tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post852722956716278533..comments2024-03-28T14:35:30.147-04:00Comments on Tank Archives: The Myth of the Disposable T-34Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-82428958204880237692022-06-30T14:52:02.258-04:002022-06-30T14:52:02.258-04:00As for things like carrying a spare gearbox and sh...As for things like carrying a spare gearbox and shifting with hammers, the Soviets were masters of improvisation, if nothing else. When your country's been invaded in overwhelming force, and much of the productive parts and about 1/5 of the population have been quickly captured by the enemy, you do what you have to do to fight back. Easy to "kibbitz" some 80 years later.Doug the Ex-Fat Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10449770493587344595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-69952640556715414122019-05-15T17:32:42.062-04:002019-05-15T17:32:42.062-04:00I'd say a lot of the 1941-42 losses (though yo...I'd say a lot of the 1941-42 losses (though you touch on this) were due to mechanical failures, plus the lack of spare parts. Even with well-designed and reasonably reliable hardware, if you don't have spare parts, you'll suffer losses, and on a retreat, these become permanent losses.Stewart Millenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01261690405884935161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-81693497344516968792019-05-15T09:43:32.043-04:002019-05-15T09:43:32.043-04:00As far as I can tell, the "carried transmissi...As far as I can tell, the "carried transmissions on their back" claim is made based on a single photograph. Reports do not mention that this was done regularly. <br /><br />The transmission was indeed a weak link in the drive train, namely the clutch was. Work to prevent clutch slipping due to deformation of the friction disks started in 1940. It appears that it was eventually successful, there is a report of an experimental clutch tested in an A-34 over a distance of 3000 km in heavy conditions that appears satisfactory. I don't know when it was implemented in production, but presumably this was eventually done. The American report on a T-34-85 captured in Korea states that there was no indication of clutch slipping.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-19547174134116419612019-05-15T08:58:41.374-04:002019-05-15T08:58:41.374-04:00Whoops should read in China/Korea against the Japa...Whoops should read in China/Korea against the Japanese.<br />Nicholas Perryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16323353264938130801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-32201186337333196432019-05-15T08:57:55.266-04:002019-05-15T08:57:55.266-04:00About that 'carrying spare transmissions' ...About that 'carrying spare transmissions' comment. I believe that was only seen once and was a T-34 caught between the railway station and the depot while bringing a replacement for another vehicle. Why waste a road test?<br /><br />The huge losses in 1941-2 are, as often as not, due to units being ordered to stand and fight rather than conduct a tactical retreat. Add in the numbers bogged by inexperienced drivers and such and the numbers climb quickly. Although some Russian designs were crippled by the inadequate technical base (KV gearbox?) the T-34 was a very good tank indeed. <br /><br />As final support for Peter's position look at what they did against the Chinese. Russian border to central Korea in about a week(?). Doesn't sound like a disposable tank to me. Nicholas Perryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16323353264938130801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-44343989284211515562019-05-15T08:47:33.457-04:002019-05-15T08:47:33.457-04:00Well, typos and whatnots happen to the best of us....Well, typos and whatnots happen to the best of us. That did remind me I don't actually know how exactly the Christie suspension system in general *was* accessed for repairs, maintenance etc. though. I'd assume the parts along the fighting compartement walls were easily enough reached from the inside but I'm curious about the ones by the rather less readily accessible engine compartement; layman's blind guess would be the roof was opened or removed to get at those, as when working on the engine etc.?Kellomieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04915110653443066212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-91623176405557942652019-05-15T08:32:55.584-04:002019-05-15T08:32:55.584-04:00Everyone's tanks also routinely carried extra ...Everyone's tanks also routinely carried extra track links and presumably also whatever other spare parts they could cram in. That was simply a sensible precaution in light of the limitations of period automotive technology and the inevitable damage from combat, harsh terrain etc.<br /><br />Various elements of the transmission were subject to particularly hard wear and tear, simply given what they do (ie. transmit considerable mechanical forces to move tens of tons of steel around at some speed), so it's not surprising those would have been among the first picks for spares to take along. Outta curiosity, what *part* of the transmission? I'm tentatively assuming the gearbox which was fairly compact and easily accessible - the actual final drive gearings etc. would seem a bit too massive and requiring heavy equipement to swap out for this kind of thing.Kellomieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04915110653443066212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-227326775562154392019-05-15T07:07:09.390-04:002019-05-15T07:07:09.390-04:00I do not doubt that the tank was made to last. I w...I do not doubt that the tank was made to last. I was just curious about the transmissions carried alongInhapihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09389333832375000604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-11350689000768667832019-05-15T05:16:26.056-04:002019-05-15T05:16:26.056-04:00Taking a transmission along is not a proof that th...Taking a transmission along is not a proof that the tank is made for short amount of use. Taking a transmission is a smart way of preparing for possible breakdown, even if failure of transmission is enevetable, that act is yet another proof of prolonging tank operation. This article is made to prove that people behind the machine did everything possible to make a lasting tank. And as early as December of 1942 we have definitive prof of improvements and operational success of t-34s. Making a deep penetration behind enemy lines, 24th tank core pushed 240km and took tatskaya airfield. In doing so they sealed the fate for German 6th army in Stalingrad. If t-34 was so unreliable as people claim this would be an impossible task. Yet reality is much different. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00089178037286446789noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-11496432620685505102019-05-14T23:20:40.694-04:002019-05-14T23:20:40.694-04:00Thanks for not mocking some of my jumbled wording....Thanks for not mocking some of my jumbled wording. I woke up last night low on blood sugar.Sager ,William A.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06830369127449299646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-3090558541305097322019-05-14T19:42:01.189-04:002019-05-14T19:42:01.189-04:00I'm not arguing with the corectness of your ar...I'm not arguing with the corectness of your article. But what about the "myth" of T-34 crews taking along a spare transmission in the early productins version ?