The nonsense of best tank in world

I said "early" T34's when their electrical systems actually worked. There's a huge difference in course vs fine traverse and the latter is where the T34-76 sucked. You can get the gun to point, but you can't aim it well especially with the crude optics. You're OK close but in behind the power curve if ranges open. Different control wheels for both in the 76. A totally different game in the 85. The 85 used the same wheel to control course and fine traverse. Very slick. The Sherman had a rudimentary stabilization system with excellent fine traverse, meaning you can actually shoot on the move with good chance of a hit at close range. Anyway shot is on the way quicker. The Panther without the engine running was very slow but was better with full power to the engine. Fine traverse, accurate and powerful main gun and excellent optics made up for this especially if ranges open up.

 

Is it just me or you are not making any sence? Somehow T-34's traverse was worse when their electrical systems worked? Am I reading that correct? Wut?
(Although I doubt the traverse values changed during the war).

I don't get who told you that it's optics were "crude". Quite the opposite, you can look for T-34-76 and KV tanks tests results in the Aberdine, made by the US military on tanks provided by the USSR during the war. And be assured, they were fairly impressed with the sights and optics design. Although not ideal in quality, they were better than anything US had in service at the time.

Not that it matters that much in combat effectiveness. During WW2 tanks had to stay still anyway for any kind of effective fire due to the lack of stabilisers.
Well, effective 2-dimentional stabilisers, at least and not wannabe-fine-traverse stabilisers.

One way or the other, you can't pick up any of iconic WW2 medium tanks and attach "best" or "worst" label to it. They were all good enough and they all had significant flaws attached.

 

They leaked like hell, and damaged electrical systems and ammo. Traverse was electric vs hydraulic in US tanks, the latter less prone to damage, wear etc. Electrical systems are not as reliable and not as good for fine adjustments. Like I said the 85 is a very different animal. I'm underwhelmed with Russian optics and while efficient for close ranges, they sucked at distance. The two man turret didn't help either in terms of efficiency in terms of accuracy or speed of firing.
But I agree with you completely. There was no super tank of WW2. All of them had strengths and weaknesses. All of them could have been better in hindsight.

 

Quite the opposite, it is Pneumatics<Hydraulics<Electrics<Manual, reliability increase left to right. Hydraulics tend to leak and cause fire, if mineral oil is being used. Electrics don't.

One of the reasons M4 were called "Tommy cookers", despite having a wet ammo rack installed later into the war. German tanks, the same problem.

I am seriously wondering where all that info is coming from. It is nowhere near the truth.

T-34-76 gunner had TOD-6 gunner sight with 2,5x magnification and 15 degrees field of view.
Pz IV G had TZF.Sa gunner sight with 2,4x magnification.
Pz VI Tiger had TZF.9b gunner sight with 2,5x magnification and 23 degrees field of view.

It is unclear on what basis your are building your statements.

 

I was going to say the same thing as to where you're getting your info unless you're buying into some of the Russian propaganda like their sniper kills in which they destroyed the entire German Army twice. Hydraulics are much more reliable and that's not even a contest. There's a lot more to optics than power. For instance the Sherman could shoot through a coaxial sight or a telescopic sight improving situational awareness and speed. You don't even get close to that with a T34-76. And you're going to compare Zeiss optics to Russian? Laughable.

 

Well, these still are lagging behind German tank kills or 'Murican air kills.

Nope.

>Prone to fire.
>Prone to leaks.

Electrics don't have any of these. Consequently, hydraulics are NOT reliable and less safe.

Incoherent ramblings. T-34 had telescopic sight/panoramic view as well.
Well, see, if you take a look at your own knowlege you'll find out you hardly have any.

So you have nothing to back up your statement with. Good, I accept your surrender on this one.

And, by the way, we have a Wherabingo! Zeuss optics! Krupp steel! Stronk!

 

Fact: 6 to 1 exchange rate minimum in Russian vs German with a 3 to 1 shot rate. THAT you can't explain away no matter how much propaganda you try to put out there. We didn't even talk about armor quality. Soft spots in steel and improper face hardening leading to spalling. There's no way that hydraulics is inferior to electrical systems. ( prone to breakage and shorts) besides using a lot of current in the process.

 

Not that you have provided anything to back your point of view, so I bet I won't waste my time on wannabe tank clowns, oh, sorry, meant to say "experts".


KRUPP STEEL!

 

Sure but until the pzIIIJ or the pzIV2 or G models, what were the chances of those rounds penetrating a T34? Time after time the Germans had to bring up 88's or even artillery firing over open sights to stop T-34's or KV-1's from overrunning their positions, deluding their support.

