![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A summary of this article appears in T-34. |
Needs pictures. See:
— Michael Z. 2006-01-19 05:44 Z
It's a small thing, but the photo labeled "Model 1940" is actually a preproduction vehicle. Recognition features include the small driver's hatch with no splash strips, and the single-piece front armor plate. If you look at the nose there is no seam - a single plate was bent to form both the upper and lower hull plates for the front. This was rightly considered unnecessarily costly and all production tanks have two-piece noses - an upper and lower piece joined at the nose with riveted (model 40 & 41) or welded (Model 42 and later) seams. I don't see a better photo on the commons so we might as well keep this one. DMorpheus ( talk) 18:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
It needs to be made clear on this page (and on other T-34 related pages on Wikipedia) which naming convention is being used. As is mentioned in the article, the definition of a 'Mod 1942' depends on whether you are reading articles generated in the west since the war, or information recently released from the ex-USSR. My gut feeling is that Wikipedia would be better off using the original Russian definitions.
Also, some of the post-war names such as "Mod 1969" were never a formal name, and were created by researchers in the west - in many cases these upgrade programs didn't have formal names, they were just a range of procedures carried out over a long period of time to increase the useful life of vehicles in service. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.169.9.2 ( talk • contribs) .
Is there a Model 1939? With the gasoline/petrol engine?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.8.181 ( talk • contribs)
Didn't Yugoslavia develop a production T-34/100 postwar? Trekphiler 05:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Can somebody translate & include "tankovoy dimoviy pribor"? Thanx. Trekphiler ( talk) 19:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
In my humble opinion it is not appropriate to list numerous very minor German modifications to basic T-34s as if they were actual variants. Moving a headlight or adding a stowage box do not a variant make. If we follow that logic, we'll need to list dozens of more significant Soviet modifications - which would also be absurd. The whole section is a classic of 'undue weight' and I have reverted it. Regards, DMorpheus ( talk) 20:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't the original Soviet variants be listed first, before all the foreign variants that were, after all, derivatives of the original Soviet versions? DMorpheus ( talk) 13:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The source http://www.jedsite.info/tanks-tango/tango-numbers-su/t-34_series/t34-series.html is relied upon heavily in this article. I question the reliability of this source since some of the designations listed seem completely original to that site. For example the A-32 suffix designations do not appear in any Russian source I've ever seen. Some of the content of the site is flatly contradicted by published Russian sources (late SU-122 for example). If these can't be backed up by some other source I suggest the edits that rely solely on that source be removed. Regards, DMorpheus ( talk) 19:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Beutepanzer is a professional site about Allied/Soviet vehicles captured by Germans during WWII. It's basing it self on actual photos from the war and/or pictures from books, magazines etc. and therefore is extremely reliable. - SuperTank17 ( talk) 20:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
We need an english-language or otherwise verifiable source for the claim that the T-34-100 was tested operationally. DMorpheus ( talk) 15:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
And we still don't have one. DMorpheus ( talk) 17:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
If Russian Battlefield, a Russian site known for accurate and detailed information about WWII era Soviet tanks, is unreliable than what is?
Regards. - SuperTank17 ( talk) 13:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
1. It is inaccurate, using designations that have no basis in reality, eg. "T-34/L-11 Mod.40"
2. It inaccurately uses an SU-85M picture and labels it an SU-100.
3. It is incomplete, skipping e.g. the SU-85 but including the SU-122 and SU-100; the SU-85 was much more numerous than the SU-122, so this makes no sense.
4. It is misleading, including one variant that was never produced and one that was produced in tiny numbers (the 57-mm armed T-34) but omitting other, much more important variants. This is undue weight. It includes the T-34-85 mounting the Zis-S-53 gun but not the T-34-85 mounting the D-5T gun. it shows a very rare STZ-produced T-34 as the illustration for the Model 41, when it differed significantly from the more common Model 41s produced in Kharkov.
5. The prominent exhausts are missing from all the vehicles.
In short, the article is better omitting this illustration than including it.
