Best German fighter for the Eastern Front

[Shortround6]

by comparison, German equipment failures were of strategic significance, and quite horrible, whether you want to measure that "horribleness on an isolated or in comparsison to the Soviets. The relief effort of Stalingrad failed because of equipment failures in German equipment, the assault on Moscow faltered in part because of the numerous breakdowns and failures of German equipment, I have already mentioned the Panther failures at kursk. The initial deployments of Tigers outside of Leningrad saw failure after failure of the tanks, and the list goes on and on. I have yet to find evidence of equipment failures of Soviet that were of strategic significance, or at least on the same scale as those I have mentioned on the German side.

There is "quality" in "quantity". The Germans often tried to introduce tanks (or other weapons) in small batches. A few mechanical failures and things turn pear shape very quickly. The Russians tended to use things in masses large enough that even a number of mechanical failures left a large quantity of "runners". If you have a large enough reserve of runners you still have enough tanks (or other items) to 'complete the strategic objective' a number of days later. One reason the Soviets had such a large number of tanks during the cold war was as a "reserve". They knew 30/40% of the initial wave would be side lined in about 4-5 days with mechanical break downs.
I am afraid this method doesn't tell us much about the individual reliability of the tanks.

Some years ago I had the honour of looking over an ex-soviet Whiskey class SS. I was struck by the high quality workmanship. Terrible design, (it was based on a German Type VII after all) but as well made as any conventional sub that I have ever seen. Doesnt prove anything other than to say that at least some Soviet manufactures were of good quality. then again, I had a friend who had the misfortune of owning one of those lada Nevas, terrible design AND a terrible construction as well. So on my own observation I would have to say that at bes Soviet equipment was patchy. But thats a ling way from saying all Soviet equipment was poor. And the historical records show that. Especially for the T-34.

I am not sure how a post war built submarine tells us much about a war time built tank. The Russians could build decent stuff at times. Build quality of tanks may have been much different in 1942 than in 1944/45. We know that "some" T-34s went into action with spare transmissions strapped to the rear deck ( no 360 degree traverse of the turret) which doesn't argue for high reliability. Later T-34s used a 5 speed instead of the early 4 speed, a different transmission might ( or might not) change things considerably.

With regard to the 35 year claim, I was thinking of the Syrian Army, which retained their T-34/85 in frontline service until after the 1973 Yom Kippur....thats about 30 years, which is not a bad service record. They retired their PzkPfw IVs after the 1967 war

No tank lasts 30-35 years if it is actually being driven and not being used as a gate guard without spare parts. Syrian T-34/85s were post war Czech built and there were a bunch more T-34 parts floating around in the 60s and 70s than there were German MK IV parts.

 

[tyrodtom]

Come on guys, I come from a bunch of people that can keep cars going forever. New engines in old cars, adapting newer engines to bulldozers, transmissions, rearends, whole suspensions.
I know a tank is a more complicated undertaking, but i'll bet those tanks retired in the 60s had went thru many engines and transmissions, and who knows how many suspension overhauls.

Sometimes I wonder how many people on this forum has ever got grease under their fingernails.

 

[tomo pauk]

T-34-85, belonged to Bosnian Serb Army, picture from 1996:

File:Serbisk T-34 85 trekkes tilbake.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[tyrodtom]

T-34-85, belonged to Bosnian Serb Army, picture from 1996:

File:Serbisk T-34 85 trekkes tilbake.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is that rubber mats laid over that T34 ? In the hope of giving stand off from shaped charges maybe ?

 

[Shortround6]

Come on guys, I come from a bunch of people that can keep cars going forever. New engines in old cars, adapting newer engines to bulldozers, transmissions, rearends, whole suspensions.
I know a tank is a more complicated undertaking, but i'll bet those tanks retired in the 60s had went thru many engines and transmissions, and who knows how many suspension overhauls.

Sometimes I wonder how many people on this forum has ever got grease under their fingernails.

Tank reliability is pretty low no matter who's they were. it is like comparing poor to bad to really bad.

When the Leopard and AMX 30 were first coming on the scene in the 60s an awful lot was made of how fast engine or power pack changes could be done "in the field" with the aid of a vehicle with a 3-5 ton crane. Apparently this was considered a faster way of keeping tanks in service than pulling them back to even a unit depot/repair shop with a tank transporter. If this was a selling feature of a 60s tank one can only imagine what the engine/powerpack life was for most WW II tanks.

Tanks without spare parts become useless pretty quick. Or modified to use engines, transmissions, suspensions, tracks that parts can be gotten for.

 

[Tante Ju]

I don't think that engine/powerpack lifespan was really the problem, IIRC Spielberger notes even the Panther's engine could sustain 1500 km before maintenance. The running gear needed more frequent maintenance, the notoriously flimsy final drive of the Panther could take iirc only a couple of hundred kilometers - which was probably a bigger problem, replacing the final drive does not strike me as an easy job, the engine itself was quite accessible and quick to replace. Each and every one of them had a weak spot, the T-34 had a very poor gearbox, and tracks weren't particularly good either.

