Russia marks anniversary of its best tank

[riacrato]

To say Germany didn't achieve any of its wartime goals is flat out wrong. That the equipment they produced and used contributed to their defeat is ultimately an empty statement as in the total war fought every single aspect contributed to the outcome to some degree. The impact of the equipment deployed is minimal to that of the strategic decisions that were made. Would Germany have won the war if they had T-34s and the Russians Pz IV/V/VIs? Certainly not.

When you complain about the expensiveness of German equipment or the comparably low production numbers you deliberately show only half of the truth so your argumentation essentially mirrors that of the Panzer-koolaid-fans you critizise. That German leadership dragged out the decision to go to full wartime production is not the equipments fault. That the major AFV of the second half of the war was the assault gun series which is on the same level as the T-34 series when it comes to cost effectiveness is also forgotten.

 

[syscom3]

parsifal

The German tanks were good, but not good enough to totally offset the limitations of the T-34.

In a war of attrition where you have a lot of opponents, you better be magnitudes better. And the Soviets used the T-34 to the best of its advantages and ended up winning when it counted.

 

[parsifal]

To say Germany didn't achieve any of its wartime goals is flat out wrong. That the equipment they produced and used contributed to their defeat is ultimately an empty statement as in the total war fought every single aspect contributed to the outcome to some degree. The impact of the equipment deployed is minimal to that of the strategic decisions that were made. Would Germany have won the war if they had T-34s and the Russians Pz IV/V/VIs? Certainly not.

When you complain about the expensiveness of German equipment or the comparably low production numbers you deliberately show only half of the truth so your argumentation essentially mirrors that of the Panzer-koolaid-fans you critizise. That German leadership dragged out the decision to go to full wartime production is not the equipments fault. That the major AFV of the second half of the war was the assault gun series which is on the same level as the T-34 series when it comes to cost effectiveness is also forgotten.[/QUOTE

]

What war aims did the germans achieve? They achieved victories a plenty, certainly, but according to Moltke, the great german theorist on warfare, "war is an extension of policy". That is a truism that holds as much today as when it was first written. The Germans could not claim to have achieved any of their main war aims because they were so utterly defeated at the end of it all. In the narrower context of the war in the east the claims to success are even less. In terms of the Barbarossa objectives, none of the geographic, political or even military objectives were ever achieved. These were incidentally, the capture of western Europe, in particular Moscow Leningrad (and subsequently) Stalingrad. The political objectives of the campaign was the collapse of the communist regime, whilst the miltary objectives was the complete destruction of Russian military machine. None of these objectives were achieved, though it was not for want of trying. In large measure it was the failure of the machines of war that contributed to this failure, for example, the extremely low serviceability rates of their tanks is often stated as a reason for their failure in Taifun.

Later, the objectives were modified to encompass the capture of the olifields, and the capture of Stalingrad (as well as a minor objective of the capture of Crimea....which they did achieve). This campaign like all the others failed, utterly, and disastrously

In the following year, the objective was changed yet again, this time the objective became the military destruction of the Soviet military machine. This objective failed. Forced onto the defensive from this point, German war strategy lost way from this point, but seems to have revolved around inflicting such a high attrition rate as to blunt the Russian attack capability. But instead the Russians just got stronger and better at what they did. Again the Germans get an enromous fail inthe pursuit of their strategic war objectives. If you are talking about tactical objectives, then you have a point, but the reasoning for my whole post in this thread was to put the strategic issues into perpsective. And to say the T-34 was not part of that strategic outcome is to deny fundamental facts. I dont know how you can say equipment performance is unimportant to the strategic context. The t-34 was as important to the Russian victory as the Zero was a factor in the early Japanese victories

In every campaign similar threads emerge. The machines of war, are a part of the tools of war, and ultimately they played their part in the respective victories and defeats of each nation. Understanding the details behind those successes and failures is the key to understanding why.