DMorpheus2 (
talk)
17:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
1. The designations are modifed in the chosen accordance due to some of the variants being too similar to the point users may become confused eg. T-34 Models (Mod.) 1941 and 1942 have the exact same chasis, gun and caliber (F-34, 76mm) but only differ from each other by year of production.
2. I'll correct this. -- NotLessOrEqual ( talk) 02:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC) 3. There exists a wide abundance of variants and sub-types of the T-34 and I feared it may end up taking the entirety of the page if they were all placed at once. Alternatively, each variant can be divided and have their own files, but it appears the other images already present are already sufficient and dont seem require replacing (unless second opinion in regards to them can be given).
4. There are many variants which also come from the exact same make, gun caliber and date of production but only hold minor differences, not enough to be considered unique into placing them all at once onto the image (unless that is not considered a problem here), whilst only select unique or important variants are chosen. The D-5T variant was dropped as it only had a shorter production run before being quickly replaced by the more numerous and near-similar version mounting the ZiS-S-53 gun. On external appearance it also appears to similar to each other, mounting the exact same caliber. Same cannot be said for the more unique 57mm version armed with ZiS-6, which had a slightly longer production run than between the 85mm D-5T vs Zis-S-53 until it too was cancelled. The STZ and 1941 models are too operationally and aesthetically similar to each other to the point it is insignificant, unlike the 1942 variant which is easily distinguishable by a different turret even though it uses the same chassis, armor thickness and weaponry. Both the STZ and 1941 mount the same gun and caliber, with differences being one with slightly heavier armor and cosmetics, generally speaking. Majority of the aesthetics and weaponry differences between the two models are near negligible.
The original image only listed a minimum amount of variants (not taking into account the existence of the Tank-Destroyer variants), including the prototype, much like the T-34-100 which itself never entered combat at only remained in the prototype staged before actual production of the model(s). Ill make corrections to this, standby.
Please leave this file out, it is still incorrect (the SU-85M picture is used twice, once to wrongly represent an SU-100) and undue weight. Adds nothing to the article. I would rather see us use photos of the most significant variants rather than this arbitrary and incorrect single illustration. DMorpheus2 ( talk) 16:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A summary of this article appears in T-34. |
Needs pictures. See:
— Michael Z. 2006-01-19 05:44 Z
It's a small thing, but the photo labeled "Model 1940" is actually a preproduction vehicle. Recognition features include the small driver's hatch with no splash strips, and the single-piece front armor plate. If you look at the nose there is no seam - a single plate was bent to form both the upper and lower hull plates for the front. This was rightly considered unnecessarily costly and all production tanks have two-piece noses - an upper and lower piece joined at the nose with riveted (model 40 & 41) or welded (Model 42 and later) seams. I don't see a better photo on the commons so we might as well keep this one. DMorpheus ( talk) 18:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
It needs to be made clear on this page (and on other T-34 related pages on Wikipedia) which naming convention is being used. As is mentioned in the article, the definition of a 'Mod 1942' depends on whether you are reading articles generated in the west since the war, or information recently released from the ex-USSR. My gut feeling is that Wikipedia would be better off using the original Russian definitions.
Also, some of the post-war names such as "Mod 1969" were never a formal name, and were created by researchers in the west - in many cases these upgrade programs didn't have formal names, they were just a range of procedures carried out over a long period of time to increase the useful life of vehicles in service. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.169.9.2 ( talk • contribs) .
