Talk:T-34

Factual errors in this article, and one notable omission?

143.167.143.33 (talk) 12:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)The Soviet army was unhappy with the overall layout of the T-34 (later T-34/76) right from the start. The Christie-type (note: NOT Christie, the T-34 could NOT be run on its road wheels) suspension took up excessive internal space, the two-man turret was too cramped and made the tank essentially impossible to fight, the manufacture quality of many of the components varied from excellent to abysmal (for example the radiator). The later T-34/85 introduced a larger three-man turret, but many of the vehicles earlier flaws remained the same. There were several attempts to introduce changes to the basic design, the most notable being the T34M which included a switch to torsion-bar suspension, and the T-43 which introduced heavier armour; however the main impetus was a demand for a larger caliber gun and such programs were terminated.

The one omission I would like to make note of is that surely the T-34 must probably be the most destroyed tank of WW2!

Further I must point out one more error; "Its evolutionary development led directly to the T-54/55 series of tanks, and from there to the T-62, T-72, and T-90 tanks..." is simply not true. The design lineage of the T-34 began with the T-34/76 and ended with the T-34/85. The T-54/55 and T62 trace their ancestry back to the T-34s original replacement, the T-44 which was an entirely new design.

Andy Loates

I must differ with your last point. The T-44 was an obvious follow-on to the T-34-85 and shared quite a few components. The turret design, while 'new', was very close to the T-34-85 turret. The major difference was the transversely-mounted engine (same as the T-34) and transmission, and the torsion-bar suspension, both of which allowed for a lower hull. DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but you are quite wrong. The T44 was a clean-sheet design; yes, it had a similar turret to the T34 but it doesn't mean anything. The M8 armoured car, T17 armoured car, and Medium Tank M3 all had very similar, almost identical turrets for their 37mm gun, but they were in no way related designs. You say "The T-44 was an obvious follow-on to the T-34-85 and shared quite a few components"; I say the early M1 Abrams was the obvious follow-on to the M60A3TTS, and shared similar components, including the main tank gun; does that mean the M1 was based on the M60? Would you say the Chieftain was an evolutionary development of the Centurion? No. They were clean-sheet designs, as was the T44, which was longer, wider, lower, and more powerful than the T34, and was, ironically given the Panthers genesis, designed to defeat this German tank.143.167.143.33 (talk) 13:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Andy L

The T-34-85 and T-44 shared the same main gun, very similar turret, identical engines, and identical road wheels and tracks. The main differences were that the T-44 had torsion-bar suspension and a transversely-mounted engine with a new transmission. Torsion-bar suspension was also the intent on the T-34M so the idea had been around since 1940, but the war suggested, correctly, to the USSR that they should concentrate on producing thousands of pretty-good T-34s rather than switching production and thus suffering much smaller production numbers for a slightly-better T-34M tank. With the luxury of winning the war, they could go back to designing nice new tanks. You're correct that the T-44 was developed to counter the Panther. Nothing 'ironic' about it - what else would you expect the Red Army to do? The notion that it was a wholly-new design is simply contradicted by the facts. It was rejected for mass production precisely *because* it wasn't a big enough leap ahead; it could not carry the desired 100mm gun. Thus the T-54 was developed almost immediately.

The M8 armored car had an open-topped turret that bears virtually no resemblance to the T17 or M3 Lee. Your other comparisions are just that - comparisions - which have nothing to do with this article. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 14:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Seriously? Similar turret, completely new hull (wider, lower) completely new suspension and running gear (given a wider hull, how else?), completely new transmission, similar engine in completely new layout, and you insist this isn't a new design? Your definitions and mine obviously differ somewhat! On the other point, I said 'ironically' because the Panther was designed in response to the T34/76, and the T44 was designed in response to the Panther ("What else would you expect the Red Army to do"? I would expect to do as they were told and take the tank the designers gave them, of course!!). As for the designers, they improved the NEW design of the T44 and came up with the T54, THATS the real reason the T44 didn't last long in production. Further, I include the comment about similarly-shaped turrets to demonstrate the fallacy of some of your arguments trying to justify your opinion the T44 was little more than an improved T34. With Respects, Andy LLoates Jr (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loates Jr (talk • contribs) 14:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Under China it says: "After the formation of the People's Republic of China (the PRC) in 1949, the Soviet Union sent many T-34s and T-34-85s to the PRC's People's Liberation Army (the PLA)." As I understand it the USSR has not sent any T-34/76s to China. Granted, I've got this from http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com and I don't know if this is considered a legitimate source or not but I thought I'd mention it. http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/china/chinese-tanks-1925-1950/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.148.113.168 (talk) 08:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Diesel more difficult to brew up then gasoline?

