Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!cbnews!military
From: msmiller@gonzoville.East.Sun.COM (Mark Miller - Sun BOS Contractor)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: German had the best weapons (was Re: M4 Tank Info)
Message-ID: <1990Jun4.202506.7091@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 4 Jun 90 20:25:06 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 54
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: msmiller@gonzoville.East.Sun.COM (Mark Miller - Sun BOS Contractor)
In article <16246@cbnews.ATT.COM> you write:
|>
|>
|>From: "Steve Podleski (Sverdrup)" <smpod@csd.lerc.nasa.gov>
|>In article <16134@cbnews.ATT.COM>, military-request@att.att.com (Bill
Thacker) writes...
|>>Were I 
|>>in charge of a WWII army, I'd want the T-34 as my main tank.  With
|>>reliability thrown in, I might opt for an M-4 Sherman.
|>
|>    Where do you get your information that says the T-34 was not a reliable
|>tank when compared to the M-4. I do not have a source in front of me, but
|>from what I've read, with its diesel engine, the T-34 was reliable  (and
|>very maneuverable for it's size and weight.) I would vote for the T-34/85 as
|>the tank of choice for WW II ; it had the best compromise of speed, weight,
|>armour, gun, range, maneuverability, reliability and ease of production.
|>
|>[mod.note:  I can't cite a source, but I've heard that the serviceability
|>of the T-34 was very bad.  Apparently, the transmission was particularly
|>bad, and tended to work itself loose after a hundred kilometers or so of
|>driving, in addition to leaking fluid.  I've also heard that the life of
|>the drive train of a T-34 was relatively short.  In short, I can't provide
|>much concrete evidence of poor reliability, but I've certainly never
|>read anything indicating reliability on par with a Sherman or Panzer IV.
|>	Another important factor we've all ignored so far is ergonimics.
|>The T-34 was cramped and uncomfortable; little internal padding was
|>provided; and only the latest versions provided a 3-man turret.  Turret
|>baskets were not provided, and as nearly all of the main ammo was stored
|>beneath removable floor mats, the fighting compartment was a hazardous
|>place to work during combat.  - Bill ]

On paper, the T34/85 was great. But, as Bill points out, it had some serious
shortcomings from a human-factors standpoint, as it were. As easrly as 1939,
the Germans were proving that the crew of a tank was almost as important as
the tank itself. The Russians didn't really catch on to this, and I don't
know if they have yet. Some of the weird things they put into the T-62 and
so on were pretty dumb and showed they had not learned their lessons from WW2.
Also, one shouldn't confuse the Russian 85mm with a German 88mm. Shell size
ain't the whole show. If memory serves, the Russian gun had a shorter barrel,
worse munitions, and horrid optics. They still had to fight the Germans like
they did in 1941 - get real real close and in big numbers.

On the reliability issue, my impression was that the production standards for
lots of Russian stuff was pretty bad. They prefered quantity to quality. Also
consider that most tank crews were sent into action shortly after they learned
where the escape hatches were (OK - I'm exagerating - but the crew training
was far from Western standards). There isn't much point making the thing
super reliable if it's not expected to last more than 10 minutes in
combat anyway.

	-MSM