale. I seem to have gotten one of the last few copies.
Commments? Thoughts?
DarthRad ( talk) 18:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
The book is biased because Michulec states his intent to demythologize the T-34 in the preface, and his contempt for anything to do with the Soviets (versus German, American, or British) runs throughout the book, and is quite noticeable. This contempt is almost certainly related to the Polish POV of this author.
I did catch a couple of not quite kosher comparisons in the book, which I pointed out in the Amazon review. But otherwise, MIchulec has his facts correct in this book, and the book is quite good. They do match what has been said in a lot of other books about the T-34.
It's the conclusions that Michulec draws from his facts that are most likely to draw fire from T-34 fans. Some of the basic hard facts that point out the limitations of the T-34 are already in this Wiki article. However, several claims are still sprinkled in the article which Michulec proves to be false.
The "technological pacesetter" quote from Zaloga is almost certainly overblown if not completely false. Michulec points out the earlier French FCM 36 as its probable predecessor and you only have to click on the Wikipedia link to see the strong family resemblance (yes, the T-34 was probably a stolen bastard child of the French, ooh la la! - how about that for a quote in the Wiki article?).
The claims about the reliability of the T-34 are also demonstrably false, another contradiction of Zaloga's writing. The M4 was by far more reliable, which is backed up in one sentence in Dmitryi Loza's "Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks." Michulec's book is literally filled with photographs of just how shoddily the T-34 was put together, including a number (I lost count) of T-34s that were completely blown apart due to the shoddy welding of the hull armor. I have never, ever seen a photo of a German, American, or British tank where the hull completely came apart as a result of an internal explosion. There are many photos of such shattered T-34s in Michulec's book.
Although Zaloga is certainly one of the major tank historians of our time, I am quite suspicious now about his earlier works. In his most recent books, he has revised a number of key statements from some of his earlier works already.
I think Zaloga's earliest works on the Soviet tanks have to be considered the most suspicious, especially since most of them were written with information obtained prior to the fall of the Soviet Union. Soviet propaganda about the T-34 still had a very strong effect. [Note, a controversial claim about the Soviet 122mm gun being able to penetrate a Panther tank from front to back is attributed to Zaloga's 1984 book, and is almost certainly Soviet propaganda, IMHO - this is still in the Wiki articles about the Panther tank and the IS-2 tank].
Finally, Michulec gives the figure of 45,000 destroyed T-34s, which would make it not "the finest tank in the world", which is what is currently stated in this T-34 article, but "THE MOST DESTROYED TANK IN THE WORLD". I'm all for substituting the latter quote in place of the first one, since the hard numbers are there to prove it, but, still this would be a controversial thing to do.
The combined sum of Michulec's views of the T-34 show that this was not a great tank at all, possibly not even a great tank in 1941, but that it was merely a tank that was produced in massive numbers and overwhelmed the Germans by sheer numbers.
That happens to be a commonly expressed opinion about the M4 Sherman, unjustly so, and in fact would appear to be more appropriate for the T-34.
It's mainly having to fight against the weight of all the quotes from authors like Zaloga and Lidell Hart that makes integrating Michulec's book into this article difficult. A lot of that stuff I think is just outdated, and the truth will come out with further works, as more authors, hopefully Zaloga himself, go to Russia to find out the real facts. The window of opportunity may be closing, as Russia seems to be developing a strong pro-Soviet nationalism again.
DarthRad ( talk) 00:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, you got me there. There are photos of other tanks that have come apart. But look at that photo of the T-34 I posted. The degree to which this tank came apart is much worse than your photos. It is not even the worst of the blown up T-34s from this book. I could have posted a couple others that were not even recognizable as tanks anymore - they were scattered in such pieces. It's really the sheer number of photos of completely disintegrated T-34s in Michulec's book that is impressive.
The photos of the tanks that you found do look more like they could have been bomb hits - the center of the tanks and tracked wheels look like they are collapsed down from a gigantic hammer blow from above, rather than an internal explosion making everything, including the side panels, come apart. That photo of the Sherman looks like a gigantic mine hit from below - most of the rest of the tank is still in one piece.
And so I think Michulec's explanation for the multiple photos of T-34s that are literally just completely blown apart has to be accepted for what it is. It might not be the reason for all of the tanks, but to see so many of them with their hull armor plate completely separated and blown apart, one has to come to the conclusion that yeah, something was seriously deficient in the construction of the T-34.
Some of the specifics of Michulec's other information are hard to back up with other sources, such as the his data on the low wear rates of the T-34's engine and main gun. There basically are no other sources that come close to being this specific with this information. Other sources deal only with generalities - Zaloga's statement that the T-34 was a durable tank, Dmitryi Loza's statement that it was no where near as durable as the M4 Sherman (he fought in both tanks, and clearly loved the M4 lots more).
Much of Michulec's information is so specific that it sounds very credible. The 45,000 destroyed T-34s number makes sense if you consider how many T-34s were produced and how many must have been left at the end of the war. If the Russians produced over 58,000 T-34s, surely it was to replace their losses, and not because they had 30,000 or 40,000 tanks at war's end.
The T-34 thus gets the title of "most destroyed tank of all time" over the M4 Sherman - fewer Shermans were produced and there were a lot of them still left over at war's end. But again, I don't know of any hard data as to how many M4 Shermans were actually destroyed during WWII, so this is just a guess. This is something that one should be able to find out, somewhere. One of these two tanks surely owns that title.
Anyway, this is why I am hesitant to insert information from this book into this article, except as a separate item so that people know that there is another viewpoint that may become the predominant one if or when more research comes out from post-Soviet Russia. Zaloga's books on Soviet tanks are mostly from Soviet era information.
You should get this book! I would love to get your opinion of this book.
DarthRad ( talk) 08:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
One additional point - Michulec does make very clear that there was a huge difference in the quality of the T-34s produced during the worst of the wartime emergency of WWII and the later T-34s produced after the war. Some T-34s were produced in Poland even. The differences are quite striking in the many photographs of the T-34s from wartime vs. those produced later. The armor of the wartime T-34s was poorly cast, turrets did not fit smoothly into the hull, etc. Photos of the very early T-34s and the late T-34s show very nice looking armor. He says the early T-34s had mechanical teething problems, and the mechanical reliability suffered also during the wartime, but improved considerably in the late model T-34s. All of this makes a great deal of sense, especially combined with his descriptions of how late and how hard it was for the Soviets to move their factories eastward with the Germans attacking (the main Factory 183 was re-built almost anew - Michulec says only about 10% of the parts and personnel were transferred successfully to the Urals, due to the late start of the transfer). Western sources generally seem to assume that the Soviets miraculously moved all of their industry to the Urals well in advance of the German invasion without any problems, but Michulec documents otherwise. All in all, despite Michulec's obvious anti-Soviet tone, he paints a fairly complete and consistent picture of what was happening during that time.