In the lead is claimed: "Its choice of diesel engine power extended its range, and made it more difficult to brew up when it was hit." without source. Diesel was not more difficul to brew up as gasoline. I don't know were that myth coming from. Check that link: Gas Tanks, Fires, and Explosions Kheynom (talk) 04:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Please wait for other opinions before making edits. A link is not a proxy for a consensual agreement. A blog is not a WP:RS Kheynom. You know that. Simon Irondome (talk) 04:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

In theory Diesel should be a tad harder to ignite than gasoline but once ignited Diesel burns more fiercely than Gasoline. Fuel fumes/vapors are always more dangerous than pure fuel, regardless of the fuel type. I don't think Diesel significantly (or at all) reduced the risk of fire in a tank, only placement and protection of the tanks help here.--Denniss (talk) 11:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

OK. A valid report is not a RS, jajaja. Taged as dubious, such claim is still unverifiable. Kheynom (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Its marked as a blog. You know what RS says about blogs. Irondome (talk) 15:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? The PIPE makes a claim with no source or whatever, but I need a source to remove that xxxx?? Something is wrong here. Kheynom (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

So stick a cite needed tag. And ask where PIPE got the info. There must be RS for it somewhere, or one that says its crap. Either way, if it can't be backed up it should go imo. Irondome (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

No, I remove it, unitl a source it placed. It can not be that one can add unfounded claims and got away scott free, while others have to grapple with it. That's not how it works and you know it Simon. Kheynom (talk) 15:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

There is a lot of unfounded claims creeping in. It happens over time Bogdan, you know we can't be here 24/7, and all eds can get sloppy sometimes. I would like to see a book source either confirming or denying it. Google books. There's probably a million books on there. Irondome (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, thanks for your thoughts on this Simon. Kheynom (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Kheynom's right. If he really thinks this is junk, it should be removed until cited by RS. FWIW, I've seen the claim made, but it appears to be a myth, & it's actually ammo storage that's the bigger cause of the "brew-ups". TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

crap wording thats been there a while

• I think it should be much more sober in tone. "Malignancies"? This is not an article about cancer. annihilation way too dramatic. I propose we reword. Simon Irondome (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the word "Malignancies" sounds wrong placed, but as I recall correctly, the 4th and 6th mechanised corps were completely destroyed. So, the wording "The annihilation of the Soviet tank force" might be chosen correctly. Kheynom (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Cool. I am going to make an edit now, and tell me what you think. Simon Irondome (talk) 19:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Destruction is the same as annihilation so that should be ok. Strategic I think is not the right term. Thats too broad. We are looking for something above tactical but below strategic. Operational fits ok. Also said that the early bugs were not fixed. That ok? Simon Irondome (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I checked Zaloga's book as given in the quote. It appears that its exactly the same as we have it here or had. I don't know, its up to you to decide. Zaloga speaks of "tactical and strategic" skills, and that the older tanks in the corps were in poor shapes aswell next to the new T-34. So I would replaced "affected early model T-34's at that time" with "affected Soviet tanks at that time" Or not? Kheynom (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Made a longer change to reliability of the Sov armour stock that you may like. I think operational is better, because its not a quote, and I think the IP was copying direct from Z. So this avoids too close paraphrasing which would be copyvio. Irondome (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Please, I did not demand such thing, nor do i like it. I meant they were in poor shape because of heavy attrition, not because of poor maintenance. Whatever, I don't know, if you think is correct so, leave it. Kheynom (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• I made the original edit. I would think the reasoning is clear. There was a mixture of unencyclopedic terminology ("malignancy", "infected"), poor scope wording ("annihilation of the Soviet tank force": the tank forces took heavy losses, but were obviously not wiped out completely, even if individual components of that force were), and sloppy terminology ("strategic" is incorrect; the Germans were terrible at strategy, which is why they launched a two-front war and declared war on the US as sugar on top after being beaten the same way the first time around - "operational" is the correct terminology here to refer to the clear German superiority in mass, wide-front combat, as used in modern military writing). The rest was just removing references to other tanks because this is an article on the T-34, not Soviet armour and armoured warfare in general.

Kheynom: do you have any actual problems with the wording besides complaints regarding the IP address (relevant how?) or how long the original material was there for (also irrelevant)? Palindromedairy (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Wait, with "I made the original edit." you put the passage in or was that your edit with the IP:2001:56A:F106:6500:D58D:D2FA:F09C:45E8 Do you have something to hide or why hidding behind multiple IP's? Kheynom (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the original edit with the alphabet soup IP was by me. I used two accounts because I live a double life as a member of SMERSH, which is why I confessed to being both IPs in public as soon as it became troublesome, thus helping pursue my agenda not at all. Now that you have found me out, please watch for the black helicopters that should be arriving at your location shortly.

Or sometimes I'm at school and can't remember my account password, because Firefox saves that crap. Choose whichever explanation you prefer. Palindromedairy (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are allowed to have multiple accounts or even IP's. I think you should be reported, for abusing it. Kheynom (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Good luck with your noble crusade to prevent internet service providers from assigning different IPs to different computers. I shall be on the sidelines, waving a cloth to signify my favour as you tilt with the dreaded Sir Windmill. Palindromedairy (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure, now its the fault of the provider. If you haven't noticed IP 2001:56A:F106:6500:D58D:D2FA:F09C:45E8 is from Kansas, U.S. while you other provided IP on your user profile: IP 94.232.219.141 is from Poland. Nuff said. Kheynom (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I do not live in Kansas, and have not posted from Kansas; I'm not even an American, so i have no idea why that IP reports as being from Kansas (nor do I much care, even if I'm willing to grant you the benefit of the doubt that you managed a proper IP trace). I am currently in Canada. As for Polish edits, I have spent whole summers in Poland on research and language training; the aircraft was invented quite some time ago. Yes, I began editing the T-34 article in Poland. If you are interested in a tiresome digression on the nature of the Polish government in exile during WWII, I can provide that.

