# IV~T-34~M4



## plan_D (Jun 5, 2004)

Which one do you think was the best, and why?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 5, 2004)

T-34, It was better than the sherman and im not really familiar with the other one.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 5, 2004)

What gives you the impression the T-34 is better than the M4?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 5, 2004)

no idea.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 6, 2004)

Maybe a little help is needed. 

The Panzerkampfwagen IV was the main German battle tank in late 1942. Before that the Pz. Kpfw III was the majority tank but only posessed a 5cm cannon at best (The earlier variants had a 3.7cm). The IV had been in service since the beginning of the war, the IV Ausf A having a short barrelled 7.5cm cannon these saw service in Poland, Norway and France being withdrawn from service before 1941. Mid-production of the Ausf F the cannon changed to a long barrelled 7.5cm. 
Moving on the Pz. kpfw IV Ausf J was the best variant. With a long barrelled 7.5cm KwK40 L/48 which had a pierce capability of 77mm at 1,5 km. That could destroy the T-34/76 Model 1940.  
It's maximum armour was 80mm at 8 degrees, that's thicker than any T-34/76. It had a speed of 38 km/h and a range of 320 km, it was reliable and durable. It's tracks were covered with armoured side skirts, and every one had a radio and optics. The optics had a range of 4km, and the radio of 5km. 

The production of full IV tanks was low, but the chassis itself was used for the Wirbelwind, StuG III series and many more German AFVs. The production was approx. 8,500. I do not know the number of chassis built though. 

Tommorow will be information on the T-34.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 9, 2004)

The T-34, some say the greatest tank of the war and with good reason. 

The first production T-34 rolled off the line in September 1940, in Kharkov. This was the T-34/76 Model 1940. The suspension needs a special mention, it was designed in New Jersey, and sold to the Soviet Union, it was the Christie tank system. This along with the wide tracks on the T-34 allowed it transverse terrain of all kinds, in all weather when their enemies tanks might struggle. The frontal armour was 45mm, and on the chassis front it was set back at 60 degrees giving it a strength of 75mm, almost invunerable in 1940. 
Moving on to the last model T-34, the T-34/85. Now this was a distinct improvement over the T-34/76, it had a more powerful cannon and a slight increase in armour. It also had a three-man turret, replacing the two-man turret of the T-34 which gave it huge problems, with aiming and commanding. 
The 85mm D-5 on the T-34 was capable of piercing 100mm at 914m. Not as good as the Pz.kwpf IVs cannon. The speed was 50km/h and it had a range of 190 miles. It was reliable, but not as durable as the Pz. IV. It was easier to maintain, and it's wide tracks, which were even wider on the /85, made for good cross-country capability. 
Not all T-34s had optics or radio, commanders were seen using flag signals on the battlefield. Which lets the T-34 down greatly, but it was a great tank. And a very simple design. 

Not used for many improvements, but the T-44, SU-85 and SU-100 did come off the T-34. The simple design gave it a production to over-shadow any other at 53, 382 T-34s between 1940 and 1945. 

The M4 is next...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 11, 2004)

so far the T-34 is still doing it for me... 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 20, 2004)

i would say the T-34 for me aswell, many of the ideas used on the T-34 are still being used on modern tanks.....................


----------



## plan_D (Jun 21, 2004)

No they aren't. Where did you hear that? I hate to break it to you but the Christie Tank system has been built upon but is no longer used. Slanted armour was not an invention of the Russians, not an invention of the Soviets. Diesel engines were being used before the T-34. What!?! What today is used that was on the T-34!?!


----------



## Anonymous (Jun 23, 2004)

No other tank combined those features before that. Where the ideas come from is utterly irrelevant. Note the words _used_ on the T-34. Tanks today try to emulate the T-34, in ballance of speed firepower armor mobility and dependancy. The only thing they really try to emulate from the Germans is sohpisitcation


----------



## plan_D (Jun 23, 2004)

The three major products of a good tank are firepower, manuverability and armour. Germans and the Soviet realised this. Nothing today is copied off the T-34 directly, it wasn't an invention of the T-34.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 23, 2004)

but the T-34 was the first to incourporate all 3 in a truely sucessfull design...........................

and if you looks at my last post, i said 



> many of the ideas used



which you took to mean many of the same parts/systems used.......................