And so if Zaloga and others have examined T-34s, they most likely examined the nice shiny ones produced later. Michulec's book on the other hand thoroughly documents with photographs all the warts of the wartime T-34s.
DarthRad (
talk)
18:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Well all right, at least we are getting some debate on the subject.
Paul Siebert - The main contribution of the FCM 36 was the sloped armor on all sides, with the slope of the hull continuous with the turret, so that the tank ended up with a pyramidal shape and a very small turret. This was exactly the same shape of the T-34 which appeared some 3-4 years later than the FCM 36 and yet the T-34 gets all the credit and accolades as a "revolutionary design" for its sloped armor. Well, the French came up with that idea first (p. 247-248 in T-34 Mythical Weapon). Michulec goes further and points out that the pyramidal shape was highly impractical as it resulted in a tiny turret that was all but nonfunctional as the two crewmen could barely aim, load, and fire the gun. This was why the initial "flat turret" with the steeply sloped sides was replaced by the slightly larger, and less steeply sloped "hexagonal turret" (p. 245). The later T-34-85 turret was hardly sloped at all in order to maximize space to fit the larger gun and three crewmen.
As for your point about the dysfunctionality of the T-34-76, the early T-34-76 models were the most dysfunctional because of their tiny, steeply sloped turrets and the weak L-11 gun. The larger hexagonal turret (appearing in the summer of 1942), which was designed to allow for installation of the more powerful F-34 gun was much more functional, but it was still a two man turret lacking a commander. That problem was not fixed until early 1944 when the T-34-85 finally rolled off the production lines with a three man turret. The T-34-76 models thus ALL shared this problem of having nearly blind crewmen trying to fight on the battlefield. The Germans found it very easy to pick them off like ducks because the tank crews had a very limited field of vision, and no way to communicate with other tanks. There is a description in Healy's Zitadelle of an episode at the Battle of Kursk where the Soviet T-34s were charging in and the Germans would just leisurely pick off the T-34s one by one, with all the surviving T-34s completely oblivious to the mass destruction around them. That was in July 1943. Michulec's book does show that the Soviets started installing a commanders cupola on the hexagonal turret in the summer of 1943 (p. 123). Probably finally learned from the heavy losses of the Battle of Kursk that the tank crews needed to be able to see what was going on around them.
Michulec points out that the tank that the Germans most likely did fear and have a lot of trouble with was the KV-1. The KV-1 had the really tough armor that was resistant to the early German guns (the T-34's thin side armor could be penetrated by the weak guns of the German tanks of 1941) and it had the three man turret that made it a formidable fighting machine on the battlefield. The T-34-76 crews could simply not see well enough and function inside that tiny turret well enough to be a serious threat to German tanks. The problem with the KV-1 of course was twofold - it was very slow and sluggish and did not travel through bad terrain very well, unlike the T-34. And it carried the name of the later disgraced Kliment Voroshilov. Which is probably why in the Soviet retelling of history, the KV-1 gets only a very brief mention. All the glory gets heaped on the T-34s, which the Germans had no reason to fear because it was not much of a threat to them on the battlefield, due to its dysfunctional tiny two man turret and much weaker armor. Michulec points out that the German generals, especially Guderian, in all probability confused the KV-1 and T-34 in their memoirs, thus adding to the myth of the T-34 while continuing to bury the KV-1's true contributions.
DarthRad ( talk) 09:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
DMorpheus - I think you are being a bit harsh with Michulec's book. But at least you recognize the huge amount of work that he put into this thing. Yes, the photos and drawings are INCREDIBLE. I think rather than calling the text "awful", it would be more accurate to describe its two major flaws:
1. The book was translated by somebody for whom English was a second language. Not quite as bad as the translation for the movie "Alexander Nevsky", but a bit difficult to understand sometimes.
2. Michulec goes overboard with his obvious anti-Soviet ranting. Somebody should have just edited all this out, and it would have made the book more professional.
But, if you are able to slug through the difficult translation and filter out the anti-Soviet bias, what you find is that Michulec has packed his book chock full of facts, and he does reference most of his major facts. Unfortunately those references all seem to be in Russian or Polish or German. But I think that is where this book shines over books by Zaloga.
Here's an excerpt (p. 161):
The relocation of the production, the starting of new assembly lines, usually in great haste, and the loss of many sources of raw materials, had a pronounced effect on the quality of the produced T-34s. If in mid-1941 the failure rate of the vehicles can be described as moderate, after 1941 it was closer to being catastrophic....
As late as the second half of 1944, Red Army tank units tried to replace all tank engines with more than 30 hours of operation. This was done to try to guarantee that the engines would be able to function for 75-100 hours during the coming attack. This seems logical since the factory's peacetime guarantee in the first half of 1941 was only 150 hours, and, therefore, expecting only 100 hours of operation at the front appears reasonable. It could not be otherwise, since during the period 1942-1943 the Soviet industry reached its technological bottom. As a example, at the beginning of 1942 almost every tank had faulty side clutches. The total service life of the tank also declined steeply. Tanks that were repaired by field workshops and returned to duty broke down very frequently, reducing the combat strengths of the tank corps by up to 50%....
Of course, with time, the quality factors of the T-34 started to change for the better, but it is doubtful that the Soviets were able to reach a satisfactory level of production before the end of the war....
DarthRad ( talk) 09:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Finally, there is Michulec's figure of 45,000 destroyed T-34s. Does anybody dispute that number or think that it is an exaggeration? I believe that the weight of the evidence is that the number must be right, or very close. The Soviets rushed to produce 58,000+ T-34s for a very good reason. In most of the major battles of the Eastern Front, the Soviets lost huge numbers of tanks to the Germans, even when the battle was a win for the Soviets. The Germans got to be the best in the world at knocking out tanks.
So, unless you think that the Soviets finished the war with more than 13,000 T-34s (enough tanks to equip more than 30 tank divisions) then that number sounds about right, and so for whatever the reasons were, (and lots of good reasons have been given as to why this happened) the T-34 wins the title of "the most destroyed tank of all time". And that is not a joke, I'm being serious here. It's the logical conclusion if you accept that 45,000 number, just as the 45,000 number is the logical conclusion if you understand why 58,000 tanks were produced.