I'm still waiting to hear how this increasingly Machiavellian scheme of mine to make tone edits to an article on an obsolete Soviet tank is supposed to play out. Especially the part where my public, uncoerced admission of making edits from two different computers somehow aids in my plans to take advantage of multiple accounts for nefarious purposes. Secret multiple identities don't work when they're not ... secret. Palindromedairy (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• It is two different people Kheynom. IP/Palindromedairy has been a MILHIST member since 2013. All's good. No one is pissing about at least. Irondome (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

That's no excuse, nor an airtight alibi. Palindromedairy said he made this edit with the IP: 2001:56A:F106:6500:D58D:D2FA:F09C:45E8 from Kansas, while on his user page, he's saying the IP 94.232.219.141 belongs also to him. So a provider can not give a IP from Poland and Kansas at same time. He's using some software to hide his IP or somehting like that. Kheynom (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I said yesterday's edit from the crazy-long IP was mine, but you're the one saying it's from Kansas, not me. And as any quick look at the date logs will tell you, the last edit made using the Polish IP was in 2013. Pro-tip: 2013 and 2015 are different years. Palindromedairy (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• For those of you breathlessly following along at home (or perhaps inclined to think Kheynom had a point in his bizarro sockpuppeting charge, or if some random account picks this up again), it turns out that Kheynom was actually a sockpuppet. Palindromedairy (talk) 02:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• Well is everyone happy with it now? Irondome (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Thanks. Palindromedairy (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Lead Editing

I just changed the lead to clean up some recent edits but also to address a couple of creeping scope issues.

In short, I'm trying to keep the article as focused on the T-34 as possible. Multiple times over its life there have crept in various amounts of info on the Red Army's fighting abilities and Soviet production capabilities, which have in turn been enmeshed in descriptions of the tank so that all three become confusingly entangled. For example, I'd like to keep out details of how many were destroyed in the context of how effective a tank it was. Factual statements of production and losses make perfect sense, but attempting to judge the merits of the tank based on its combat performance cannot be done without drawing in the poor doctrine, lousy training, low morale, poor logistics, inexperience at high levels of command etc etc of the force that fielded it. A well-designed tank remains well-designed even if employed by idiots. I've restated the loss details to reflect this approach, merely stating that many were built and many were destroyed by the Germans, without attempting to draw any wider conclusions. The later sections do a good job of addressing concrete shortcomings with specific details that explain how the Germans were able to destroy so many, but of course that level of detail doesn't belong in a lead.

Similarly, I've separated the fact that the tank was constantly modified as the war went on to make it cheaper/easier to build from the fact that the Soviets fielded far more tanks than the Germans. You simply cannot make this kind of conclusion without mixing apples and oranges: Soviet industry was vastly more efficient than German industry in terms of mass production, and then there are the separate issues of lend-lease and the western bombing campaign against German industry, all of which further muddy the waters. In this light, it would be best to avoid much in the way of implication that the design of the T-34 itself was responsible for the fact that the Soviets had more of them than the Germans had other tanks without direct cites to back it up, as it should be obvious that this is but one unquantifiable factor in the much larger story of comparative Soviet/Nazi production. Palindromedairy (talk) 11:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle, a lot of that is OT for the T-34. I'm concerned the simplification creates a misleading impression the tank itself is at fault. It may not be for this page to deal with issues of Red Army doctrine or Sov & German production, but it needs to be dealt with somewhere. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, but I feel the article itself, in the appropriate subsections, already does a fine job of tackling those issues. For example, the Operation Barbarossa section talks about the German discomfort in facing it, the powerful effect it had, and then details why and how so many were destroyed anyways. The T-34/85 section covers the comparing design philosophies of the Germans and Russians as they wrestled over the upgrade question. Palindromedairy (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. (I confess, I haven't read the whole page in awhile, so I'm not confident enough to disagree strongly. :) ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

T-34-85 or T-34/85

The following appears in Archive 6:

T-34-85 or T-34/85[edit] I'd like to suggest that we consistently use one or the other, and not mix both usages in the article. I suggest this mostly for the sake of good style.

Having said that, the Soviet and Russian usage is T-34-85, not T-34/85. This usage has been adopted much more commonly in newer English-language sources than T-34/85. The T-34/85 usage is a bit dated and, I'd guess, probably derived from the German usage of T-34/76 (a designation not generally used by the Soviets or Russians). Since this is a Soviet-era piece of equipment, not German, I suggest we use the Soviet/Russian usage.

Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I prefer T-34/85 for clarity's sake. IMO it doesn't leave questions (or as many, anyhow) about what's referred to. (Maybe informed by hot rodder practise...) I'm not so wedded to it I'd demand it, & I do agree a consistent use is preferable. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 01:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC) Its potentially confusing when you consider the usage "T-54/55" , which refers to the T-54 and T-55 series of tanks, not to a T-54 armed with a 55mm gun ;) DMorpheus2 (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Fair point. We're not doing that on this page, tho, are we? (Are we? ;p ) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 17:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC) The Slash comes from Finnish sources. For example the infantry rifle M/28-30, or submachine gun M/31. 69.60.229.207 (talk) 03:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

We now have the usage "T-34/76" creeping back into the article - a designation that was never used by the Soviets. And of course "T-34/85" is back.

