Comments by "Horatio82" (@horatio8213) on "TANKS! What makes a good tank? And more... | TIK Q&A 13" video.

  1.  @RussianThunderrr  Really, that why Soviet Guard Tank units prefer Sherman over T-34.
    3
  2.  @FairladyS130  You maybe watch other video. Because he gives examples of Arrcourt and Normandy, Italy and others.
    3
  3.  @dernwine  No i'm not suprised. This myth is so popular. People forget that every tank that get armor penetration is going to burn.
    2
  4.  @frankwhite3406  I simply missunderstod what you mean by newer turret in Panther G. Sorey for my mistqke :)
    2
  5.  @michaelwier1222  False... you didn't even check sources.
    1
  6.  @RussianThunderrr  Most fighting was done by man with rifle and artillery, tanks and planes still do much but not that much alone. Big numbers of T-34 starts showing into 2nd half of 1942, before that this tank didn't do so much in war effort. Before that T-60 was the most common tank of Red Army. Peak of efficency was done in 1943, later only big numbers give that tank significant. "Well, hmmbeef, there is a good reason why Soviets experimented with additional frontal armor on earlier T-34 tanks, but decided that it would be a lot more prudent to increase caliber of the main gun to the size of Tiger I, which will enhance not only its fighting capability of fighting other tanks, but also infantry support(Tiger I was excellent infantry support tank, while Tiger II was more of the tank destroyer), while remaining the most agile tank on the battlefield, turret armor also increased in T-34-85 where it matter." Soviets make huge mistake when they put that big hatch for driver in frontal armor! Sherman armor didn't have this weakness. First that was big target for AT guns( even 50 mm Pak 38 could penetrate or just shatter this hatch), second that mean armor is much more weaker because this big hole in plate. Next,original 2 man turret was dissaster, changed later into T34/85. Yes T-34/85 was good tank but still not that good in many ways like Sherman with 76mm. T-34 was so problematic that in 1941 Soviets made decision to skip it to modernisation called T-34M (A43). Basicly T-34 with few conceptions taken from tested in this time Panzer III. Much better tank in 1944/1945 for Red Army was IS-2 (probaly version with 100mm gun was much better option but they decide to 122mm), T-34 was produced because putting any new tank into soviet industry will take too much time, that's why they produce what they can. Also when Tiger II was tested in Kubinka soviet trails conclude that in comparisoin, AT ammunition of 75mm and 76mm of shermans was better in ratio 1.5 to soviet 76.2mm and 85mm (look on documents from trails). I think you downplay Cheiftan video, because he shown reasons why Sherman was such a good weapon. In any aspect Sherman was worse then T-34, if you take overall quality of production and reabilty T-34 was lesser evile for Soviets. Because A43 was much better tank, in some way T-44 can appear in early 1944 as a evolution of it. But Stalin decide othervise, becuse he didn't belive in option of creating new good quality tank before 1944.
    1
  7.  @RussianThunderrr  I'm refering to that you claim that Soviets weren't in any way impressed by Shermans when they compare to T-34. You really stand on claim that T-34 had better armor? If you take only turret in T-34/85 that is true. Frontal armor of Shermans didn't had big hole for hatch. Side plate of T-34 didn't in any way protect better than armor of Sherman and that way take lot of internal space. That way after WW2 noone use that design, even Soviets. Bigger hull give more space for crew and equipment. Better radio set in Shermans, T-34 for long time have problem with having any radio. Low quality of war production T-34 was legendary, basicly after WW2 USSR start general modernisation and repairs of T-34. Many times you need hammer to use gearbox in T-34. Falling rubber bandages were also problem in T-34, not only in M4. Yes Sherman wasn't perfect tank but was in bigger picture better and more modern tank then T-34. About difference in size: https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-cUTT98A0jQ4/V-CHYv5fVLI/AAAAAAAB3RI/XQ85Q-4bECIjXvwGJVUrqON0-aE_TZftwCLcB/s1600/Sherman_tank_worldwartwo.filminspector.com_6.jpg I saw both tanks standing near to eachother. In reality only hull of T-34 is lower but whole tank is similar in size to Sherman. Big thing you just don't speak is that Sherman and T-34 armor didn't protected against germans guns 7.5 or 8.8cm. That why M26 and IS series were developed.
    1
  8.  @RussianThunderrr  That is simple to anwser. In 1941 T-34 was in low numbers in Red Army (subjective because RA use in this time around 26000 tanks) and most of them were lost. After Barbarossa and evacuation of industry and blockade of Leningrad, soviet industry didn't produce large numbers of T-34. Just in 2nd half of 1942 production was set and start fast rise to large numbers. That mean that to this time most fighting was done by other models and T-60 was most produced model in this time. Easy to check.