----------



## plan_D (Jun 23, 2004)

What IDEAS off the T-34 are still used today then? The Soviet designers didn't create the T-34 from no where they studied other countries inventions, designs and tactics. Bringing them together created the T-34, this doesn't mean they use the ideas off the T-34, the T-34 used the ideas off others.


----------



## stonewall23 (Dec 8, 2006)

That's how ALL weapons and tactics are developed.In the thirties the German army sent officers to study the Soviet military equitment and tactics especially armour and airborne.One officer wrote a report when he returned which became " blitzkrieg tactics ", he was Hans Gaderien.


----------



## stonewall23 (Dec 9, 2006)

O.k before any one write it,my mistake .He's name was not Hans.But my main point stands. As Lancaster kick ass said it was the first production tank to sucessfully incorporate firepower, speed,and armour .A tank that the crew can drive directly from the production line into battle,as happened,and in such large numbers,must be good.A simple design that was easy to produce and easy to train crews.It could be trusted in the very worst condictions


----------



## Wurger (Dec 9, 2006)

My vote also goes to T-34.I agree with stonewall23 and there is no need to repeat his words.To be honest I 've recently watched on TV ,the Discovery Channel , a programme about tanks.It was the top ten list and T-34 was the winner, PZ.Kpfw. IV took the fourth place and M4 was on farther one.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 9, 2006)

> he was Hans Gaderien.





> O.k before any one write it,my mistake .He's name was not Hans


His name is actually Heinz Wilhelm Guderian... U spelled both names incorrectly stoney... Also, dont know where u got the "Russian/Blitz" idea from.... 

Heres a blurb....

During the First World War he served as a Signals and General Staff officer. After the war, Guderian stayed in the reduced 100,000-man German Army (Reichswehr), where he came to specialize in armored warfare. Fluent in both English and French, he was influenced by the British maneuver warfare theorists J.F.C. Fuller and, to a lesser extent, B.H. Liddell Hart, as well as the writings, interestingly enough, of the then-unknown Charles de Gaulle. Their works were translated into German by Guderian.

Achtung - Panzer!, was written in 1936-37 as an explanation of Guderian's theories on the tank and aircraft's role in modern warfare. The panzer force he created would become the core of the German Army's power during the Second World War, and fight according to what became known as blitzkrieg doctrine. To this day, his contributions to the combined arms tactics are studied throughout military schools from West Point to Sandhurst.


----------



## stonewall23 (Dec 9, 2006)

Thanks for the correction about Heinz.I could have sworn that I saw on a telly program a few years back that Guderian did spend time in Russia studying their tactics.I know they were the first people to do mass para drops or to even consider a paratroop force practical .Or am I wrong ! I'm getting old my mind is starting to......................................wander.But I stand by my basic statement ,the T-34 is the best.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 10, 2006)

He did visit the German Secret Tank Testing Facility at Kazan, Russia. I think this was in 1929. This was where the Germans were developing Tanks because they were not allowed to under the Versaille Treaty. He however did not get any of his ideas for his tactics from the Russians there. He did learn about Russian Tactics from Russian Officers there.


----------



## stonewall23 (Dec 10, 2006)

Thanks ( tanks ) for the information .


----------



## plan_D (Dec 11, 2006)

If you read _Achtung: Panzer_ by Heinz Guderian, written in 1937, you will discover that Guderian's ideas were developed from the British and French. The Russian deep operation tactical writings were around the same time but strictly secret. 

Blitzkrieg was not a term until 1941 when a New York Times journalist coins it.


----------



## stonewall23 (Dec 11, 2006)

Really ,I was alwas under the impression that Hitler coined the term ' blitzkrieg '. I must try and find a copy .Alway's willing to learn from those who know.Thanks again.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 11, 2006)

Several German writers used the word Blitzkrieg before WW2 in articals but it was not officially used by the Germany during the war. It was a 1939 Times magazine artical that coined it.