My suggestion from 2013 stands.

Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest T-34-85, except where it's different in a direct quotation, or being explained in the nomenclature section. (Hohum ^@) 21:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Right....recent edits do not follow this however. The usage "T-34/76" should be avoided IMO. DMorpheus2 (talk) 18:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree with T-34-85. This is what Steven Zaloga uses. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Again dealing with folks using "T-34/85" when "T-34-85" is correct and consensus on the talk page. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 16:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Angolan usage too granular

The Angolan Civil War section now seems to be as long as all the other usage sections combined. This seems too much coverage and detail for the base article on the T-34. I have tagged it as such. (Hohum ^@) 03:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

This is largely because the information there is technically combined from two conflicts, the Angolan Civil War and the South African Border War. I could split the section into two separate halves if that's necessary. --Katangais (talk) 03:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

it is interesting as hell but, I agree, it is undue weight in this article. Perhaps an article on its own? DMorpheus2 (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I reduced this further. Again - very very interesting content that clearly could be its own article. But grossly overdone for this article. DMorpheus2 (talk) 00:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

It now appears to be shorter and significantly less detailed than the section on the Korean War. So I think too much content was removed; unless the latter section is also too long and excessively detailed I would've thought reducing it to about the size of that one would've been adequate.

On another note, the removal of all information pertaining to the T-34's use by Cuba, UNITA, and SWAPO is also problematic, as I feel that information should've been moved to separate sections concerning Cuban and non-state actor service, respectively, as opposed to being axed from the article altogether. If there's no objection to that I'll see to that soon. --Katangais (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Why not start a separate article? It's still much too long. E.g., imagine if we had this level of detail on WW2 usage. DMorpheus2 (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Likewise, by that logic the Korean War section is also much too long. Either axe that down to two paragraphs also or leave the Angolan one alone. There is no reason the Korean section is any more significant than that on the Angolan conflict.With respect, I strongly disagree with your edits

Some of the best military history articles on Wikipedia had this level of detail concerning the use of a particular tank, ie M22 Locust. That's what we should be striving for in every article: well-written, detailed, and well-sourced. Now I was more than happy to remove two-thirds of the section concerning the T-34's use in the Angolan Civil War. But cutting it down to five short sentences is, I feel, detrimental to the article at large and goes far beyond trimming excessive fat. --Katangais (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

With respect, I strongly disagree with your edits and urge you again (third or fourth time I think) to create a new, separate article. If you cannot see by now that this is undue weight for a WW2 tank with something like 50,000 examples produced, I don't know what I can write to convince you. The content you have is genuinely interesting and well-sourced. It deserves a separate article. It is much too much for this article. I do not want to edit war, but, please, this is unreasonable. DMorpheus2 (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe that the amount of content is sufficient to justify its own article. Certainly, I do not have as much information or sources on hand as say, German encounter of Soviet T-34 and KV tanks. Perhaps you find this philosophy peculiar, but I do hold any articles I create to very high standards: If I'm not absolutely certain I can do a separate, quality article right, I won't take a chance on it at all. Surely that's not an unreasonable or dogmatic position.

On the topic of undue weight, I will again draw your attention to the section on the Korean War. Do you also perceive that section to be unduly weighty? If so, why has it persisted on this article for so long without attracting scrutiny sooner?

Furthermore, I have purposefully refrained from edit warring (and, in the spirit of Wikipedia, will continue to do so). I have yet to explicitly revert any of your edits, but rather contested them here or suggested a compromise, and I am pleased to note you have done likewise.

Which brings me to the subject of compromise. I feel 5 sentences is much too short for any one section in this article. You feel 19 sentences is much too long. Surely we can meet halfway on this? How about making it an even 12?

Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

An article on 'Postwar Employment of the T-34' would be a good way to restore balance to this article while providing enough content for a very good, interesting article. Such an article could have as much content on various conflicts as sources can support. I want to reiterate this content fascinates me but it is waaaay too much for this article. And FWIW yeah, I think the Korea stuff is a little long too. Thus the suggestion. DMorpheus2 (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

(Driveby edit) I'd suggest more weight to Korea is apt, given its historical significance. As for "too little material for a page", have you seen how stubby some are? Start it & let those who may know (or want) more add it. Better that than just delete. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

After giving it a great deal of thought, I think the idea of an article concerning all postwar deployments of the T-34 (as opposed to merely say, Angola or Korea) is actually not a bad idea. That would have enough material and references to make a complete, quality page capable of standing on its own. I'll probably start work on a draft of one in my userspace soon. --Katangais (talk) 18:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Great. I'm happy to help you out if you want. DMorpheus2 (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on T-34. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://litl-bro.livejournal.com/1700.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050219094927/http://www.wsowp.poznan.pl/muzeum/pages/eksponat12.htm to http://www.wsowp.poznan.pl/muzeum/pages/eksponat12.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Armour section described almost exclusively from German and American point of view.