Is there a Model 1939? With the gasoline/petrol engine?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.8.181 ( talk • contribs)
Didn't Yugoslavia develop a production T-34/100 postwar? Trekphiler 05:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Can somebody translate & include "tankovoy dimoviy pribor"? Thanx. Trekphiler ( talk) 19:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
In my humble opinion it is not appropriate to list numerous very minor German modifications to basic T-34s as if they were actual variants. Moving a headlight or adding a stowage box do not a variant make. If we follow that logic, we'll need to list dozens of more significant Soviet modifications - which would also be absurd. The whole section is a classic of 'undue weight' and I have reverted it. Regards, DMorpheus ( talk) 20:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't the original Soviet variants be listed first, before all the foreign variants that were, after all, derivatives of the original Soviet versions? DMorpheus ( talk) 13:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The source http://www.jedsite.info/tanks-tango/tango-numbers-su/t-34_series/t34-series.html is relied upon heavily in this article. I question the reliability of this source since some of the designations listed seem completely original to that site. For example the A-32 suffix designations do not appear in any Russian source I've ever seen. Some of the content of the site is flatly contradicted by published Russian sources (late SU-122 for example). If these can't be backed up by some other source I suggest the edits that rely solely on that source be removed. Regards, DMorpheus ( talk) 19:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Beutepanzer is a professional site about Allied/Soviet vehicles captured by Germans during WWII. It's basing it self on actual photos from the war and/or pictures from books, magazines etc. and therefore is extremely reliable. - SuperTank17 ( talk) 20:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
We need an english-language or otherwise verifiable source for the claim that the T-34-100 was tested operationally. DMorpheus ( talk) 15:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
And we still don't have one. DMorpheus ( talk) 17:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
If Russian Battlefield, a Russian site known for accurate and detailed information about WWII era Soviet tanks, is unreliable than what is?
Regards. - SuperTank17 ( talk) 13:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
1. It is inaccurate, using designations that have no basis in reality, eg. "T-34/L-11 Mod.40"
2. It inaccurately uses an SU-85M picture and labels it an SU-100.
3. It is incomplete, skipping e.g. the SU-85 but including the SU-122 and SU-100; the SU-85 was much more numerous than the SU-122, so this makes no sense.
4. It is misleading, including one variant that was never produced and one that was produced in tiny numbers (the 57-mm armed T-34) but omitting other, much more important variants. This is undue weight. It includes the T-34-85 mounting the Zis-S-53 gun but not the T-34-85 mounting the D-5T gun. it shows a very rare STZ-produced T-34 as the illustration for the Model 41, when it differed significantly from the more common Model 41s produced in Kharkov.
5. The prominent exhausts are missing from all the vehicles.
In short, the article is better omitting this illustration than including it.
DMorpheus2 (
talk)
17:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
1. The designations are modifed in the chosen accordance due to some of the variants being too similar to the point users may become confused eg. T-34 Models (Mod.) 1941 and 1942 have the exact same chasis, gun and caliber (F-34, 76mm) but only differ from each other by year of production.
2. I'll correct this. -- NotLessOrEqual ( talk) 02:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC) 3. There exists a wide abundance of variants and sub-types of the T-34 and I feared it may end up taking the entirety of the page if they were all placed at once. Alternatively, each variant can be divided and have their own files, but it appears the other images already present are already sufficient and dont seem require replacing (unless second opinion in regards to them can be given).
4. There are many variants which also come from the exact same make, gun caliber and date of production but only hold minor differences, not enough to be considered unique into placing them all at once onto the image (unless that is not considered a problem here), whilst only select unique or important variants are chosen. The D-5T variant was dropped as it only had a shorter production run before being quickly replaced by the more numerous and near-similar version mounting the ZiS-S-53 gun. On external appearance it also appears to similar to each other, mounting the exact same caliber. Same cannot be said for the more unique 57mm version armed with ZiS-6, which had a slightly longer production run than between the 85mm D-5T vs Zis-S-53 until it too was cancelled. The STZ and 1941 models are too operationally and aesthetically similar to each other to the point it is insignificant, unlike the 1942 variant which is easily distinguishable by a different turret even though it uses the same chassis, armor thickness and weaponry. Both the STZ and 1941 mount the same gun and caliber, with differences being one with slightly heavier armor and cosmetics, generally speaking. Majority of the aesthetics and weaponry differences between the two models are near negligible.
The original image only listed a minimum amount of variants (not taking into account the existence of the Tank-Destroyer variants), including the prototype, much like the T-34-100 which itself never entered combat at only remained in the prototype staged before actual production of the model(s). Ill make corrections to this, standby.
Please leave this file out, it is still incorrect (the SU-85M picture is used twice, once to wrongly represent an SU-100) and undue weight. Adds nothing to the article. I would rather see us use photos of the most significant variants rather than this arbitrary and incorrect single illustration. DMorpheus2 ( talk) 16:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)