Q.E.D.
DarthRad ( talk) 09:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
DMorpheus - OK, my bad, I didn't do my reading about the KV-1 and I misread Michulec's book. That comment about the three man turret of the KV-1 was NOT from Michulec's book. That was my own "original source" contribution. You are absolutely right. The third man in the KV-1 manned a rear facing machine gun and was pretty useless. The KV-1 had the same deal as the two man T-34 turret with the commander having to be the gunner. You are also correct about the narrow pyramidal turret of the T-34 mostly mounting the F-34 gun, and the hexagonal turret being installed later (summer of 1942). [The hexagonal turret was put in to make the turret more functional as the narrow pyramidal turret was a tight squeeze]. Let me emphasize that these were MY MISTAKES not Michulec's because in re-checking the facts in his book, he has them correct. I got them wrong.
Michulec's point about the KV-1 is still valid. Its heavy armor was what stymied the Germans in 1941. The T-34's thinner side and rear armor made it much more vulnerable, even in 1941. As a defensive weapon, which is pretty much what the Soviets were doing in 1941, the KV-1 was much tougher for the Germans to handle. The reason that the KV-1 was phased out in 1943 was that by then, the Soviets were mounting increasing numbers of offensive tank assaults, and the KV-1 was way too slow and sluggish to do those Soviet style tank-infantry banzai charges (or "Hoorah!" charges). More importantly, by then, the Germans had also upgraded all of their AFVs to at least the 7.5 cm KwK 40 and their infantry had large numbers of the equivalent Pak 40, which could knock out the KV-1s with ease. And the KV-1's 7.62 cannon was exactly the same as the T-34. And it was lots more expensive than the T-34. So of course the KV-1 was dropped. There was no reason for its existence anymore by 1943. The Soviets did try the KV-85 "upgrade" for about 130 tanks. The IS-2 of course was the ultimate upgrade.
Michulec goes into excruciating detail analyzing Guderian's memoir - Panzer Leader. He points out that Guderian constantly refers to difficulties in the 1941 battles against T-34s when in reality he must have meant the KV-1. Michulec breaks down the details of one particular battle (Mcensk) to prove that the "T-34s" that were troubling the Germans had to have been KV-1s. The T-34 had much weaker side and rear armor than the KV-1 and the Germans did not have problems shooting them up at the Battle of Mcensk.
OK, you want corroborating evidence about how ineffective the T-34 was? If you don't believe Michulec, how about Mark Healy? Here's an extended excerpt from Healy's Zitadelle (2008) - page 176:
Skipping to p. 177:
Healy goes on to state that the Germans had only 278 total write-offs for all AFVs at the Battle of Kursk (the phase ending July 17, 1943), whereas estimates for Soviet losses are in the range of 1,254 -1,614 for that same phase. He gives an estimate that the Soviets lost a total of 6,064 AFVs for the Battle of Kursk and the followup counter offensives that ran through the month of August, 1943.
So why is this important? Because the numbers and historical evidence clearly show that the Soviets "won" the Battle of Kursk at a great cost, as they did almost all of their battles against the Germans. The T-34 was integral to the Soviet victory, yes indeed. But the Soviets won with the T-34 primarily by overwhelming the Germans with massive numbers. That is a point which is frequently made about the
M4 Sherman on the Western Front. Why is it not allowed to make the same claim about the T-34? All of the data points to this concept being even more true for the T-34 than for the M4 Sherman.
Jentz's Panther and Tiger books have range penetration data done by the Germans which prove that the armor and firepower of the T34-85 was very close in performance to the 76mm M4 Sherman. Other data show that the T34-76 firepower was similar to the M4 75mm gun. So although very different in design, the two tanks tracked each other remarkably in their performance, accomplishments, and in the large numbers knocked out by the Germans.
The difference is that years of Soviet propaganda and mistaken identity in the memoirs of the German generals have created the myth of the T-34.
Zaloga points out in the preface of Armored Thunderbolt that the M4 Sherman also used to have a mythology built around it. When I was a child, the phrase "built like a Sherman tank" was a common term of praise for any sort of durable machinery, and the M4 Sherman was often credited with helping win WWII. Today, it gets ripped with derogatory terms like "Ronson", etc. while the T-34 continues to bask in its Soviet era propaganda of "best tank of all time".
DMorpheus, your last point about the T-34 having the best balance of firepower, armor, and mobility in 1941 is absolutely true. BUT, the clear cut missing flaw that you continue to fail to mention is the extremely poor ergonomics of the T-34, which is the point that Michulec rants about for pretty much his entire book. Healy only spends about a page and a half of Zitadelle to make the same point - I've pretty much quoted most of that section - and it comes across much more professionally as a result. But that's not to say that Michulec's book is awful just because he keeps repeating himself about a fact that you don't seem to want to hear about the T-34.
Calling the The T-34 a "revolutionary design" or "technological pacesetter" (the term used in the current article) falsely implies that the Soviets were the ones who came up with all those new technological concepts. No, no, no, no, no, NO! As you yourself just stated, the sloped armor was well known by the time of the T-34's design, was already in use by many tanks (including the frontal armor of the U.S. M2 Light Tank), and the roadwheel suspension came from Christie's BT series of tanks. And the French also were using diesel engines in their tanks. So the T-34 was very much a COMBINATION of several earlier innovations, not a "revolutionary design". "Revolutionary design" and "Technological pacesetter" are inaccurate terms and should NOT be used to describe the T-34.
hohum - if the the title of "most destroyed tank of all time" bothers you, then the quote from Lidell Hart calling it "the best tank of all time" should bother you even more. The first title is actually TRUE - there is all that hard data I gave you backing it up. The second title is ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE and the quote comes from Lidell Hart, a writer who has more recently been discredited as a shameless self-promoter who probably had a lot less influence on tank theory than he would like historians to believe. The only "best" category that the T-34 really excelled at was in being produced by the Soviets faster than the Germans could destroy them.
DarthRad ( talk) 09:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
DMorpheus - OK, you make some very good points. I think I will for now abandon this "T-34 as Myth" project until one of the major English speaking tank historians writes something that will be more acceptable to everybody. Don't see that this is getting anywhere right now. Since Zaloga recently revised a good chunk of his former writing with Armored Thunderbolt, he would be the ideal candidate to do something new on the Soviet tanks also. Zaloga did get some acknowledgements from Michulec in T-34 Mythical Weapon so they were in touch.