The armour section uses sources such as the Pantherfibel and Aberdeen trials. Which is fine if they are balanced and contributing to a larger picture. However they are not. The Aberdeen trial only shows 2 examples of war-weary T-34 1941 version tanks. That is not representative of all tanks of that batch, and it is certainly not representative of all the different models. Again, it is unknown exactly what the German Pantherfibel is based on, though probably they also had some tests of their own which I do not know off.

If no sources for the T-34 armour which describes the different models, and their technical data based on a larger sample size than 2 can be found, at least it should be mentioned that this is the case. Currently, this section reads as if the Aberdeen tests are authoritative of all T-34s when that is not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlGGHamilton (talk • contribs) 09:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The article already clearly says what the Aberdeen tests were based on.

"The USSR donated two combat-used Model 1941 T-34s to the United States for testing purposes in late 1942.[45]The examinations, performed at the Aberdeen Proving Ground..."

(Hohum ^@) 11:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I put those notations in because it was all that I could find. Instead of bitching and pointing fingers how about something new and do some reseach yourself! If you can't be bothered then shut up.Tirronan (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Economics?

Our article currently says:

Over two years, the unit production cost of the T-34 was reduced from 269,500 rubles in 1941, to 193,000, and then to 135,000. This was achieved by underpaying & overworking all the factory workers. Through this time, the workers were treated as little more than slaves.[37] At the same time, its production time was cut in half by the end of 1942, [...]

Not that I doubt that workers were treated badly, but if production time and complexity of assembly were also reduced, it is a bit strange to ascribe the reduction in cost to "underpaying & overworking" - that would suggest that these issues developed from 1941 to 1943 and were the only, or at least dominant, factor in that cost reduction. I would also be a bit reluctant on using a cold-war era military publisher for such a claim. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

-- Ah, I'm glad someone else noticed this. I checked out the page referenced in citation [37b] - it has the statement about the cost being reduced pretty much 1:1 to how it appears in this article, but the other claims in this paragraph are not present. I moved the citation to the correct sentence and added 'citation needed' thingies to the other lines, since I truly can't figure out where this information is coming from. ---173.251.90.109 (talk) 10:44, 10 October 2018

ENGVAR

Per this old revision, the article was written in British English. --John (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Peter Samsonov's claims of inaccuracies in this article

Peter Samsonov author of Designing the T-34: Genesis of the Revolutionary Soviet Tank, claims there are a number of innaccuries in this article. He talks specifically about 3 in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhPgw6X8ubE

I don't think that would be enough for me to make changes in the article, I don't own and haven't read his book, I'm not sure if a Youtube video would be considered a reliable source, and there are citations for the claims in the article, so I figured I'd just put this in the talk page rather than editing the article itself based on the video.

twfowler (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it's best to wait until people have a copy of the book in hand. The video states that the book uses direct primary sourcing, so it sounds as though it would be reliable. At the same time, Amazon does not have it listed for release until 4 March 2020, and a review of the book by a reputable source would be nice as well (though not formally necessary), which would take even more time. Palindromedairy (talk) 06:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Well we have a review https://reviews.ipmsusa.org/review/designing-t-34-genesis-revolutionary-soviet-tank .There should also be one from Midwest Book Review but I can't find it.©Geni (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I have the book. On the topic of who came up with the A-32 design and its name, at page 23 is says that the A-20 (tracked) (later renamed to A-32 according to page 25) was not developed by Bureau #24 (Koshkin) on their own accord, as the NKOP explicitly ordered the development of a tracked tank on August 21, 1938. Page 67 discusses the L-11, F-32 and F-34 guns. MaxRavenclaw (talk) 09:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

"Its 76.2 mm (3 in) high-velocity tank gun..."

I'm making this a talk thing because I know someone is just going to revert my changes if I go ahead and edit it.

While the 76.2 mm gun on the T-34 was no howitzer, it was also by no means a "high velocity tank gun"... it was more of a medium-velocity dual-use gun like the similarly-calibered 75 mm US and British guns. The two different 75 mm guns on the Panzer IV and Panther, as well as the two different US three inch guns and the British 17 pounder of similar caliber to the 3 inch gun on the T-34 all fired shells at FAR higher velocities. This quote needs fixing.2601:245:C101:9C70:A59E:5B97:996E:21D2 (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

We need to define 'high velocity' and what sources suggest that this actually is. The PaK 40 muzzle velocity gives 2500-2700 FPS, and the 88mm data gives 2690 FPS. The early T-34 F-34 tank gun gives 2200 FPS. the later ZiS-S-53 gives 2598 FPS. The M4 75mm gun M2-M6 had 2031 FPS performance, while the Ordnance QF 75 mm had a 2000 FPS muzzle velocity. It would seem that even the earliest Soviet armament was the best of the Allied tank guns, which were in majority use till at least mid 1944. I suspect it's current definition is around 2500 FPS but from cursory google searches this definition seems to be for handgun ammunition and wound ballistics. I would suggest that for 1940 a large calibre round such as a 75-76.2mm at 2200 FPS was high velocity. Simon Adler (talk) 04:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I think 2500 FPS makes sense, as the two 75 mm guns and the T-34's 76 mm guns are more "medium velocity", while guns like the 17 pounder, the gun on the Panther, and the US 76 mm tank guns are "high velocity". As for the 75s on the Panzer IV, the earlier ones are basically howitzers and thus low-velocity, while the ones on later models are more of medium-high hybrid.2601:245:C101:9C70:1819:F007:3DA5:435E (talk) 04:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Can we start citing sources for these comparisons? Because simply asserting your viewpoint carries no leverage with it. Binksternet (talk) 04:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Binksternet Hi Binks, long time no speak. I am using WP sources here from already existing articles, which all appear stable. I wanted to generate a quick discussion which seems to be in progress. I reverted myself so as not to start a dumb edit war and our IP colleague is participating. Sources for what 'high velocity' actually means are quite elusive in the context of this discussion. I can give a source for the handgun figure if required. I will add the sources for the WP article - generated figures. Thanks Simon Adler (talk) 04:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC) A.K.A. the former Irondome.

