Everyone wants the truth to be on their side, but not everyone wants to be on the side of the truth.
- Richard Watley
Contrary to popular adage, the truth never lies in the middle. Under the pressure of irrefutable evidence, it shifts in favor of one point of view or another, often dissolving somewhere in the fourth dimension, beyond the limits of our understanding. The path to truth is thorny and ornate, and the result achieved is far from the prevailing ideas about the "good" and "evil" principles of this world.
Anyone who undertakes to unravel the phenomenon of the Soviet thirty-four is tightly bogged down in the armor penetration tables for F-34 and KwK 42 shells, endless numbers of specific ground pressure, armor slope angles and the maximum height of obstacles to overcome.
After a comprehensive acquaintance with the characteristics and evidence of the combat use of a Russian tank, as a rule, a completely logical conclusion follows: the T-34 is an uncouth steel coffin that does not possess any of the magnificent properties attributed to it.
Everyday life of the Eastern Front
There is an absurd feeling that the Red Army defeated the Germans not thanks to, but in spite of the T-34 tank.
Indeed, in the initial period of the war, when the T-34 still retained its technical advantage, the Red Army surrendered cities one after another. Already on June 25, 1941, the Nazis broke into Minsk - 250 kilometers from the border in three days! The Wehrmacht did not know such a rate of advance even in France.
In 1944, when any of the German "Tigers" could pierce through a pair of T-34s standing in the line of fire with one shot, the tracks of "thirty-fours" merrily rang along the pavements of European capitals, rolling red-brown abomination into the asphalt.
Paradox?
Don't try to find the answer in the parsimonious reference tables. In accordance with the well-known concept of the "best tank" as a trinity of armor, mobility and fire (as well as means of observation and communication, reliability of mechanisms and ergonomics of the fighting compartment), the Sherman Firefly will confidently come out on top.
Did you expect otherwise? The British 17-pounder cannon pierced the Tiger's forehead from a distance of a kilometer, and the platform itself - the American M4 Sherman tank - corresponded to the T-34 in terms of the main performance characteristics, surpassing the latter in reliability, mobility and crew working conditions.
Fritz at the padded "thirty-four"
If you do not break down into "light / medium / heavy" classes, the German "Tiger" will drive convulsively rumbling with its 700-strong "Maybach" on the pedestal of "The Best Tank of the Second World War". In a duel situation (T-34, IS-2, Sherman versus Tiger), the German beast with a probability close to 100% beat any opponent. And it passed where any other tank turned into a sieve - the furious fire of the batteries of the "magpies" was for the "Tiger" like an elephant's grain. "Ivan throws stones" - the German tankmen smiled.
Maybe you should look for the answer in honest English-language sources?
The T-34 was the best tank not because it was the most powerful or the heaviest; German tanks were ahead of them in this sense. But he was very effective for that war and allowed him to solve tactical problems. Maneuverable Soviet T-34s "hunted in packs" like wolves, which gave no chance to the clumsy German "Tigers". American and British tanks were not as successful in countering German equipment.
- Norman Davis, professor at the University of Oxford
Professor Norman Daves would have liked to remind that “hunting in packs of Tigers was not a priority for the T-34. According to dry statistics, 3/4 of the losses of armored vehicles on the Eastern Front are attributed to anti-tank artillery fire and explosions in minefields. Tanks are designed to solve other problems than the destruction of similar machines.
In the end, with the same success it can be argued about the "flock hunt" of the German StuG III or PzKpfw IV on the Soviet "thirty-fours" - the Germans had no less armored vehicles than the Red Army. Modern jokes in the style of "overwhelmed with technology and showered with corpses" - just the dying delirium of the liberal-democratic get-together
Every damaged tank remaining behind the front line turned into a potential German weapon.
Let's leave the fantasies about the "flock hunt for" Tigers "on the conscience of a professor at Oxford University and his companions from the" Discovery "channel. These "experts" mutter something about the rational angles of inclination of the armor plates and the lesser fire hazard of the T-34 diesel engine. Fairy tales intended for the general public are irrelevant to reality.
The slope of the armor plates makes sense as long as the caliber of the projectile does not exceed the thickness of the armor.
It is known that the 88 mm projectile of the German anti-aircraft gun "eight-eight" pierced both the foil and the 45 mm inclined frontal part of the T-34, and the 50 mm inclined armor of the Sherman and the vertical forehead of the British Cromwell tank 64 mm thick.
The myth of the extreme flammability of gasoline and the poor flammability of diesel fuel is based on common misconceptions. But in a real battle, no one extinguishes the torch in the fuel tank (a well-known trick with a bucket of diesel fuel and burning rags). In a real battle, a fuel tank is hit with a red-hot pig flying at two or three speeds of sound.
In such conditions, the thickness of the armor and the location of the fuel tanks become important. Alas, the armored vehicles of the Second World War did not have a high level of fire safety - often the fuel was stored directly in the fighting compartment of the tank.
And in war as in war
With the "experts" of the Discovery channel, everything is clear - their task is to make a bright show without going into details of tank battles. Discovery was unable to indicate the true reason for the popularity of the T-34, nevertheless, it stubbornly puts the Russian vehicle in first place in all of its tank ratings. Thanks for that too.