So heres the conundrum. The Russians lost something like 12-20000 T-34s in the war, whilst the germans lost a total of more than 32000 AFVs of all descriptions. I estimate that approximately half those losses will be attributable the T-34s, though if you have better numbers, please advise. Please, therefore explain to me how the T-34, with such a reasonable overall exchange rate can be then rated as grossly inferior, or that their ease of production should not be included as a factor in them winning their war????

To say that Germanys defeat was the result of strategic decision is partly true, but so too are the equipment decision. The choice of equipments is in fact part of that overall strategic mismanagement that you talk of, but your position is still trying to shift the total blame of defeat to a very few. In fact that defeat was a defeat of the whole, in which the command echelon played a significant part, but not the whole or even the dominant reason. Your position is yet another attempt at perpetuating the lie that germany was robbed of her rightful victory....that is just untrue, they were defeated comprehensively on the field of battle as much as the corridors of power. The failure of her procurement program is an element of that defeat.

You mention the cost effectiveness of SPGs compared to Tanks, which is true, but compared to the production costs of the T-34, German SPGs were still expensive. A Stug III with the long 75mm ATG still cost more than twice the cost of a T-34. Thats a lot better cost relationship than the Panther, but it is still a lot more expensive.

Finally you mention the possibility that Germany would have been no better with T-34 than using their own suite of tanks. You immediately dismiss this as ridiculous, and yet in 1941-2 serious consideration was given to just that expedient, that ultimately led to the panther development. Speer time and again advocated the production of cheap, mass produceable tanks like the Sherman, because of the numbers that would be available if they did adopt that strategy. Rommel, after 1943 advocated the total abandonment of turreted tanks altogether, and thought the emphasis should be on the production of towed AT weapons. There are a lot of eminent German leaders who support that very notion..cheap, easily produced items of hardware over the super exotic behemoths that the germans ended up favouring

 

[riacrato]

The war didn't start with the invasion of the SU.

If you have solid figures about production costs please post them.

Germany considered the T-34 for lack of a comparable design. That means if they did they would've won the war. Great logic.

You compare the loss figures of a single design to all German AFVs lost. Even if it's the most important tank it's still presenting selective facts.

Your position is yet another attempt at perpetuating the lie that germany was robbed of her rightful victory...

It's pretty clear where you are coming from. Good night.

 

[Soren]

Parsifal whats up with you atm ? You're posting nonesense.

 

[parsifal]

The war didn't start with the invasion of the SU.

If you have solid figures about production costs please post them.

Germany considered the T-34 for lack of a comparable design. That means if they did they would've won the war. Great logic.

You compare the loss figures of a single design to all German AFVs lost. Even if it's the most important tank it's still presenting selective facts.



It's pretty clear where you are coming from. Good night.

My position is to cross check the strategic truths that led to victory to some of the claims made in this place and others

Finding reliable figures on equipment costs is hard to find, but they can be found. And the industrial weighted production indices says pretty much everything that needs to be said in this regard. Oh Ive got dollar figures on AFV costs, but the strategic indices offer a much better idea of what was happening

Sorry that the truth doesnt sit well with your concept of how the war was fought and won. Genuinely sorry if my delivery of that message offended you. Hope that you come back and talk further. Your current presentation however does not persuade me in any way to modify my opinions and conclusions. That is, the Germans lost the war, having achieved none of their strategic objectives, in either the west or eastern fronts. The Russians were outlclassed in their industrial capacity at the beginning of the war, by a wide margin, but still managed to outproduce the germans by a wide margin. This can partly be explained by the low unit costs of Russian items of manufacture...their simplicity, crude finishes and the like, and the losses to their tank forces after the initial disaster in 41-2 were not nearly as one sided as some suggest. Unless it can be argued that somehow the T-34 was not puling its weight in killing German tanks, then does it not stand to reason that 50% of the available tank forces in the later ear inventory is going to account fopr 50% of the losses inflicted on the Germans

 

[Soren]

Ok, picked up my books on the T-34, so lets get the real facts on the table here:

1. Exactly 58,681 T-34's of all types were built during WW2, of that some 45,000 T-34's were lost in combat during the war, these are the official Soviet WW2 statistics for the tank.