Yemen Civil War

I don't know what's a good source for this, but the T-34 is still being used currently in the Yemeni Civil War, isn't it? That would make the Yemeni Civil War the most recent conflict to still use them. Fephisto (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Russia-Ukraine war of 2022

Does this count as use in a conflict? https://en.defence-ua.com/news/russians_already_use_t_34_though_not_the_way_expected_video-3540.html // Liftarn (talk) Liftarn (talk) 09:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Definitely not, that's ridiculous. I removed the mention. ansh.666 23:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

What about this? https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-soviet-memorial-tank/25412840.html // Liftarn (talk) 08:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

That's an IS-3, not a T-34. --Katangais (talk) 01:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah, my bad. I was thinking of this. http://ftr.wot-news.com/2015/02/10/separatists-press-another-monument-into-service/ and https://archive.kyivpost.com/article/content/war-against-ukraine/donetsk-separatists-seizes-museum-tanks-guns-354991.html // Liftarn (talk) 10:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

No it's not being used in the conflict I think. It was just the Lysychansk T-34 monument's tank that was brought down. Can be identified with the red star and the number "227". http://wikimapia.org/22191580/T-34-85-tank-on-a-plinth#/photo/3663997 AyazKader (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Spare transmission

I've recently come to believe that the notion T-34s went into battle with a spare transmission is a myth. The first time I seriously began questioning it was when I read the Errata for Pulham and Kerrs' T-34 Shock. It brings some good point: "Reinterpretation of evidence: We refer to the well-photographed T-34 (L-11 Gun) abandoned in Lvov/Lviv, western Ukrainian SSR, of which two photographs can be found on page 107. However, we are inclined to agree that a more plausible reason for carrying the transmission on the back of the tank was the evacuation of a valuable spare part as concluded by Christian Mulsow in ‘The First T-34 Birth of a Legend : T-34 Model 1940’ (Erlangen: Tankograd, 2019), p. 121, because it was, indeed, a complicated job to replace the transmission." I've looked and there don't seem to be any other pictures of T-34s carrying transmissions anywhere. I suspect this will be a pain to recognise as a myth, though, since there's a ton of literature that repeated it, but hopefully we can get ahead of the curve on this page. Thoughts? MaxRavenclaw (talk) 08:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

OK, given nobody seems to care or object, I'll edit the part about 'spare' transmissions. MaxRavenclaw (talk) 14:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

General Reliability Quote

An edit I made removing content from this article was reverted so I'm going to "repropose" my edit. The edit was the removal of the final 4 sentences of the General Reliablity section due to it being sourced from a CIA document. In general you can't just quote a CIA document directly as these are primary sources that have to be handled with care. To directly quote from it without the use of any secondary source in this case has most likely led to the source being misused. Originalcola (talk) 04:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to take the lack of response as implicit support for my edit due to a lack of response after 2 weeks. Originalcola (talk) 04:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The reason my edit was reverted initially was due to a lack of cause given so this explanation is probably sufficient. Originalcola (talk) 04:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Russia as a T-34 operator

Not touching on anything that may or may not occur with current the conflict in Ukraine, shouldn't Russia still be considered a ceremonial operator of the T-34? Given that the mobile column of the Moscow victory day parade contains the tank. 2601:600:C701:2E70:3020:23F1:DC24:AAA2 (talk) 06:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

"Operator" means use as a regular piece of weaponry by the Armed Forces. Use in ceremonies alone does not mean that a country "operates" the tank since tanks used in such circumstances do not have to be combat-ready or -able. Regards SoWhy 08:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Infobox dispute

@199.7.157.86: Your addition to the infobox has now been reverted by three separate users (four, if we include the same edit to T-64), making it quite clear that consensus is against your change. As you are making the change, it is your responsibility to use the talk page to get consensus for your edits, not the other way around. Loafiewa (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Lead - soapboxy?

"one of the best tank designs in World War II; its excellent performance is one of the factors leading to Soviet success in defending against invasion by Nazi Germany."

This doesn't really seem to be a summary of what said in the article, which says "the Soviet corps equipped with these new tanks lost most of them within weeks".

It may be truer to say it's upgraded version, the T-34-85 helped win against Germany once the tide turned, though. (Hohum ^@) 18:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Losing tanks within a few weeks could be the recipe for surviving an onslaught without panic and rout. Just sayin'.