The real American military, those who directly tested the T-34 at the Aberdeen Proving Ground in the fall of 1942, made a number of ambiguous testimonies discrediting the honor of the "best tank" of World War II.
Medium tank T-34, after a run of 343 km, is completely out of order, its further repair is impossible …
In heavy rains, a lot of water flows into the tank through the cracks, which leads to the failure of electrical equipment …
Cramped fighting compartment. The turret traverse motor is weak, overloaded and sparks terribly.
The tank is recognized as slow-moving. The T-34 overcomes obstacles more slowly than any of its American counterparts.
The reason is suboptimal transmission.
Welding of T-34 hull armor plates is rough and sloppy. The machining of parts, with rare exceptions, is very poor. The ugly design of the gear stage - the unit had to be disassembled, replacing the stage with a part of our own design.
The positive aspects were just as pedantically noted:
The powerful and reliable F-34 cannon, wide tracks, good maneuverability and even such a rare fact, almost unknown to the general public, as the great height of the wall to be overcome. Unlike the Sherman and German tanks with a front-mounted transmission, the thirty-four had a transmission and, accordingly, a leading track sprocket, were located in the rear of the tank. This allowed the T-34 to climb the front of the track to a higher ledge (the diameter of the guide sprocket, as a rule, is smaller than that of the leading one).
There was also a reverse moment associated with the rear location of the MTO - the length of the control rods reached 5 meters. Exhausting loads acting on the driver's mechanic, low reliability - it was no coincidence that our grandfathers went into battle in one pre-selected gear and tried, if possible, not to touch the capricious transmission of the T-34.
What does the T-34 look like as a result of this short study? Mediocre "average" with a set of positive and negative qualities. Not the most successful design, incompatible with the high-profile title "The best tank of the Second World War."
Strange, very strange. The ugly design of the gears backstage … The scarlet flag over the Reichstag … Who are you, a mysterious Russian warrior? How did you manage to go the hard way from Moscow to Berlin, defend Stalingrad and clash with the "Tigers" in a fierce battle near Prokhorovka?
How the Victory was won, if “the welding of the armor plates of the hull is rough and careless. The machining of the parts, with rare exceptions, is very bad”?
Maybe the answer will be the memories of German tank crews - those who experienced the trinity of fire, mobility and security of the thirty-fours on their own skin?
“… The Soviet T-34 tank is a typical example of backward Bolshevik technology. This tank cannot be compared with the best examples of our tanks, made by the faithful sons of the Reich and have repeatedly proved their advantage …"
- Heinz Guderian, October 1941
"Fast Heinz" gave a too hasty assessment of the T-34, after a couple of days he had to take his words back:
“The reports we received about the actions of Russian tanks were especially disappointing. Our anti-tank weapons of that time could successfully operate against T-34 tanks only under particularly favorable conditions. For example, our T-IV tank with its short-barreled 75-mm cannon was able to destroy the T-34 tank only from the rear side, hitting its engine through the blinds …
Returning to Oryol, I met Colonel Eberbach there, who also reported to me on the course of the recent battles; then I again met with General von Geyer and the commander of the 4th Panzer Division, Baron von Langermann. For the first time since the beginning of this intense campaign, Eberbach looked tired …"
- Heinz Guderian, October 1941
It's funny. Why did Guderian change his mind so radically? And why did the gallant Colonel Eberbach look "tired"?
On October 7, 1941, near Mtsensk, the tank brigade of the 4th tank division of the Wehrmacht was defeated. Insolent from easy victories (or breathing in Russian air) Colonel Eberbach hoped for "chance" and neglected thorough reconnaissance and other security measures. For which he immediately paid - the attack of the T-34 from the Katukov brigade caught the Germans by surprise. "Thirty-fours" killed the German armored vehicles crowded on the road and melted without a trace in the evening twilight.
Trying to justify his shameful defeat, Eberbach pulled on a dull tune about the technical superiority of the Russians (although earlier the Germans snapped like seeds at the Soviet mechanized corps with hundreds of first-class T-34s and KVs). Wounded, Guderian accepted the point of view of his subordinates, dumping all the blame for the unsuccessful operation near Mtsensk on the "super-T-34 tanks".
Heinz Guderian was absolutely right! The T-34 medium tank is one of the key factors on the Eastern Front that overwhelmed German military power. But the beaten German general could not (or did not dare) to name the true reasons why the plain T-34s were able to grind Panzerwaffe's tank wedges into powder.
Paradoxes of quantum mechanics
None of the German field marshals and false historians from the Discovery Channel mentioned one of the important circumstances directly related to the success of the T-34:
When the European sky was illuminated by the crimson sunset of the war, and indomitable steel avalanches of "thirty-fours" poured into the West, it turned out that it was easier to abandon a heavily damaged tank on the banks of the Danube and order a new car from the factory than transport a damaged T-34 thousands of kilometers away to Nizhny Tagil. Russian laziness has nothing to do with it. The economy is to blame - the cost of the new T-34 will be lower than the cost of its transportation.