At the same time, unless somebody comes up with bigger numbers for the M4 Sherman, the T-34 still owns the title of "most destroyed tank of all time". I think the title of "best tank of all time" is a big mistake, but there are just too many T-34 enthusiasts at present to wipe that off of this Wiki page.
The fact that the T-34 was the most destroyed tank of all time was certainly due to a combination of factors - horrible Soviet tactics and training, superb German anti-tank capabilities, and the gigantic nature of the war on the Eastern Front. However, the limited capabilities of the T-34 against German guns and armor after 1941 was also a big part of this story, just like it was for the M4 Sherman. And that's what needs to get emphasized whenever people get too enthusiastic about the T-34.
Paul Siebert - the Wright brothers' aircraft had a number of new technological INVENTIONS. It was not just a glider and an engine. They filed a number of patents for their discoveries on how to control the aircraft, etc., and in fact became consumed by their desire to protect their patents, spending enormous time filing lawsuits against everybody. They just about stopped designing new and better aircraft because they spent so much time on the lawsuits. I honestly can't think of a single thing that the Soviets invented with the T-34. So your analogy is not correct here, but I digress...
DarthRad ( talk) 18:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
"..there are just too many T-34 enthusiasts at present to wipe that off of this Wiki page."
Kindly do not insult your fellow editors. The fact is that the sources are heavily in favor of the current content as opposed to the silliness Michulec writes. This is not a question of anyone's "enthusiasm" , is simply a question of reliable sources and a fair weighing of lots of them.
Regards,
DMorpheus (
talk)
21:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, a lot of causes for a tank to be written off without being destroyed by enemy. And if Michulec is right, 80% of T-34 never reached the front, breaking down somewhere along the way :) In reality, in WW2 a lot of tanks got destroyed several times... Some crews kept on swaping tanks as they got KOed from under them, and some tanks got several crews killed in them. After all a KOed WW2 tank if not burned down was easy repair: patch the holes, swap the engine or gun if needed, and wash the blood from the inside. Wheter that was actually done or not depended mostly on the surrounding situation: what were your forces doing, atacking or retreating, were there spare crews, or a recovery team at hand. For example, if you are in the middle of an attack operation, for when the tank gets fixed the frontline can be a 200km away. And if there are new (and better) tanks arriving continuosly, why waste time with a broken down tank? Just leave it there to rot or send it back to the melting furnace. And some tanks simply wore down. It's not for nothing that the lifespan of the things was measured in hours.
190.134.10.151 (
talk)
04:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and when a tank get blown to bits it usually means the ammo on board detonated, either due to a directo hit to the ammo racks or after a fire. It has nothing to do with the "build quality" of the tank, but with the nature of the ammo on board and where it is stored. Loza was of the idea that soviet HE shells were more powerfull that the US, but in turn had a higher chance of going high order once the tank was set on fire (he supposed it was due to different explosive composotion). 190.134.25.206 ( talk) 18:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I partially removed Milanetti's recent changes, reverting to a version vetted by Hohum. This article is a featured article, and should not be subjected to poor writing skills. A featured article is supposed to be a shining example of our best work.
Milanetti changed the second sentence. The previous version was Although its armour and armament were surpassed by later tanks of the era, it has been often credited as the most effective, efficient and influential design of World War II.
Milanetti's version was: Although its armour and armament were surpassed by later tanks of the era, and –in the early years of the conflict - its trasmission was the most primitive of the time it has been often credited as the most effective, efficient and influential design of World War II.
This sample was enough to display the unsuitability of the editor's English composition skills. So... what's the next step? Is an editor here willing to rewrite all the poorly written non-native-speaking edits that are applied to this article? Binksternet ( talk) 22:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
The entry for the T-32 redirects to this T-34 entry. I don't think it should; the T-32 was a Yugoslav tank and a totally separate model to the T-34. How does one go about removing redirects in order to create the T-32 entry? Noisms ( talk) 17:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
One of the most frequent problem with wikipedia articles is the lack of, let's say, a 'center'. What do i say? I mean, if a reader came here, it's likely that he could be confused. T-34 article, even if featured, it's a mess. I'd want a paragraph in wich i could find a basic description of a typical T-34 tank: internal, ammunition stores, armour thickness, etc. In this article, quite long, it's badly needed this neat description. Instead, there is not even a complete description of the 'famous' sloped armour; its hardness, quality, alloy, but even, the thickness and angle. I did not found it, and this is basically bad. The basic datas, when availables, are scattered all around. Instead, there is a lot of 'he said that', opinions, even referenced, that not really help the reader.
A paragraph in which you could find: armour thickness of a 'typical' T-34 (ex, the first T-34A, or T-34/85), engine, trasmission, tracks (lenght and widht, type etc.), weaponry (gun, machine-gun, elevation, ROF, ammunition store etc), sight system and whatever else. If you'll submit such article in a magazine, it's likely it would be trashed. Until this reorganization and rationalization, T-34 article will be just a mess and i'd prefer far more the simpler but well organized wwii page: http://www.wwiivehicles.com/ussr/tanks-medium/t-34.asp, easy to read, and easy to use in order to find everything you need. It should been taken as example of a user's friendly page, and it's far different than wiki article.
I added atleast the armour thickness, but there is a lot of work to do.-- Stefanomencarelli ( talk) 21:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I am slightly confused as to the suspension system used in the T-34. According to the infobox it is a Christie suspension, while in the article is stated that the suspension was changed to a torsion bar system in 1942. The article on the Christie suspension is not quite clear on what characterizes a Christie suspension, except that it is considerably different from a torsion bar suspension. Could anybody enlighten me about this? --παγκρἃτωρ/pankrator 06:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pankrator ( talk • contribs)
All T-34s had a Christie suspension; no production T-34 had a torsion-bar suspension. Briefly, christie's design used long-pitch tracks and large wheels, each independently suspended from swing arms attached to very large vertical coil springs inside the hull. At the time it was invented around 1930 it allowed for far higher speeds than any other suspension. In many incarnations it also allowed for convertability between tracked mode and wheeled mode (for example the BT series of tanks). However, the T-34, and other christies such as the British Cromwell, did not have a wheeled mode.