<br /><br />A related question: how much did the Soviet army rely on rail transport for strategic movement of tanks ? Inhapihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09389333832375000604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-16695350531846181792019-05-14T13:25:40.397-04:002019-05-14T13:25:40.397-04:00What's meant by "incredible numbers"...What's meant by "incredible numbers", say, compared to other tanks?<br /><br />Krivosheev's Soviet aggregate loss data, for instance, does not differentiate between tanks lost to combat and tanks that were scrapped because they wore out or were deemed obsolete.<br /><br />I say this because of the frequent fallacy of using Krivosheev's Soviet loss estimates against other (read German) estimates that have been *demonstrated not to have included even all combat losses*, let alone losses due to wear and tear and obsolescence, and then saying this comparison "proves" the Germans were killing Soviet tanks at a 4:1 ratio or more. <br /><br />I have no problem with using Krivosheev's Soviet figures, just use his *German* figures as well of 42,700 which I think is more an apples-to-apples comparison. Zaloga is an offender here and he should know better!Stewart Millenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01261690405884935161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-79808488841972633972019-05-14T12:57:28.296-04:002019-05-14T12:57:28.296-04:00You seem to be thoroughly confused about what this...You seem to be thoroughly confused about what this data means. 31.7 kph was the average speed during movement on a highway. Trials include far more than just driving on a highway in a straight line. Off-road driving or even idling adds to engine runtime without contributing to the distance as much.<br /><br />417 km is also not the entire span of the trials. Hadfield steel tracks had a total lifespan of 1000 km. Yes, this is less than the lifespan of the rest of the tank, but the tracks are a readily replaceable component. <br /><br />The "extra care from factory crew" excuse falls flat as well, since the trials performed in late 1940 were done with randomly selected production tanks.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-12771151453454073242019-05-14T06:28:08.359-04:002019-05-14T06:28:08.359-04:00Everything is relative, and once away from the rai...Everything is relative, and once away from the railheads and in action it became rather important indeed how far the tank can go on its own tracks before something gives (and how easy it is to fix). All the more so for the medium/cavalry/cruiser class whose job description covers the breakthrough exploitation role where even wheeled transporters were often impractical.Kellomieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04915110653443066212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-16940046674600837702019-05-14T06:12:58.033-04:002019-05-14T06:12:58.033-04:00I'm so glad you wrote this article, few days a...I'm so glad you wrote this article, few days ago I had a discussion with a person who claim exactly this. Tanks were bad because they didnt need to be any better because crew will die anyway. And when I asked him why he thinks this way he said experts from the field say so. When I've asked who the experts are. He said curatour from Bovington tank museum. And no matter how much evidence I gave him he dismissed it because some bloke said it's so. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00089178037286446789noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-63863409327867516242019-05-14T06:05:28.489-04:002019-05-14T06:05:28.489-04:00Plans to replace Christie suspension started befor...Plans to replace Christie suspension started before the war. But it was deemed unnecessary. What happens if suspension on your car brakes down? Its bouncy but the car is still drivable. Essentially same kind of suspension is Christie suspension. If one or more wheels have suspension issues tank is not immobilized. It's not so critical to replace. I have seen tanks completely missing one wheel and still functional. On the other hand bogey suspension as on American tanks are easier to replace but much more prone to detrack. Especially M3 stuart was famous for that since it only needed small rock to get in to detrack it. In case of torsion bars they are most beneficial, both in terms of easy maintenance and space saving. But in case of failure Christie holds advantage. Since both shock and spring have to fail and even if they fail they will still hold the wheel down to a greater degree then torsion. If torsion bar brakes, wheel arm has no resistance that is one of the reasons why torsion bar suspension has wheel arm blockers to limit vertical travel. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00089178037286446789noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-10949885211111282012019-05-14T05:22:31.363-04:002019-05-14T05:22:31.363-04:00Compare, if you will, the Panther which usually at...Compare, if you will, the Panther which usually ate its final drive after circa 100 km on-road - as a direct result of the design cutting corners for the sake of faster manufacturing no less - yet to my knowledge never earns the "expendable" label for that...Kellomieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04915110653443066212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-86486422897977507842019-05-14T03:27:44.761-04:002019-05-14T03:27:44.761-04:00To be fair in WW 2 the media in all countries was ...To be fair in WW 2 the media in all countries was controlled by the governments. As such after the war, myths are bound to fill in the gaps. One aspect of the T-34 that might merit investigation is it's Christie suspension. Did one access the pull the tracks and the outer lawyer of hull armor just to the T-34s large suspension columns. Or could they change them from the inside? Don't get me wrong, the myth of any tanks being reliable back in those days defied the basic fact that smart armies moved their tanks on trains to the front.Sager ,William A.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06830369127449299646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-4013986813624355092019-05-14T02:36:29.065-04:002019-05-14T02:36:29.065-04:00It's still not a myth, T-34 were being destroy...It's still not a myth, T-34 were being destroyed in incredible numbers.<br />You bring 200 motohours for an engine and give test of 4200 km as an example of reliability.<br />Checking - average speed of 31.7 kph gives 132,5 motohours to reach that distance - 65% of the expected engine life span.<br />With a prototype that takes extra care from factory crew (otherwise there may be gulag for sabotage, for example).<br /><br />Also there are no data, how many breakdowns happened during these trials.<br /><br />417 km of track trials, assuming 20 kph give 21 hours - a fraction of engine lifespan.<br />Dymitryi Loza memories show even bigger numbers for Sherman' tracks: https://iremember.ru/en/memoirs/tankers/dmitriy-loza/ with the exception of overheating rubber covered tracks.jakubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04514194675240002636noreply@blogger.com