2. A total of more than 100,000 Soviet AFV's were destroyed during the war (This includes lendlease). So the T-34 made up for atleast 40% of all Soviet tank losses!

3. The Germans lost approx. 42,000 AFV's in all during the war on all fronts, 70% were lost on the eastern front. Thats 29,400 AFV's lost on the eastern front, and most of these by AT guns, mines infantry, while many were simply abandoned and blown up later in the war in order to prevent them from getting in the hands of the Soviets. The total number of AFV's built by Germany during the war was 46,936.

Sources:
T-34 Mythical Weapon by Robert Michulec Miroslaw Zientarzewski
T-34 in action by Artem Drabkin Oleg Sheremet

 

[Soren]

So I will repeat what I've said before;

The T-34, while not a bad tank, wasn't anywhere near being the best allround tank of the war. It initially proved a shock to the Germans in 1941, the Germans never expecting the Soviets to come up with a tank which would pose any match for their then current Pz.III's IV's. However fortunately for the Germans the T-34, while hard to knock out frontally with the by then std. AT guns (3.7cm to 5cm PaK KwK guns), had some serious flaws which allowed to the Germans to deal with effectively even in 1941.

The T-34 was lacking in these key areas:

1. Communication (The tank lacked any form of radio, and communication was conducted with colored flag signals!)

2. Ergonomics (The interior was cramped, not well layed out and the turret only housed to two crew members, the commander having to act as gunner as-well)

3. Sighting equipment (The T-34 lacked proper optics of any kind, and once buttoned up featured far less visibility than most other tanks)

4. Armour quality (The turret was made from cast armour which isn't anywhere near as strong as RHA, further the parts of the armour which were made up from RHA were so brittle than internal spalling caused by weapons which didn't even penetrate was a real hazard for the crew)

All of this pretty much ensured that by 1942 onwards the T-34 was put completely to shame by German tanks, the StuG III PzIV both enjoying overwhelming succes fighting it, and for tanks such as the Tiger the T-34 was mostly just gunfodder.

 

[m kenny]

1. Exactly 58,681 T-34's of all types were built during WW2, of that some 45,000 T-34's were lost in combat during the war, these are the official Soviet WW2 statistics for the tank.

It is not 'Official' rather a collection of stats from Krivosheev.

 

[Soren]

It is not 'Official' rather a collection of stats from Krivosheev.
He says that 55,000 Medium tanks were 'recieved' during 1941-45 and this number includes all the LL tanks (M3,M4,Matilda, Churchill ect) that totaled over 7,000 units. That gives a max of 48,000 T34's as recieved.
Medium losses are given as 44,900 and that again includes the LL losses and some of the pre-war mediums..

No it is not from Kirosheev, it is the sources I listed, and 45,000 T-34's were listed as destroyed. A total of 58,681 being built during the war.

Krivosheev says 96,500 tanks and SPG's were lost. Of this total a staggering 33,400 were Light tanks and 44,900 were medium tanks (T-34 and the LL mediums).

Well then Kirosheev obviously forgets about the lendlease tanks, cause the total Soviet tank losses were above 100,000.

42,00? More like 50,000. Could you please explain to me where the Germans lost 12,000 AFV's in the West?
France 1940 was 820, Poland 240 and around 4,000 in NW Europe. That leaves 7,000. Where were they knocked out? Certainly not N Afrika or Italy. I would suggest 5,000 of this missing 7,000 were lost in the East.

42,000 were lost in combat, ~30,000 in the Soviet Union. The rest were lost on all other fronts, including inside Germany itself due to allied bombing etc etc... Around 8,000 being lost combined in NW Europe, N Africa Italy as-well as other places.

The other 10,000 AFV's were given to other countries, lost on the production line due to allied bombing or simply captured.

All the surveys I have seen say 50% of ALL tanks lost by ALL sides were victims of AP shot. If you want to exclude tanks abandoned or destroyed by the crews then you have to exclude most of the 20,000 Soviet tanks lost in 1941. Strangely not a lot of people want to do that. I wonder why?

lol, are you now claiming that most of the 18,000 soviet tank losses caused during 1941 were due to the crews abandoning them?? Sorry but that doesn't hold any water, esp. not when you check OKW kill figures.