Christie suspensions are relatively easy to manufacture and do not impose any height penalty on the tank hull. However, they do impose a width penalty. The hull must accomodate relatively large-diameter springs, narrowing the useful space inside the hull.
Torsion-bar suspensions, which were invented in the later 1930s and began to see use just before WW2, also use individual suspension systems for each wheel. However, the torsion bar runs along the bottom of the hull from side-to-side. This imposes a slight height penalty but the height of a torsion bar is far less than the width of a christie coil spring tower. So, it is far more efficient in terms of using up hull volume. They are harder to manufacture, however. Early uses of the torsion-bar design would be, for example, the German Panzer III or Soviet KV series.
Since 1945, most tanks have used some variant of the torsion-bar system. Regards, DMorpheus ( talk) 22:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Really? The title itself is not neutral, and what was revolutionary about the T-34? Everything about the tank had been done before. It should be renamed "History" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.114.227 ( talk) 02:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Agree that "Revolutionary Design" is highly inaccurate. This subheading title does not reflect the content of what is written in this article, which clearly shows that the T-34 was an Evolutionary Design influenced by the experience with previous Soviet tanks. Just look at that photo lineup in the article of the BT and A-20 tanks which preceded the T-34. The Christie suspension and sloping armor, etc., key characteristics of the T-34 were already in place before the T-34 came into being.
So there, I made the change. DarthRad ( talk)
As for putting Mellenthin's quote right next to a subheading of "Revolutionary Design", the juxtaposition creates an incredibly false and misleading conclusion. There were several reasons that Germany had nothing comparable to the T-34, and none of those reasons had anything to do with the T-34 being a "Revolutionary Design". Germany had only slowly started up its tank industry, secretly breaking the Treaty of Versailles in the early 1930's (aircraft production violations of the Treaty started earlier). The German Army recognized a need for better tanks, as the early versions of the Tiger I design were already underway in 1937-1938, well before the invasion of Russia. Most of all, it is a well known historical fact that Hitler was so encouraged by Chamberlain's appeasement policy that he jumped the gun and started WWII before his armed forces were completely ready and fully armed with all the best weapons on the drawing boards. Also, German military intelligence during WWII was abysmal (helped no doubt by the fact that many Abwehr were anti-Nazis, including Canaris, the head of the Abwehr) and had absolutely no advanced knowledge of the state of Soviet tank development. The German Panzer III and Panzer IV were adequate to deal with the Soviet BT and T-26 tanks that were known to the Germans from the Spanish Civil War and the Soviet-Finland Winter War. Information about the approaching arrival of the Soviet T-34 and the KV-1 tanks undoubtedly would have accelerated German tank design/production efforts. In any case, WWII was a constant arms race in which each side tried to leapfrog the other side with new designs and all armies would end up at one time or another with outclassed tanks on the battlefield. This would later happen to the T-34 vs. the Panther and Tiger tanks. DarthRad ( talk)
The revolutionary thing about the T-34 was that it was the first tank to achieve the fine balance of armour, mobility and firepower for its time. All other tanks before it were deficient in at least one area (The British Matildas, the early German Panzers, most of the French tanks (excepting the SOMUA S35). Many of the ideas used on the T-34 may have been thought of before, but the T-34 was the first to combine all of them together into one package, much like how many of the elements of the AK had been done before, but the AK was one of the first to put them all together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.138.146 ( talk) 15:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
While they did come up with the name the first assault rifle was probably the cei-rigotti Pharoahjared ( talk) 19:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Granted, it was a race, but the same could be said of any tank, past or present. The T-34 just happened to get it right at the right time. Again, all other tanks were deficient in 1 or another of these 'hard' factors, whereas the T-34 managed to get it 'right' when it came out. One other thing 'revolutionary' about the T-34 was the ease with which it could be made, which was unprecedented for any other tank before it.
The fact that all post war tanks were influenced by the T-34 (or by the Panther, which was itself influenced by the T-34) does speak volumes as to what a benchmark it was in tank design.
Frankly, if the M4 had arrived around the same time as the T-34, it would have been remembered along with the T-34 as a revolutionary design, but it came a year later, as it happened. It's a little unfair, but that's how things turned out.
The Tiger I had terrible mobility strategically, and adequate tactical mobility at best. And of course, it was terribly expensive to produce. Sure, it had firepower and armour, but to stem the tide of T-34s and Shermans, it would have had to destroy at least 10 T-34s/Shermans for every Tiger lost (which it certainly didn't).
The T-34-85 was far superior to the Panzer IV (slightly better armour, far more mobility, equal in firepower, far easier to produce) and was the equal of the M4A3 E8. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.186.209 ( talk) 15:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
More shuld probably be added? Syria used T-34 tanks in the israeli-arab war of 1967. What about the T-34's perfomance in this conflict? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.110.193.21 ( talk) 10:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
A whole bunch of information, including references on the T-34's ww2 combat performance was added in July 2012. Admittedly, some parts of the writing is not encyclopaedic or perhaps contains too much opinion. But instead of re-writing, editing or updating the newly added content, certain posters keep deleting ALL OF IT, including all the properly referenced data and reverting to a previous version. This, IMO, is unacceptable as it does not allow the subject topic to be altered or new contributions to be made. Instead it would behove contributers to read through and edit out the conjecture and un-reference opinions! And yes wikipedia is a synergistic effort, and no the current article is not perfect and not without bias/conjecture!
142.162.25.82 (
talk)
14:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I have found a photo of misaligned plates here on the T-34: http://worldoftanks.com/news/1031-chieftains-hatch-devils-due/, but am not sure that this is not copyrighted. The info on the image says 'the website does not supply ownership info'...too bad, as it is a great photo and would allow us to add information on the workmanship of the T-34! Tempsperdue ( talk) 02:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Can somebody make a photo of Czarnkowski czołg T-34 for Commons? Thank you.-- 95.129.137.176 ( talk) 13:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
How is it possible to make such a general, vague, and sweeping assessments by calling 'x' tank "the best tank of world war 2"? The sheer number of factors are overwhelming and extremely situational. Many times during this article have such references been made, taking a non-neutral point of view and citing less than fair sources with seemingly no external reasoning other than invoking nationalistic pride. Instead of saying "x" tank is "better" than "b" tank, we should present the specifications in a non-POV way and let the reader come to his/her own conclusion.
I move to remove all mentioning of such cases, and replace them with side by side statistical breakdowns, or perhaps a new comparison article instead. This way the reader can draw their own conclusions based of the specifications of the tanks.