In any case, I was trying to convey to the reader that this tank was very, very significant. If you have suggestions for how that sentiment could be improved I would be satisfied. Before my addition, the first sentence was blasé and underwhelming. Let's keep the reader interest level up without sacrificing accuracy.

Plenty of authors have called this tank revolutionary,[1] legendary,[2][3][4] greatest,[5] most influential,[6] a war-winning,[7] etc. I was summarizing that line of thought. Binksternet (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The lead needs to summarize the article, not potential content that isn't in the article. (Hohum ^@) 20:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's right, the letter of the law should be wielded to make the lead section less representative of the topic literature in general. Binksternet (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

"Legendary" or "influential" don't actually mean "one of the best", like "legendary" simply means famous, which makes sense considering that it formed the backbone of Soviet armoured forces for most of the war. "Best" is also highly vague, it can mean best design, or best in actual performance, or best bang-for-buck. We generally don't have that kind of vague statements in leads of military equipment articles, objective facts (main Soviet tank during majority of Eastern Front, most produced tank of the WW II, influential design etc.) are simply more encyclopedic.--Staberinde (talk) 10:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

"letter of the law" ? It's a core principle of wikipedia to not include things which aren't sourced. Especially, the lead shouldn't summarize non existent content. (Hohum ^@) 16:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Let's ignore for now whatever notional sources that have not yet been cited in the article. Let's focus on the text I added to the first sentence. What part of "one of the best tank designs in World War II; its excellent performance is one of the factors leading to Soviet success in defending against invasion by Nazi Germany" is not supported by the sources already cited in this article? Binksternet (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

All of it. And lets not ignore the lack of sources, since that's the main problem. (Hohum ^@) 16:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

German Reaction to the T34

I may not be a professional in this, but German generals praising the tank, when literally 50% of all T-34s did not make through WW2, were all deployed in the eastern front. This feels like those German generals were trying to say "We didn't fail strategically and tactically, they had superior tanks, like the T-34!". This probably should be mentioned in the article. 93.105.177.2 (talk) 20:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Annealing of steel at extreme temperatures.

I feel like it should be mentioned that the steel for the T-34 was annealed at 600 degrees celsius, which led to the steel being hard, but incredibly brittle. It is seen that the tank "cracks" in most photos. 95.160.158.208 (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Aberdeen Proving Grounds source doesn't meet any reasonable standards

The purported results of the examination of the T-34 by American engineers at the the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in 1943 is heavily cited in the current article - at least 6 direct citations by my count.

The trouble is that this source doesn't meeting any reasonable standards of relevance, accuracy, consistency, or reliability. It's also

Let's take this step by step:

1. Relevance - the sample size for this apparent analysis is a grand total of two tanks. Is this really the best available source to discuss the pros and cons of one of the most prolific tanks in history? Especially given the wide variability in production methods and approaches in the early models, weighing this source to this extent is questionable. Even if it had no other faults - and oh boy, does it have faults.

2. "Accuracy"

Optics - according to the source, the American engineers felt that the Model 1941 T-34 had the best optics of any tank fielded or in development.

Quote: "Optic - The general opinion: the best construction in the world. Incomparable with any existing tanks or any under development."

That sentence alone should cause anyone with actually knowledge of tanks throw the whole thing into the bin and light it on fire. For Pete's sake, the very wiki article itself points out several times that the optics of the T-34 were of mediocre quality at best.

Air filters - apparently, the Americans (in 1943) felt that the "Pomon" filters used in the Model 1941 T-34 didn't do anything. They recommended this terrible deficiency be fixed - and General Khlopov took this recommendation seriously enough to put it into his alleged report. The current article implies that this even had some practical impact - as the air filters were replaced with newly designed ones on the Model 1943.

The trouble is that the Model 1943 T-34 with the upgraded "Cyclone" filters started production in May of 1942 - roughly a year prior the American "evaluation." Now, perhaps the American engineers were not aware of this - they can't be blamed, they were evaluating the tanks in front of them. But why in the world did the very non-American General Khlopov feel it was necessary to put this down as a recommendation in his "report?" Not just any recommendation - this thing that had been done a year prior needed to be done "quickly!"

3. Consistency

Was the armor of the T-34 Model 1941 too soft or too hard? Because General Khlopov's report of the Aberdeen findings is very clear that the armor is too soft, and that's bad.

However, the Review of Soviet Ordnance Metallurgy document also cited by the wiki article, and also referring to the very tanks at Aberdeen definitively calls out the armor as being extremely hard relative to American approaches.

Quote: "The armor components of the T-34 tank, with the exception of the bow casting which was unheat-treated, were heat-treated to very high hardnesses (430-500 Brinell), probably in an attempt to secure maximum resistance to penetration by certain classes of armor-piercing projectiles even at the expense of structural integrity under ballistic attack. The armor components of the KV-1 heavy tank were heat-treated to hardnesses more nearly approaching American practice (280-320 Brinell)"

While on the topic of consistency, I'll note with interest that the unambiguously glowing characterization of the T-34's optics as "the best in the world" did not seem interesting enough to include in the current wiki article. If the source is good - why only pull in the information that negatively reflects on the machine?