At the same time, the Fritzes, sinking knee-deep in mud, evacuated the burnt skeletons of the Tigers and Panthers under fire. According to reports from German repair crews, many Tigers on the Eastern Front have been refurbished 10 or more times! In simple terms: ten times "Tiger" fell victim to Soviet sappers and armor-piercers and, each time, the Germans recovered a beaten pile of metal - throwing a super-tank worth 700,000 Reichsmarks on the battlefield was considered a crime, even if the super-tank left a hull without a turret and three skating rinks.
"Tiger" licks wounds
Researchers starting a conversation about the T-34 tank usually overlook this important feature: the thirty-four cannot be considered separately from the Red Army, the conditions of the Eastern Front and the state of Soviet industry as a whole.
"Thirty-four" was created as the best tank in the world. And he was undoubtedly the best in the initial period of the war! The design solutions embedded in the tank shocked their boldness of the testers from the Aberdeen test site - the T-34 possessed everything that a super-tank in the minds of the Americans should have had. The high combat capabilities of the T-34 could not spoil even the low quality of execution - behind the carelessly processed surfaces of the fighting compartment and the sparkling electric motor for turning the turret, the outlines of an amazing combat vehicle were visible.
Strong armor, reinforced by a rational slope of the armor plates. Long-barreled gun of 76 mm caliber. Heavy duty aluminum diesel. Wide caterpillars. In 1942 it seemed like a masterpiece. No other army in the world had such a powerful and perfect tank. Alas, the true glory of the T-34 was associated with other, more tragic circumstances.
Each of the belligerent powers created equipment based on their own conditions.
Sitting overseas, the Yankees set up the production of excellent M4 Sherman tanks. With the outbreak of war, the giants of the American auto industry in the blink of an eye turned into skid lines for the production of tanks. The developed industry, multiplied by qualified personnel and an abundance of resources, gave a natural result - 49,234 produced Sherman tanks.
The Third Reich built a great variety of structures that represented improvisation on the basis of tank chassis. The Germans had their own specific view of the development of armored vehicles, and, despite all the ridicule about the "gigantomania" and the "excessive complexity" of the German "menagerie", the skilled workforce and industrial base of all of Europe allowed the Fritz to create really cool cars, no less than the number of Soviet T-34s or SU-76s.
The Soviet military-industrial complex was initially at a disadvantage - in the first months of the war, strategically important industrial areas and resource bases were lost, huge factories were dismantled and transported thousands of kilometers to a new location. Affected by the lack of qualified personnel and the general lag of the military-industrial complex from the German industry.
The T-34 tank turned out to be the most adapted to the conditions of the Soviet industry during the war years. The T-34 was extremely simple, fast and cheap to manufacture. Appear on the assembly line of Tankograd some "Sherman" or "Panther" - and the Red Army could experience a serious shortage of armored vehicles.
Fortunately, the main Soviet tank was the T-34 - despite all the difficulties and lack of workers, the factories drove endless streams of the same type of combat vehicles to the front.
Time passed inexorably. By the end of 1943, the tank was outdated and needed to be replaced (it was no coincidence that the development of the T-44 began), however, the situation did not allow quickly replacing the thirty-four in production with a new machine. Until the last day of the war, the conveyors continued to "drive" the good old T-34, adjusted for the T-34-85. He was no longer that dashing guy who surpassed any enemy tank in performance characteristics, but he still retained a solid combat potential when solving the main tasks of armored units. Strong "middling". What is needed for the Soviet-German front.
In bast shoes and with sledgehammers
The USSR could not produce another tank, and the Red Army could not fight with other weapons. The very conditions of the Eastern Front spoke in favor of the T-34 - a terrible bloodbath, where losses were calculated in numbers with many zeros. Continuous carnage, in which the life of the tank was often limited to a couple of attacks.
And even if the T-34 was weak against a single "Panther", the losses in equipment will quickly reimburse supplies from the Ural Tankograds. As for the lives of tankers … Losses on the Eastern Front were equally high, regardless of the type of vehicles. People were tragically burned in the Panthers, in the PzKpfw IV, in the Lend-Lease Shermans and in our thirty-fours.
German medium tank PzKpfw V "Panther"
Excessively expensive and complex machine that sucked the last strength from the Reich
Finally, the Panther and the T-34 rarely met each other in battle. Tanks do not fight with tanks, tanks crush enemy infantry and firing points with tracks, break through fortified areas, support attackers with fire, shoot accumulations of enemy carts and trucks. When solving such problems, the advantage of the "Panther" over the T-34-85 is far from so obvious. And this at a disproportionate cost, labor intensity of production and service!
All this resembles the inexplicable laws of quantum mechanics, where an attempt to consider a single element of the system will give a deliberately absurd result. Indeed, if we take into account only the calibers of the gun and the millimeters of the armor, the Sherman Firefly, the German Quartet and the Panther will rise to the pedestal.
Although the first does not have even a share of the T-34's military glory, the last two "wunderwafli" lost the war.
The main quality of the T-34 is that it was our tank. Created according to our standards, as close as possible to the conditions of the Great Patriotic War.
Simplicity and mass character have won over the gloomy German genius.
Photos courtesy of user Kars