The production tables given by Jentz and Doyle in ' Encyclopedia Of German Tanks Of World War Two' (AAP 1978) show:

27,770 tanks
12,175 Stug.
5,120 Jagdpanzer
2,700 SP A/T guns
2,100 SP Artillery
1,900 SP AA guns
total 51,765

Yes m kenny, but if you would care to check only 46,936 were built DURING the war! The rest, roughly 5,000, were built BEFORE WW2 m kenny.


[quote="m kenny]Not true and I know I posted a link showing this some time back and that you saw it.[/QUOTE]

That is untrue. And as I explained I have actually seen these so called "optics", and they are piss poor to say the least.

As verteran Soviet tank commander Dmitriy Loza put it:
"None of the periscopes, even in the commander's cupola, gave us good visibility."

 

[m kenny]

No it is not from Kirosheev, it is the sources I listed, and 45,000 T-34's were listed as destroyed.

And where do you think they got their figures? Check Krivosheev (page 251) and you will see.

 

[Soren]

Okay, picked up Kirosheevs book here's what I found:

Total Soviet tank losses = 96,500
On top of this was another 37,600 armoured vehicles lost.

Thats a total of 134,100.

He lists German losses as 32,000 in the east.

According to Hahn total number of German tanks built during the war was 46,936. Total listed as lost in combat is 44,481, which is tanks, TDs, SPWs SPG's.

 

[m kenny]

Okay, picked up Kirosheevs book here's what I found:

Total Soviet tank losses = 96,500
On top of this was another 37,600 armoured vehicles lost.

Thats a total of 134,100.

As this is the total of all tanks/SPG/Armoured Cars and Tractors then surely you should compare it to the German total-which is 89,000.

 

[Glider]

Some excellent information being put forward by all parties, I and no doubt others appreciate it.

 

[parsifal]

A question, observation at this point. i take it that this massive figure for Soviet Tank losses includes the losses sustained by the pre-war tank park in the 41-42 period, when the Soviets did not know the front end of a tank from the south end of a north bound camel?

Either of you gentlemen care to offer an estimate of the percentage of this total were lost prior to August 1942.

 

[riacrato]

T-26 was a solid pre-war design, absolutely state of the art when it was designed, easily superior to the common Pz II and on par with Pz 35 (t) and Pz 38 (t). Its cannon was capable of endangering early Pz III and IV models. BT series was arguably already ahead of its time when it comes to maneuvering.

There was no time in the war where Soviet tank design was significantly behind that of Germany or the Western Allies.

 

[parsifal]

Hi Riacrato

I would agree with your last post, but then, similar statements could be said about the french and/or British tanks of the 1940-41 campaigns. What made the early years of the war an absolute massacre of allied and soviet tanks was not their technological backwardness, it was their lack of training and adequate doctrine and leadership (and adequate crew training in the Red Army). . This was a particularly painful and costly lesson for the Soviets, who I believe suffered losses in that 41-42 period of at least 30000 tanks. I am waiting fr comments from Soren, and MK in this respect.

 

[m kenny]

x

 

[Kurfürst]

And a T-34 cost less than 1/8 the cost of a Panther Tank......

Source please. How on earth would it, for God's sake? The Panther, being all that advanced and bigger than its precedessors Pz III and IV was only marginally (10-20%) more expensive in terms of both labour hours and financial cost, despite many times as effective.

Frankly I doubt a Panther would cost more than 20-30% more than a T-34. Eight times more iis utter nonsense..

BTW the Krivosheev figures are interesting in that compared to common perception of masses of T-34s charging ahead followed by hordes of infantry, really the Soviet armored might, especially in the critical year of 1942, was characterized by huge amounts of near-useless light tanks against a comparatively small percentage (though significant in terms of absolute numbers) of medium T-34s and heavy KVs... up to about mid/late-1943, but light tanks still remained a significant element, whereas the Germans almost phased those out from their armory ASAP.

 

[m kenny]

Axis History Forum • View topic - Soviet tank cost