4. Reliability - we're not looking at the report of the engineers from Aberdeen. We're not looking at an official summary of that report. We're looking - allegedly - at the translation of a transcription of report of the General Khlopov on the in-progress trials. Despite some determined searching in Russian and English sources - I have not been able to find a trace of the original document from Khlopov - only this transcriptions, copied endlessly from blog-post to blog-post.

Summary - this source is not fit to cite on this page. I recommend any associated paragraphs and statements be reviewed and either removed or supported with solid information. Theotherotherone (talk) 05:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

For point 1; I know the Aberdeen tests were very important in the western cannon, when the cold war started it was very hard to get Soviet vehicles, thus if I'm to guess, most reliable English sources probably relied heavily on Aberdeen.

On the optics, I don't know, I tried to quickly find Aberdeen and see the reasoning given by the engineers, but alas I couldn't. However I will note the exact quote taken from here "the gun sights are the best in the world. Incomparable to any currently known worldwide or currently developed in America". Thus they're not arguing about quality per say, their may be a million reasons as to why the sights are the best in the world, reasons as simple as its crude production allows for cheaper production.

As to using Aberdeen, I agree with you that it probably shouldn't be used too much, we should use reliable historians that cite Aberdeen themselves. This however would take tremendous amount of work to get a similar result to the current article. Thus its probably (?) fine the way it is.

For the air filters, I think your changes are good, if you want to make more edits like that one I encourage you to be bold do it.

Bradiation (talk) 10:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Zaloga source

For the undo:

He was spreading myths with this statement. German tanks were no more complex than the others, apart from the running gear. The Germans did improve their war industry, see the Panther cost as much as a Panzer IV. And this is the best.....as an ACADEMIC historian he is missing 2 important things: One: Germans were bombed to smithereens by 1944, production declined. NOT because of tank design. Second: the Soviets built more factories and BIGGER factories: production increased. The cost of a T-34 in 1945 was not much less than that of a Panther.

Szolnok95 (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Cite your sources. A YouTube video is not a credible source. --Katangais (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

What I told you, you can find ALL of them on the wikipedia.

Unit cost:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_tank

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_IV

Bombing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II

Factories:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Soviet_tank_factories Szolnok95 (talk) 16:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:CIRCULAR (Hohum ^@) 17:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Contradiction. Szolnok95 (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Everything I've written is accepted as a source on Wikipedia, but I can't cite it?

What kind of joke is this?

Should I look it up?

Because, is that the only way it's authoritative? Szolnok95 (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Pz IV cost:

~103,462 ℛ︁ℳ︁ (~490,000 USD)

~115,962 ℛ︁ℳ︁ With 7.5 cm KwK 40 (L/43) (~550,000 USD)

USD equivalents as of 2000

Source:

Zetterling, Niklas (2000). Kursk 1943: A Statistical Analysis. London: Frank Cass. p. 61

Panther cost:

117,100 ℛ︁ℳ︁ (without weapons, optics, or radio)

143,912 ℛ︁ℳ︁ (combat ready)

2,000 Man hours

Source:

Zaloga 2015, Armored Champion p.

Walter J Spielberger 1993, Panther & Its Variants p. 232.

Bombing:

Should I really bother it? It's a fact.

Soviet factories:

Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant in other name: Stalin Tractor Factory or Tankograd had ALONE 60.000 worker in 1944.

Compare it to the MAN what's produced the MOST Panthers in WW2, had 3.383 workers in 1944. Szolnok95 (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I can't find a coherent point or a concrete edit suggestion here. (Hohum ^@) 18:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you deliberately refusing to understand what I write? Szolnok95 (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, German tanks were more complex than others. This is a well-known claim if we compare something like the profile cutting of T-34 armour, or the complexity of the German track pin design. But the point is that Germany started out complex, stayed complex, and let their production rate suffer, rather than compromise sophistication and the intended quality. So their quality stays high, then production suffers (lots of queued up tanks outside factories, all with the same critical component missing) and finally they stop getting anything useful to the front. German optics kept specifying the same glass alloys, even when the rare earths were no longer available. The British compromised, lost some low-light performance, but kept good sights appearing. The Russians filed notches in the empty mounts and hoped. We all know about German large-size gear cutting for final drives in 1945.

The British, for once, got this right. They listened to the Americans (because they had to) and eventually made some decent tanks. The only country where build quality improved through the war (although dwarfed by the huge leaps in design quality).

Figures of notional production costs are nonsense for Germany, where there was no currency, and frequently no roof on the factory either.

Zaloga is unimpeachable on WP, but although prolific as a writer he's primarily a historian and military tactician. He's not an engineer. If you're looking for real insights in your reading, go to Ogorkiewicz instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Add Ukraine invasion?

There is some evidence that it's still being used in Ukraine, should we add it to the list of wars?

https://x.com/IAPonomarenko/status/1850078806796550514 The nuts (talk) 12:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, an unverifiable video on social media isn't a source. Secondly, the tank is on a training ground in Russia, not in combat operations in Ukraine. Thirdly, Russian military units (including training schools) occasionally have tanks of similar vintage which they use in parades or for public displays, not as part of their active inventory. --Katangais (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

North korea appears to have used at least one as a target but probably not significant enough for this article.©Geni (talk) 04:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)