76.181.103.83 ( talk) 21:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Jade rat
I am all in favor of removing all of these excessive "enthusiast" superlatives about the T-34, and in fact believe this phenomenon of T-34 worship deserves its own section in this article - e.g., "The T-34 as Myth". There are very simple reasons as to how this T-34 worship got started after all, mainly in the memoirs of the defeated German generals who had all sorts of motives to inflate the reputation of this Soviet tank. Unfortunately the main sources that currently help to debunk this myth are from Soviet or former Soviet-bloc countries, and so have been slow to make it into acceptance among the moderators of this article. But sooner or later, one of the major Western tank historians will write a terrific and updated book about the T-34 based on this new post-Soviet information and thoroughly debunk this myth. The truth is out there already.
Meanwhile, it's very frustrating, and I find these designations of the T-34 as finest this or greatest that or "progenitor of the modern tank" to be every bit as annoying as all the references on Wikipedia that, three years ago, quoted Belton Cooper (author of "Death Traps") as saying Gen. Patton was the person responsible for stunting the development of the M4 Sherman and M26 Pershing. This falsehood was widely repeated across the Internet. In a single book, Zaloga's "Armored Thunderbolt" provided the documentation that completely crushed that falsehood into oblivion once and for all. Zaloga's recent book "T-34-85 vs. M26 Pershing" had a nice section describing how in the Korean War, the M26 Pershings greatly over-matched the T-34-85 whereas the M4A3E8 Shermans were equal to the T-34-85. Since Zaloga is readily accepted on these Wikipedia articles, as fast as one of his books come out, I have entered his stuff in and it never ever gets challenged. So, here's an appeal to Steven Zaloga, if you're reading this, I'm sure you've seen some of this new post-Soviet stuff out now about the T-34. Your 1988, 1994, and 1996 books about the T-34 are getting to be a bit long in the tooth. Write something new, Please! DarthRad ( talk)
An editor has nominated this article for FAR. However, as the first step (of notifying interested editors on the talk page to see if work can be completed without a FAR) was not completed, the FAR has been placed on hold so that this notification can be placed. Here is the text of the FAR nomination, as a starting place for work. Nikkimaria ( talk) 12:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Copied text:
Looking at the article, and comparing it to the criteria:
Just bumped into this FAR by chance, and thought I'd give a few thoughts about this article, since I happen to have a bit of knowledge on the subject.
Your own personal assertion about the quality of particular works isn't relevant. To say one source is better than another, you'll need to show peer review showing that it is better, which can also be implied by how much other respectable historians reference their work. ( Hohum @) 18:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
The article is far too opinionated and biased. Statements are made about the T-34 being the "best" when such a thing is completely subjective to situation and enormously complex. In the opening paragraph such statements are made on three separate instances — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.135.164.254 ( talk) 15:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article, File:P82-2l.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 15 November 2011
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 22:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC) |
The article claims this is an example of the design's durability. It's nothing of the sort. An absence of rust and degradation would be entirely expected after being submerged in an anaerobic environment. Bogs routinely offer up well-preserved artifacts from thousands of years ago. This whole section should be deleted IMO, as the restoration of an individual T-34 isn't particularly noteworthy, even if it was unusually well preserved. 2p0rk ( talk) 22:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
The sentence about the three man turret giving the commander the ability to focus on commanding the tank while leaving the operation of the gun to the gunner and loader does not require a citation, it is obvious isn't it? Imagine standing in the two man turret, spotting a target, then having to crawl down into the gunners seat, swivel the turret and find the target again through the very limited field of vision of the gunsight, and then hit the target: ridiculous, what were they thinking? If anything the Soviets should have made the commander the loader in the two man turret. Loading the gun only takes a couple of seconds, and then the commander can be up again searching for targets and directing the gunner and driver. Any tank commander or crew member could explain this. Azeh ( talk) 09:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
The following section seems unbalanced:
:::Although in theory an effective overall shape, armor suffered from build quality issues, especially of plate joins and welds, as well as the use soft steel :::combined with shallow surface tempering, all this was noted by US engineers at the Aberdeen Proving grounds.[8] ::::'In a heavy rain lots of water flows through chinks/cracks, which leads to the disabling of the electrical equipment and even the ammunition.
When we consider the T-34 was one of the best-protected tanks in the world in 1941, this section is a bit silly in its unbalanced description. DMorpheus2 ( talk) 20:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that we consistently use one or the other, and not mix both usages in the article. I suggest this mostly for the sake of good style.
Having said that, the Soviet and Russian usage is T-34-85, not T-34/85. This usage has been adopted much more commonly in newer English-language sources than T-34/85. The T-34/85 usage is a bit dated and, I'd guess, probably derived from the German usage of T-34/76 (a designation not generally used by the Soviets or Russians). Since this is a Soviet-era piece of equipment, not German, I suggest we use the Soviet/Russian usage.
Regards, DMorpheus2 ( talk) 14:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
The Slash comes from Finnish sources. For example the infantry rifle M/28-30, or submachine gun M/31. 69.60.229.207 ( talk) 03:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Soviet fully tracked AFV production from June 1941 to May 1945 was 99,150 (this includes all types of fully tracked assault and self-propelled guns) vehicles. An additional 11,900 tanks and self-propelled guns were received via Lend Lease.[88][89] In comparison, the Germans, who are often criticised for producing too few, albeit higher quality tanks replete with too many refinements and excessive quality control during production, produced a total of 26,925 tanks, 612 command tanks, 232 flame tanks, 10,550 assault guns, 7,831 tank destroyers, and 3,738 assault and self-propelled artillery AFVs, between 1938 and May 1945.[90] For a combined total of around 49,900 fully tracked AFVs. Soviet tanks had a generally rough and ready finish, and lacked many ergonomic and refinement features which were deemed essential by German and to a large extent by Allied tankers as well.[citation needed] That there were more Soviet tanks produced during the war than were destroyed (approximately 44,900 of the 55,550 T-34s produced were lost), regardless of the individual tactical performance of each, ultimately helped to win the war. The Soviets mass produced more fully tracked AFVs, and more T-34s in particular than the Germans did total fully tracked AFVs. It can be argued that it was exactly the emphasis on refinements, manufacturing quality and subtleties of design which gave German tank crews significant edge in combat at the tactical level. The Soviets achieved strategic success, but paid an exceptionally high price; approximately 44,900 of the T-34s were lost out of a total of 96,500 fully tracked AFVs lost compared with only 32,800 for the Germans (this includes all SP guns, SP artillery, and several thousand vehicles captured when Germany surrendered on the East Front) during all of WW2; a global loss ratio of 2.94 to 1 in favour of the Germans.[91][92]
That's all very interesting stuff about armored combat in WW2 but its not really about the T-34 is it? Certianly, far more specific conclusions could be drawn. DMorpheus2 ( talk) 16:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I tagged Italy and the Russian Liberation Army (ROA) usage. I am aware of no documentation at all of any Italian usage of the T-34. I've seen one blurry, obviously-retouched photo showing Regio Escercito troops near an STZ-produced T-34. No evidence that it is operational; from the photo it could be disabled/abandoned. It is impossible to tell.