But I totally agree about bad vs very bad. Tanks are heavy machines, the stresses are enormous and as such something is bound to bread down frequently.

 

[Civettone]

Maybe you guys should take a look at this ...
Evaluation Of The T-34 And Kv Tanks By Engineers Of The Aberdeen Proving Grounds
Evaluation of The T-34 and KV Tanks By Engineers of the Aberdeen Proving Grounds - ENGLISH.BATTLEFIELD.RU - ENGLISH.BATTLEFIELD.RU
Very negative.
Final conclusion: "Despite the advantages of the use of diesel, the good contours of the tanks, thick armor, good and reliable armaments, the successful design of the tracks etc., Russian tanks are significantly inferior to American tanks in their simplicity of driving, manoeuvrability, the strength of firing (reference to muzzle velocity), speed, the reliability of mechanical construction and the ease of keeping them running."

Tanks without spare parts become useless pretty quick. Or modified to use engines, transmissions, suspensions, tracks that parts can be gotten for.

Plenty of spare parts available for T-34s, T-55s and Shermans. Maybe that also helps to explain why they were/are in service for so long.


Again, the reputation from the reliable T-34 comes from Soviet propaganda and from post-war experiences of upgraded or newly built T-34/85s.
Kris

 

[Shortround6]

I don't think that engine/powerpack lifespan was really the problem, IIRC Spielberger notes even the Panther's engine could sustain 1500 km before maintenance.

For perspective, when my wife can't take the train to work I drive her about 100km EACH WAY. Panther engine would last a week and half. Panther transmission and clutches in rush hour traffic in NY City would last ????

But I totally agree about bad vs very bad. Tanks are heavy machines, the stresses are enormous and as such something is bound to bread down frequently.

 

[Tante Ju]

For perspective, when my wife can't take the train to work I drive her about 100km EACH WAY. Panther engine would last a week and half. Panther transmission and clutches in rush hour traffic in NY City would last ????

I guess the transmission would be taxed, but you can probably save a lot on brake and clutch wear by not using them at all while maintaining a steady, if somewhat bumpy driving style.

 

[rinkol]

There is a British account of an interview with a captured German General who reported that Hitler, on being shown a T34, immediately insisted that it could not possibly be any good, an impression based on the poor finish. The General's observation was that, if you looked at the places where it mattered, that the finish was in fact very good. I suspect the Aberdeen report may have also been influenced, at least to some extent, by superficial perceptions. The bottom line was that the T34 could be manufactured in huge numbers and it was good enough to give its users practical chances. To put things in context, for most of the war the German tank production was surprisingly low (there was a proliferation of designs, most of which were produced in prototype form only or in very small numbers) and, until later in the war, many of the tanks produced were incapable of taking on a T34. Also, the relatively long range provided by the diesel engine was of particular value on the eastern front.

 

[tomo pauk]

Is that rubber mats laid over that T34 ? In the hope of giving stand off from shaped charges maybe ?

I'd guess that was the purpose, in the former brotherly republics there was utter abundance of such weaponry.h

Here is the T-55 'Leopard' with similar device: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v399/OkoII/vojKn.jpg

 

[bobbysocks]

Is that rubber mats laid over that T34 ? In the hope of giving stand off from shaped charges maybe ?

i dont think a rubber mat is going to do aything to foil the penetration of a shaped charge....what i think they are for is traction in certain types of mud. they look the appropriqate width for sliding under the tracks. certain combinations of wet clay and soil can stop even tracked vehicles...

 

[parsifal]

could be for camourflage or deception. Break up the silhouette of the tank to make recognition of the vehicle more difficult. If you cant ID the vehicle type, you are going to be cautious and that might give the tank owner time to do something

Alternatively it might be some kind of attempt at insulation. T-34/85s and i suspect T-55s are pretty uncomfortable especially in extreme hot or cold conditions.

 

[CORSNING]

Wow, I feel like a six year old lost at the mall. The T-34 was a great tank but I doubt that it was even in the top two of being the best German fighter for the eastern front. Maybe the best Russian fighter on the eastern front.

 

[parsifal]

point taken....this all arose because of the claim there were systemic failures in Soviet equipment that, by implication meant we could not rely on the published performance figures for the LA5 (and other Soviet aircraft)........

 

[Jenisch]

Evaluation of The T-34 and KV Tanks By Engineers of the Aberdeen Proving Grounds - ENGLISH.BATTLEFIELD.RU - ENGLISH.BATTLEFIELD.RU

 

[parsifal]

I notice the Aberdeen tests were undertaken using a 1941 type T-34, with the problematic two man turret and dodgy gearbox.......

 

[Jenisch]

The T-34 was certainly improved. I have the impression that the 85 was equal or perhaps better than the Panzer IV.

 

[vinnye]

I would have thought that the T34-85 was more on a par with a Panther?

 

[Tante Ju]

No... much weaker gun (ca. on par with the Pz IV's long 75mm), much less armor, smaller ammo load... the Panther was pretty much in a class with itself anyway.