 

Thanks for confirming what I suspected. Don't expect to be taken seriously when your video game experience is what you think lends credibility to your words.

 

The military know how valuable "video games" are for training, as they also include mapreading and navigation..
In the Armed Assault game I have great fun teaching noobs (newcomers) how to kill, then when they join the military they've got a head start on other recruits hehe.
For example below is a situation that happens all the time with noobs, I drive my tank onto a hilltop overlooking an enemy-occupied town, but my new friggin gunner is pointing the gun backwards, is he nuts or what?
I scream at him- "Face front or I'll kick you out of my tank!"

 

Sitting on your but playing video games teaches absolutely no skills that are related to actual military training. Again, if you had served, you'd know this. You are the definition of an armchair warrior.

Incorrect. You taught them how to play video games which a child can do.

 

As I mentioned before mate, many computer wargamers are serving military personnel and vets..
For example one of my toughest opponents is a guy calling himself 'Lord Bane', he's an ex-tank crewman who served in the Iraq War, and he said to me- "I have been playing the game for many years but have learned quite a bit about the game by reading your fantastic tactical posts."

 

Anecdotal and ridiculous. Like your video game experience.

 

Hey, in Star Trek Online I am an Admiral and lead a fleet.

Does that mean I can actually lead troops into space combat?

It is worthless trying to communicate with him. He refuses to recognize that he is not talking about the real world.

 

Are you sure you're ex military mate?
I thought you'd have known the military have always used games for training?-

The long history of gaming in military training
Roger Smith, US Army PEO for Simulation, Training, and Instrumentation
There is a long history of the dual-use of games in both the military and the entertainment
applications. This has taken the form of sand tables, miniatures, board games, and computer
games.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a550307.pdf

 

Thanks mate, maybe I should offer my services to President Trump as a military adviser?..

 

You betcha mate, you'd be great leading a Starship Troopers squad..

 

Sure, you could list your extensive video game experience as credentials.

 

Thanks mate, yes maybe Don would give me my own office in the Pentagon with my wargaming name 'Poor Old Spike' on the door, and I could stand my 6" wargame trophy (below) in the middle of my desk so it'd be the first thing visitors see when they walk in to ask my advice on military matters..

 

The Tank is not about only withstanding hits, not only about frontal armor. “Tank” is a “compromise” between three essential parameters: armor-firepower-mobility. Forget about compromise in preference of armor, and you will have monsters like the Mouse or Ferdinand or Tiger, which crippled the tank production economy of Wehrmacht (that’s what Guderian was screaming about). Every one of these parameters can be used as a weapon. A fleet of T34s do not need to burn in a direct assault. The heavy armored war is waged along the supply rout such as a road. In fact, your strength is limited with the road logistical/supply capacity much more than anything else. Naturally the enemy builds his heavy AT defense on the road. Is2 and Tiger has to take it head on, a successful medium tank can do a 300 km march through terrain impassible for Pershing and IS-2 and cut the road far in your behind. But all depends.

And the forth parameter the one I like most is the “availability” . T34 is easy to repair, cheap, numerous. They have very high availability. Quite unlike the expensive and complicated Pershings, Tigers, Panter, or Is2.
And do not forget, that a T34 is protected by a layer of sloped armor and is equipped with a very potent HE round. At guy, on the contrary, can only rely on invisibility, which is gone after the first or second shot fired.

- - - Updated - - -

You are not correct to say that tanks are not designed to fight another tanks. Panther is a clear tank killer. But you are absolutely correct that 90% of tank threats are not enemy tanks.
But you are wrong about FLAK 88mm. In the beginning of the war 88mm was used successfully against Matilda, Char1b, KV2, T34. But that’s nothing to be proud of. This is a FLAK gun, it is not doing its job. Compared to a PAK it is tall and visible, it has huge flash, it requires a heavy tow vehicle, it is extremely vulnerable to mortar and artillery shelling. Main paks are 37mm, 47mm, 50mm, 75mm, these are the real tank killers. They can be moved by hand, small, low (invisible), mobile, cheap, numerous. All above limits the use of FLAK 88 to fire traps, first you lure the enemy in it, than its turkey shot. If the enemy does not want to be lured, if the enemy dislikes the concept of attacking enemy AT positions without preliminary scorching them with field artillery, than 88mm is wasted. It had its days when takns wear armed with small caliber feeble HE shells, but later in the war, you will want a 75mm.