The ROA was never in combat until the last few days of WW2 in Prague. While there is no doubt they had a few T-34s, they were issued from German stocks, not captured by the ROA from the Red Army.
Finally, although I did not tag it, some of the Finnish T-34s were bought from the Germans, not all were captured.
regards, DMorpheus2 ( talk) 18:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I've made a recent project out of acquiring better citations for this article. I copied the entire article to my laptop, traveled to various libraries and used bookstores(usually on other projects) and, wherever there was a "citation needed" tag, I'd search the indices of books on the shelves, and frequently I found something. The mainspace content has been edited with all these references in the past couple of days as a result of this compilation of research conducted over the past several weeks. There's one section that I just can't find anything for, so I've simply deleted it. If any of you can do better, I encourage you to replace the section in the mainspace with citations. Intuitively the content does make a lot of sense but I just can't find any sources to support it.
There were many support vehicles and even civilian tractors and cranes built on the T-34 chassis starting during the war and continuing at least into the 1990s. The vast majority of these were conversions of old or damaged tanks and self-propelled guns.
The article was delisted from the Featured Articles during FAR here. Criteria can be found here. I've just addressed all of the 1c issues (fully referenced). Would someone please help with the 2c issues (consistent citation style)? I do not believe it would be all that difficult to restore this one to Featured Article status, but it would be a bit tedious ... Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 16:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
__________________________________________________
"One can recognise the widely exported Czechoslovakian-built T-34-85s by a semi-conical armoured fairing (like a rear-facing scoop) on the left rear slanting side-panel of the engine compartment sponson. citation needed"
This 'fairing' is an small armored housing for an infantry call button or 'door bell' and I have seen them on Soviet-produced vehicles from factory 174 also. So, I suspect this is a postwar add-on, not a recognition feature unique to Czech vehicles. DMorpheus2 ( talk) 18:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
When did the USSR stop using this tank? We need to add this info in. I DO NOT believe any made it to 1991, but who knows?
74.51.57.78 ( talk) 19:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
In the "Use in other countries" subsection, there's an indication that the USSR used the T-34-85 until at least 1968. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 18:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
The statistics in the operational history part come from my site: http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.gr/2013/01/tank-strength-and-losses-eastern-front.html http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.gr/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html
Thanks a lot for copying my work without mentioning me or my site! Also maybe you didn’t understand it 100% but some of the German strength data for AFV’s are my e-s-t-i-m-a-t-e-s not all come from Jentz’s book. If you copy my information you should mention my site as your SOURCE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paspartoo ( talk • contribs) 12:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
The article has a lot of useful information, but it is painfully clear that it has been worked on at length by two major editors with the same set of sources. The amount of repetition and redundancy is enormous, running from sentences to whole paragraphs of identical information. For example:
"Even during the Battle of France, the Germans' 37 mm PaK 36 anti-tank gun had earned the nickname "Door Knocker" among German crews, due to its inability to penetrate anything but the lightest tank armour, though it worked very well at announcing the presence of the gun crew. The PaK 36 proved to be completely ineffective against the T-34, earning the contemptuous nickname "Door Knocker" from German troops"
As for paragraphs, to pick one example (there are more), the following appears in its entirety twice:
"From the point of view of operating them, the German armoured machines were more perfect, they broke down less often. For the Germans, covering 200 km was nothing, but with T-34s something would have been lost, something would have broken down. The technological equipment of their machines was better, the combat gear was worse."
It's also poorly organized, with the Mobility section just being a list of ways it broke down, though this is separate from a section on Reliability. Production, armour, and gun information is widely scattered, despite their being sections for such things, and heavily repeated as well. Finally, the introduction is way too long, containing far too much irrelevant information for a reader who should just be getting an intro to the topic.
I've gone through and made lengthy edits that have condensed things into their proper sections. In doing so I've deleted a great deal of redundancy. Note that while the trimmed word count appears high, the vast majority really was just repeated info (there were also little bits on German tanks and performance that were too detailed for this Soviet tank article, and/or were unsourced).
I have added no new information. Cheers. 94.232.219.141 ( talk) 22:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Palindromedairy ( talk) 16:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
DMorpheus2 ( talk) 19:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
This sentence, though sourced, is incorrect: "Starting with the Model 1943, cold-rolled armour plate (similar to that used for the tank hull) was welded in a sloped hexagonal design, improving turret armour protection.[48]" Although there were some welded turrets manufactured in the initial narrow design (the so called "Model 1941" or sometimes "Model 42" designs with the single large hatch), all the hexagonal turrets were cast or stamped. None were welded. I wonder if this is a mistranslation. DMorpheus2 ( talk) 19:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
The whole General reliability section is completely focused on early models of the T-34. The tank itself was one of the most reliable tanks during the war, however if one were to read the article one would think that the T-34 was not at all reliable, The models of late 1941 were reliable and the models of 1942 and 1943 were highly reliable able to travel far greater distances and require far less maintenance than any German tank. Nor123Nor ( talk) 17:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia comrades, I see you’ve changed the T-34 page once again! Regarding the reliability of the T-34 model 1943: http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.gr/2013/01/german-evaluation-of-captured-soviet.html Regarding the reliability of the T-34/85: http://www.scribd.com/doc/230672358/ENGINEERING-ANALYSIS-OF-THE-RUSSIAN-T34-85-TANK?in_collection=4556464 Paspartoo ( talk) 14:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
The second paragraph of the Overview section draws a strange comparison with the Sherman M4, as if assuming the reader is familiar with the details of this machine. The article should stand on its own and I find this paragraph out of place and inconsistent. In particular, it makes the statement: "Both were an approximately even match for the standard German medium tank, the Panzer IV." However, elsewhere in the article it is stated in the Operation Barbarossa subsection of Operational history: "...but the T-34 was a notable exception, superior to any tank the Germans then had in service." Stating that the Sherman M4 was "approximately equally matched with the Pz IV" is also a stretch, but this could be an article in itself. At best, I don't think this parallel adds anything to the article. At worst, it's just incorrect. If it must be retained, the comparison should be reduced in scope to compare the "backbone of the armoured forces" and designed for simplicity and mass production aspects and leave out any comparison of performance. CptCaveman76 ( talk) 09:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
"Both were an approximately even match for the standard German medium tank, the Panzer IV." I feel the same way about this statement, Cpt. A big part of the historical importance of the T-34 is its superiority to German tanks in the early phase of its service life. Notreallydavid ( talk) 10:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I believe the following quotation may be misleading and a misquote. It is found in the Barbarossa subsection of the Operational history section :
Adolf Hitler later said, "If I had known about the Russian tank's strength in 1941 I would not have attacked".
