State of the balance according to Imperial Dane

Jump back to quoted post20 Jul 2014, 13:06 PMvan Voort

It has the holy trifecta of Armour, Mobility and Firepower.


It is also easy to produce


Let down by bad ergonomics, lack of radio and indifferent crew training


Not especially reliable, but equally reliable no matter what the weather is



Not my tank of choice if I want to go Michael Wittman on somebody, but more than adaquate to equip an army

If you want to do an essay telling me that is worse than, for example:

Fiat 3000

Matilda I

FT-17

Please do, I could do with a laugh

Jump back to quoted post20 Jul 2014, 09:49 AMCannonade

TBh, Ciez was the biggest detractor to beta. Never seen a guy with so much brown-nosing, "yes-saying" and such a passive -aggressive and disrespectful attitude towards other contributors.

A real snake in the grass.

Jump back to quoted post20 Jul 2014, 14:47 PMausterlitz

Russia built 50,000 t-34s in comparison to around 9,000 pz 4s and 6,000 panthers-how is that 2 to 1 ratio.
Soviets were not running out of tanks in 1944,but men.
After stalingrad russia could have won the war on its own taking 2 more years than 45' and total manpower exhaustion.

Jump back to quoted post20 Jul 2014, 15:11 PMJaigen

Thats me being generous. because if we only took tanks in comparison we would have a staggering 1: 5 kill ratio. I include all AFV in in my calculations and some of those AFV are stugs marders and the su series.

Jump back to quoted post20 Jul 2014, 14:39 PMMajorBloodnok

Off topic: One of the mysteries for me is why the North West European campaign armies never developed a battle tank to match the Tiger or Panther. I fear this may be down to Montgomery, who saw tank battles as Mobility, with not much thought for amour or firepower. It was if the battle of Khursk never existed - maybe for the Allied General Staff, it never did?

Jump back to quoted post20 Jul 2014, 15:18 PMcoh2player

Most losses of Soviet tanks were via abandonment from 1941-1943.

Jump back to quoted post20 Jul 2014, 14:59 PMCieZ

Pls stop the obvious, pathetic trolling now. Thx.

Jump back to quoted post20 Jul 2014, 15:20 PMJaigen

LLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

Jump back to quoted post20 Jul 2014, 15:24 PMcoh2player

If you've studied it, it's true. Much of the German tank park was lost via abandonment as well- real war isn't a videogame (super offtopic)

The collapse of the soviet mechanized corps saw most of Soviet armor lost in the first 2 weeks of the war- to abandonment.

The soviet winter counteroffensive of 1942-1943- while mostly successful, most Soviet tanks were also lost to abandonment rather than enemy fire as the logistics situations began collapsing by early 1943.

Jump back to quoted post20 Jul 2014, 15:18 PMcoh2player

Short answer: weight restrictions, operational readiness, logistics, maintenance, and reliability. These were the archilles heel of tanks in ww2.

Panzer divisions on the strategic offense typically started falling apart in 2 months with most AFVs in repair. The Sherman, unlike the Pz III/IV/V could endure with operational rates @ 90% plus even months after the landings:

Jump back to quoted post20 Jul 2014, 15:35 PMJaigen

Your not making a better case for the soviets here. i can understand the argument in 1941 where the soviets line collapsed several times and supply lines as well but if you tell they lost half their tanks in 1942 and 1943 (where supply lines were re-established and soviet industry came back online) because of mechanical failure it would not only prove the t-34 is an incredibly shitty tank but also the soviets where shockingly incompetent.

Jump back to quoted post20 Jul 2014, 15:37 PMJaigen

It has more to that russia was not kind to tanks or supply lines. both armies basically ceased offensive operations during winter months allowing both of them rearm themselves.

Jump back to quoted post20 Jul 2014, 15:24 PMcoh2player

If you've studied it, it's true. Much of the German tank park was lost via abandonment as well- real war isn't a videogame (super offtopic)

The collapse of the soviet mechanized corps saw most of Soviet union's armor lost in the first 2 weeks of the war- to abandonment.

The soviet winter counteroffensive of 1942-1943- while mostly successful, most Soviet tanks were also lost to abandonment rather than enemy fire as the logistics situation began collapsing by early 1943.

It's simply wrong to consider all or almost all AFV losses as 'due to enemy fire'.

Jump back to quoted post20 Jul 2014, 15:22 PMCannonade

You can't be serious.

Your avatar is a dead giveaway of what I'm talking about.

Jump back to quoted post20 Jul 2014, 15:44 PMcoh2player

These losses were, in addition to mechanical problems, caused by shortages of fuel and supplies. This is not dissimilar to the collapse of Kampfgruppe Peiper in the Ardennes or the collapse of the 2nd Panzer division in front of the Meuse in 1944 where hundreds of AFV were abandoned.

This happened frequently on the eastern front.



The Soviets were 'shocking incompetent' in 1941 but continuously improved until they were the superior ones in operations.

The T-34 was a tank that took 300 labor hours for many factories to build. It was a much cheaper tank than the Sherman, which was already a cost effective tank. The Sherman was a much cheaper tank than the Panzer III. The T-34 was a great tank for its very low cost.


The point of war is to conduct the strategic offensive, not defend until overrun.

Jump back to quoted post20 Jul 2014, 15:47 PMMajorBloodnok

So is the conclusion for Allied general staff thinking as follows:

"We have preponderance of air power. Our battle tanks are not as good as the Axis, but our air power will counter this. We know from Ultra that the Axis tanks have maintenance problems, so the Allied tankers must do the best they can, if we can turn out sufficient replacement tanks?"

I fear that this has to be the conclusion.

Jump back to quoted post20 Jul 2014, 12:25 PMJaigen

The t-34 for that matter is shrouded in shiny myths. take away the shiny myths and look on the numbers you will be horrified. i can write and entire essay why the t-34 is worst tank in ww2 but lets take 1941 where the t-34 supposed to have no equal. Yet of the 2800 t-34's 2200 got knocked out half of them caused by the p3 with its 50 mm gun.