>RoughDoc@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> Hey folks.....let's put the T-34 in perspective.
>
>OK...
>
>> It was the wonder of it's time...and it's value transcended WW II, as it was
>> a formidable tank in the Korean War also.
>
>Disagree... it was a good tank, but not a "wonder". It was crude and
>unreliable in the extreme, but filled a niche which was necessary (to
>the Soviets) at the time. Even in the Korean War, the E8/76 Shermans
>could best it easily, and had a far better record for longevity. To take
>your logical assumption one step farther, the Israelis used modified
>Shermans to great effect as late as 1967, against far superior tanks -
>and T34s were long gone by then.
>
The Russians had the advantage of numbers, space and truly dreadful winters.
>> However....... it was the product of WW II experience on both sides of the
>> battlefield, and had some of the West's best designers helping out.
>
>Could you elaborate with names and sources, please? In WW2, the Soviets
>were notoriously suspicious of everything and everyone from the West,
>
It doesn't fit with US Sherman design chronologically, the T34 was designed in
1937 and in production in 1939. The only design the Russians seem to have been
helped with was the atom bomb using information supplied by Dr. Klaus Fuchs;
but nobody knew at the time.
>
>> Diesel fueled engines added to crew survivability. That was the major
>> concern, not the availability of diesel fuel. Gas engine armored vehicles
>> killed so many from after impact explosions.
>
>Disagree again. When the Soviets requested armour through "Lendlease"
>(we lent, they never leased), they demanded diesel vehicles because of
>their supply trains, not because of a preference for a "better fuel".
>Diesel is indeed much cheaper to produce, and can be handled much more
>roughly, and the engines designed to run diesel don't have to be nearly
>as sophisticated as those designed for gas.
>
Well, gas/petrol doesn't explode unless vaporised, it burns quite quickly;
diesel oil once hot enough to vaporise burns even better and is more difficult
to extinguish.
>The real crux of catastrophic detonation in WW2 tanks was not the fuel
>type, but penetration into the ammunition storage areas; in this the T34
>was every bit as vulnerable as Western tanks.
>
There is unpublished statistical evidence from a doctor who was studying Sherman
crew casualties that suggests a more subtle set of circumstances. It is
apparent that the fire rate of US crewed Shermans was five times higher than UK
crewed tanks even allowing for the disparity of numbers.
American crews were allowed, as customary, far more latitude in equipment
operation whereas British crews operated to the book or faced a disciplinary
charge, bear in mind for instance, the desert gunners found out quite quickly
that the British 3.7" AA gun was a better AT weapon than the 88mm, however, once
authority found out, orders were issued making the mis-use of AA guns a court
martial offence and at one time a written log of individual shell usage and
target was required.
It appears the US crews regularly supplemented the meagre official ammunition
stowage by imaginative placement of extra main gun rounds in all manner of
places. These rounds were invariably ruptured by a hit and its the propellant
that burns instantly followed by the fuel in the intense fire generated. Rounds
in their designed stowage are far less likely to be so ignited.
>We sent them (primarily) Canadian-manufactured diesel Valentines - which
>they subsequently described as the best they got, BTW - and M4A2
>[diesel] Shermans. The latter also saw long service and have been
>vindicated as good vehicles by Russian authors whose works have been
>released since the wall came down.
>
We need to remember the diesel engine was a somewhat new-fangled and often
recalcitrant thing even at the start of W.W.II, in the US especially diesels
were largely ignored and un-developed, the gas/petrol engine reigned supreme and
who cared for efficiency with gas at a few cents a gallon until the Great
Depression of 1930, Caterpillar's first diesel tractor was on sale in 1931 by
which time most of Europe's heavy haulage was diesel powered. The military
would understandably prefer well proven power sources and acceptable, compact,
diesels for tank applications were rare; both sides of the Atlantic were making
"modern" MBT's well after W.W.II with gas/petrol engines.
>The T34 was a stopgap measure which incorporated many concepts which we
>now consider critical in armour development, but it sacrificed much more
>in design and production shortcuts. The Soviets didn't care how many
>they lost, only that more would be available to fill the gaps in their
>formations; the crew survival rate was immaterial. . . . . . . . . . . .
>
Leaving aside all the Russian mechanised items, their inexhaustible resource was
man-power and of absolutely no concern to Joe Stalin. Lets consider W.W.II
Russian mine clearance technology, you take a number of the hordes of imprisoned
petty criminals, minor dissidents and military defaulters and have them march
forward in line abreast with enemy guns to the front and strictly ordered
regular MG units to the rear, when men stop getting blown up the minefield is
cleared, the burden on the prison system is helped and military discipline is
underlined. To Stalin this was an entirely efficient use of resource, so the
design of the Russian tanks ignored any element of crew comfort or
survivability, the tank and crew are considered a single, expendable item.
Richard
(Southampton UK)
===
To unsubscribe from the mil-veh mailing list, send the single word
UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of a message to <mil-veh-request@skylee.com>.