And for your understanding, 88mm KwK 36 (Tiger gun) penetrates 130mm at 90 degs from 500m with standard issue AP shell.
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/guns/88-mm.asp
This means that Tiger needs to get to roughly to 700m to kill T44.
T44 can kill Tiger from 1000m in frontal armor, 700m is a sure kill.
This means, that T44 has better armor than Tiger, much much better mobility, better or same kill distance. Lighter, easy to repair and supply, much better range, 30cm lower than T34. And the best of all, you can build 4 T44 tanks for a cost of single Tiger. Is there much more you can expect from a medium tank?
88mm Tungsten shell had much better penetration characteristics, but the total production of these shells was around 10000pcs, that is practically nothing on the total scale. And a production stop presumed after summer 44. (No certain data unfortunately).

 

Nice pic, to bad it had absolutely nothing to do with Starship Troopers.

 

That's Lt. Rasczak, no bug better mess with him..

[video=youtube;QUAQ-aED4t8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUAQ-aED4t8[/video]

 

The term used in the US Army for tanks made to go after other tanks was a "Tank Destroyer". The M10, M18, and M36 are perfect examples of this. Essentially an open topped turret with lighter armor but an overpowered gun, designed specifically for hunting tanks.



But the main battle tanks (Sherman, T34, etc) were not designed for fighting tanks but infantry support. Fighting other tanks was a secondary role.

In Germany, they were called Jagdpanzer or "Hunting Tanks". Part of that line was the Jagdpanther, based upon the Panther design. Unlike the US they were not turreted at all, and had limited traverse guns.



The Soviets copied the Germans, in TDs like the ISU-152. Known as the "Beast Killer", they were essentially copies of the Jagdpanther on T34 hulls with really big guns.



You have to realize I separate tanks into their distinct categories and do not mix them. TDs are TDs, Recon Tanks (or Light Tanks) are exactly that.

Obviously you have never read the books.

Other than the title and some character names the movies have nothing to do with the book.

 

Yes, this is correct. If you want to compare this approach to other countries, you look at the round and at the gun.

Panter is equipped with a high performance 75mm long barrel gun. This gun produces excellent high speed shot. But together with high penetration power of AP round, this hampers the performance of HE frag round, which is needed for infantry support.
First of all, the flat (high speed) ballistic trajectory makes it difficult to support infantry. If you want to land rounds into an enemy trench you need a curvy trajectory, low speed.
Because of high G of high performing gun during firing and impact periods. The shell has to be made with thick walls. This greatly diminishes the amount of explosive material in the HE shell and diminishes the explosive effect.
Tank killer – is the one that favors high performance, high speed, high kinetics. Infantry support – large caliber, powerful HE frag rounds.

Wolverine and Panter are heavily shifted to AT role.

ISU-152 is not a tank killer, it is translated as Self Propelled Artillery. Main role – infantry support, secondary – mobile howitzer and tank killer (it had AP round). In tank killing role it was ineffective compared to SU-100 or 122. It was a slow – firing overkill. I think one of the reasons why it was fielded in Tank killing role was to have at least something online in case Germans would be able to mass produce Tigers2, E50, E100, e.t.c.
And it is based on KV / IS chassis. Large wheels – T34 chassis, numerous small wheels – KV / IS.
And it was not copied , in concept was here since 1930
SU14 https://www.google.ru/search?q=su14...ved=0ahUKEwjVza-D6ZHSAhUK1iwKHcydBr0Q_AUIBigB

Practically from 1941
https://www.google.ru/search?q=зис+...HVcCBboQ_AUIBigB#newwindow=1&tbm=isch&q=zis30


Sherman in beginning of its career is an infantry support tank. But T34/76 had a high performance gun which should be considered universal.
T34/76 – 76mm, 30calibers long, 635m/s AP round. From 1941 it is improved to 41 calibers 660m/s.
Compare with Char1b: 76mm, 17 calibers long, 470m/s AP round
Same thing applies to Pz4 with a short barreled KwK 37: 75mm, 24 calibers long, 380m/s AP, 450 m/s HE antitank

Why should we consider T34/76 an infantry support tank when its AT capabilities are the best of its time? Because it is not called “Tank Destroyer” by Americans or Tank Hunter by Germans?
I would rather say that T34 is one of the first of the breed of Main Battle Tanks, with their capabilities more or less equally distributed for tank killing and infantry support roles.
The T34/85 85mm gun was an Anti Aircraft gun at birth. Reason for improvement – better AT capabilities, that one is quite clear.