The cited reference is: Correlli Barnett, ed. (1989). Hitler's Generals. Weidenfeld and Nicolson. p. 456. ISBN 0 297 79462 0.
I believe in this quotation, Hitler was referring to Soviet tank strength in general i.e. referring to numbers rather than the qualities on the T-34 in particular. I think the apostrophe is mis-placed and that it should be "Russian tanks' strength" instead of "Russian tank's strength"
I do not have access to the source material, perhaps someone who has could check this out. CptCaveman76 ( talk) 09:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I've reviewed the entry introducing and its given source. None of those cited source following the origin quote, it rather seems viewed from a selective personal preference, which concluded to that synthesis WP:SYN. That's obviously not within the meaning of our guidelines. I suggest we discuss this to gather consensus for speedy removal and rephrasing.
1) "The T-34 was a Soviet medium tank which had a profound and lasting effect on the fields of tank tactics and design. First fielded in 1940, it has often been described as the most effective, efficient, and influential tank design of World War II"
Chris Mann and Hughes does not in the slightest preconize what is described; it's more likely a mixing up of the ref. from achtungpanzer.com: "when introduced into production in June of 1940, was the most advanced tank design in the world. It was superior to any other tank in the world, including feared German tanks. Its revolutionary design featured sloped armor, speed, hitting power and low silhouette along with reliability and low production cost"
It was miles away from being efficient and effective at its introducing. The new T-34 suffered from serious teething problems regard to their clutches and transmissions. Mechanical breakdowns accounted for at least 50% in 1941. Only 27% of 7'000 tanks were in good enough mechnical condition to last more than a few days of fighting before suffering mechanical breakdwons. [1] However, I rather want to take Zaloga and Grandsen wording in agreement to Field-Marshal Ewald von Kleist: "The combadt début of the T-34 in the summer of 1941 revealed it to be unquestionably the finest tank design of its time. The revolutionary combination of thick, angled armour, heavy firepower and superb mobility placed it in a class above its closet German contemporaries, the Pz Kpfw III and Pz Kpfw IV (D and E)" - Which gives a fair settlement and factual view, apart from some sweeping and creative wki-editors. WP:NPOV
It would also replace the uncourced and heavy inflated second dublicated statement: "At its introduction, the T-34 possessed the best balance of firepower, mobility, protection, and ruggedness of any tank. Its 76.2 mm (3 in) high-velocity gun was the best tank gun in the world at that time"
2) " German tank generals von Kleist and Guderian called it "the deadliest tank in the world"
Where this quote is coming from? I couldn't find, neither in the cited book(Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War II pp.110-170) which I've rewieved as well, nor in the recovered wepages: 1, 2 Thanks, regards Bouquey ( talk) 19:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Kleist and Guderian don't called it "the deadliest tank in the world".
Check source 1: Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War Two, Grandsen, Zaloga - the article not only fails to give the page in the reference, but also misleading it with an Guderian and Kleist citation. Guderian is solely mentioned at page 123 and von Kleist ist not even memoired in the entire book !
Check source 2: https://web.archive.org/web/20120330022217/http://www.theeasternfront.co.uk/Commanders/german/guderian.htm - dont emphasize that quote.
It's clearly that some editors are liying here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FileDivaM ( talk • contribs) 12:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
"The T34 was a revolutionary advance in tank design because it was able to combine unprecedented improvements in mobility, protection and firepower in a single vehicle. The design innovations included the Christie type, independent suspension combined with an extremely wide track allowing for high speed cross-country mobility and the increase in overall weight associated with increased armor. The increase in overall armor thickness combined with the use of highly sloped armor provided unprecedented protection in a medium tank for its day, this protection was complimented by the use of a diesel fueled engine decreasing the risk of fire caused by fuel, making the new tank one ofthe safest in the world. The use ofthe 76mm gun that was capable of effectively using both high-explosive and armor-piercing ammunition provided a marked increase in firepower over any of the T34's contemporaries". P.11
From TWO WAYS TO BUILD A BETTER MOUSETRAP Thesis by Major David Frederick McFadden B.S. Ohio State University 2002. Irondome ( talk) 20:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I like the way the lede section looks now. Let's keep it that way. I do remember reading Guderian saying that the T-34 was the "deadliest" tank in the world in 1941. It was in either "Achtung Panzer" or "Panzer Leader." But the quotes we're using now are well sourced so let's keep them. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 06:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
A major advance and far more powerful, T34-85 should have separate article. Rcbutcher ( talk) 07:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
(moved from my talk page ( Hohum @) 21:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC))
As you have revert my as copyvio; I want to inform you that the sentence in the lede:" Although its armour and armament were surpassed later in the war, it has been often credited as the most effective, efficient, and influential tank design of World War II" is also clearly a copyvio.
Why I can't add my edit? All points on the sentence are adressed in the article, and as far the WP:LEAD goes, we should: "include mention of consequential or significant criticism or controversies".
CobhamLaine ( talk) 19:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I have removed it, thanks. CobhamLaine ( talk) 20:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
The site www.achtungpanzer.com doesn't seem do be the genuine source of the sentence. Its lead is completely different, therefore it should not be credited and referred as such origin, even when it was mentioned in 2008. A reason why Harold may took it as his own intellectual property. CobhamLaine ( talk) 21:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I only see that you are discrediting Harold A. Skaarup as historian by removing its following citation. Can you track it down? How could you be sure that it is clearly WP:CIRCULAR? CobhamLaine ( talk) 21:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)