> "Blitzkrieg" is a German compound meaning "lightning war". The word did not enter official terminology of the Wehrmacht either before or during the war, even though it was already used in the military Journal "Deutsche Wehr" in 1935, in the context of an article on how states with insufficient food and raw materials supply can win a war. Another appearance is in 1938 in the "Militär-Wochenblatt", where Blitzkrieg is defined as a "strategic attack", carried out by operational use of tanks, air force, and airborne troops. Karl-Heinz Frieser in his book 'Blitzkrieg Legende', who researched the origin of the term and found the above examples, points out that the pre-war use of the term is rare, and that it practically never entered official terminology throughout the war.[1]
> 
> It was first popularised in the English-speaking world by the American newsmagazine TIME describing the 1939 German invasion of Poland. Published on September 25 1939, well into the campaign, the account reads:
> Blitzkrieg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## plan_D (Dec 12, 2006)

Yes, my mistake it was 1939. Paul Harris states this in my copy of _Achtung-Panzer_. He also mentions, in the introduction, that Guderian's ideas resemble the Soviet 'Deep Battle' and 'Deep Operation' theories. But the think tanks behind those doctrines, Tukhachevsky and Triandafillov, are not mentioned. 

The major influences were the British Major-General Swinton and Charles De Gaulle.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 12, 2006)

Glad to see u posting again pD...


----------



## plan_D (Dec 13, 2006)

Thanks. I've been very busy recently with all my assignments. In fact, I should really be doing some now.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 13, 2006)

How are your studies going anyhow?


----------



## plan_D (Dec 14, 2006)

Good. I've passed my first unit of eighteen! And the unit I've passed doesn't even finish until end of Jan. - but I rushed all my assignments 'n finished 'em. I'll just try to achieve a merit or distingtion on the unit. 

Done my first assignment in metal work, and finished three pieces within tolerances. Done my first hydraulics assignment, and passed. Got four of the six passes in Science, and two of the merits. And done my first electronic principles assignment. So it's going good...I seem to be the smartest of the lot - which is terrifying for British holiday makers !


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 15, 2006)

Seems to me you will basically have what we call an A&P Liscense. I got mine from going to the military school for it and then getting experience in the Army and then going to a Testing Center and just testing out on the subjects.

If you need help with anything I still have a lot of my books and handbooks. I might be able to help you out with stuff.


----------



## Henk (Dec 17, 2006)

If you look at one of the best main battle tanks today the Leopard tank from Germany is one of them. The designers looked at the mistakes that were made during WW2 and also used some of those ideas to create one mean tank that is almost perfect.

Were the T-34 ideas used to make a impact on the design of the Leopard tank?


----------



## merlin (Jan 7, 2007)

A mystery of WW2 to me is why there wasn't a westernised T-34? That is the Russians would have seen what rubbish they were being sent in the way of tank supplies e.g. British Valentine. Why couldn't they spare a couple for the British US to study, and produce something with the balance of its qualities - slopping armour, speed, and weaponry, and western equipement!
The Germans did it - hence the Panther, could we have had a Centurian or a (faster) Black Prince, earlier, and the US replaced the Sherman much earlier!?

Guderian - didn't realise the significance at the time, only later did he think 'that's why' when Russian Military liasion officers inspected the German tank factories (prior to hostilities) they were annoyed when the couldn't see the German 'heavy tanks'! The Russians knew they had the KV series, and assumed the Germans were have something similar, strictly speaking they did but only in prototype form which didn't go into production.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 9, 2007)

what's wrong with the Sherman in those terms? would just about siffice, mass produced and numbers won the day, granted she wasn't the same as the T-34 but similar ideals..........


----------



## mkloby (Jan 9, 2007)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> what's wrong with the Sherman in those terms? would just about siffice, mass produced and numbers won the day, granted she wasn't the same as the T-34 but similar ideals..........



You're damn right it was sufficient! The quality of mass production is often overlooked for other sexier traits like mobility, armor, and firepower. Of course, the T-34 had quite a production run too.


----------



## merlin (Jan 10, 2007)

The Sherman was a good tank in '42 - a great help to Montgomery in El Alamein. But not much after that - it was becoming left behind in the arms race against German armour. The Tiger, Panther (Germany's answer to the T-34), and probably the up-gunned Pzw 4, out-ranged the Sherman's 75mm gun. To stand a chance against a Tiger - a Sherman would race the turret as it slowly turned round. 
Yes, US mass-production was able to make good the losses, but what about the crews - the Sherman had the unfortunate nicknames of 'Ronson Lighter' 'Tommy Cooker'. How many good men, could have survived with better equipment.
How fortunate, that some could be up-gunned 17 pdr. or 77mm gun (Firefly) but they weren't enough, and the armour still wasn't sufficient.
That's why of the three the T-34 was best, but if the Panther was also an option?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 11, 2007)

I have to agree with merlin on this one.


----------