    1
  9.  @RussianThunderrr  Just check history of development A43. And history of development of T-34 is well documented, later in war production and modernisation is problematic to folow. In case of A43, that was final product of early development of T-34. That was tank with 3 man turret, turret with coupola, torsion bar suspension. And lot of other changes taken from test with Panzer III vs early T-34 done before Barbarossa. If you look on T-50 development you can see how this trails influence soviet design before Barbarossa. T-34, T-50 and KW were new "triplex" for Red Army. If you look on specification of IS it was more like Panther, weight, protection, mobility, only arrament was unusual. But in many ways IS was rathee medium or even MBT in conception. Traditional doctrine of nameing tanks was problematic for tanks like Panther, IS and M26. This three were point of road to MBT. In this term Panther also should be named as a hevy tank.
    1
  10.  @RussianThunderrr  Yes T-34 was important tank, but before 2nd part of 1942 didn't put on front that many tanks. In numbers Lend Lease tanks, ealier soviet models and T-60 were main force in RKKA. Later when production in mew fqctories on Ural starts beeing significant T-34 start replecing this mix. Earlier low production and high lossew keep this number very low. T-34 star to beeing main tank into 1942/1943. Charkov was lost in first month of war and productiom have to be set in different places. Later problems with war losess and production push to production T-60, not T-34.
    1
  11.  @RussianThunderrr  But also Leningrad was important in cooperation chain to whole soviet tank production. Not only KW.
    1
  12.  @RussianThunderrr  Two man turret was problematic in many ways. Not only as a gun mout. First commander didn't have good vision, second he have to operate gun, command and try do all other important stuff in the same time. That why A43 get new turret. M4 from start was with 5 man crew and 3 man turret. Early models were wothout coupola but that change fast. Next thing is that Sherman hull give much more space than hull of T-34. Cost of sloped side armor.
    1
  13.  @RussianThunderrr  Frontal armor of T-34 had big hole (driver hatch), that mean that all advantages of sloped armore was nullified. You cant cut plate whitout make it weaker. In case of side armor, sloppeing even 45 mm plate didn't protect better against guns up from 50mm. That was effective against 3.7 cm, nothing more. Panther with similar plate was underprotected there.
    1
  14.  @RussianThunderrr  Have you ever been inside both tanks? In Sherman you have space to work and operate. Inside of T-34 you have not that much space left after you out ammo. Just proper work space in T-34 was luxury that crew never get. This is typical for soviet tank design school. That is why soviet tanks were smaller then western designs. Not mention how fast in T-34 crew have to open hatches to ventilate tank. About slopped armor, Germans didnt use it because of transmition they use in their tanks and problems with space. They change attitiude after they saw T-34 in action.
    1
  15.  @RussianThunderrr  Look maybe you will understand my point when i say that T-34 in 1940/1941 was as a design one of best tank in the world. But still not the best. When I wrote about it I compare to contemporary designs. Soviets in 1941 tested Panzer III vs T-34. After test only in two points Pz III was worse then T-34. Armor protection and gun. That why deep modernization A43 was planned. But Barbarossa make it impossiable. Sherman was later design, which take at count many things that designers of T-34 didn't know earlier. Frontal slopped armor wasn't so much new concept. But slopped sides were mistake. That way you lose much of internal volume of space whithout any significant change in armor protection. Side plate are to thin to make the difference.
    1
  16.  @RussianThunderrr  1. All claim about "better range, a lot faster and more maneuverable tank" are based on catalouge values of T-34, not real life perfomance. Faulty transmition, weak gearbox cause that war production T-34/76 never get close to speed and maneverabilty that was possiable with W2 engine. Reality was that soviet production standards make T-34 unreliable as a vehicle. You can't finde it in soviet books because of censorship, after 1991 we can check that in soviet war documents and that was a shock for T-34 fanboys. 2) Poor communication inside and outside. Each M4 get radio and internal communication. That was key in cooperation on battlefield! T-34 have no communication for whole crew, you just use own voice. Radio only in 20% of tanks! 3) 5 crewmembers can work much more effective, than 4 in T-34.They spot enemy faster, fire ratio is much higher and coordinatin thanks to communication advantage was in Sherman on higher level. 4) Both tanks ( M4A2 vs T-34/76 model 1942) frontal armor was around 90mm effectivnes (slope and relative thickness, quality of steel), but in T-34 you have huge hole with driver hatch. No such weakness in Sherman. Then which plate is better? I'm sure that M4 is in advantage here. Side plates, yes T-34 with slope armore have some advantage. But in reality guns like Pak 38 5cm and Pak 40/ Kwk40 7.5 cm didn't have any problems with penetration. Reality is that M4 and T-34 side plates were match for 37mm guns,even Panther have this problem with it's 40,, side plates. 5) Main guns were tested by Red Army and conclusion was that M3 75mm is better as a AT gun than F32 gun from T-34 in ratio 1.5 to 1. Check raport from Kubinka about fire test against Tiger II. 6)Here you will get information about trails between T-34 and Panzer III. Conclusion is up to you. "[....] летом 1940 года над Т-34 начали сгущаться тучи. Дело в том, что на полигон в Кубинку поступили два танка Pz-III Ausf.G, купленные в Германии после подписания пакта о ненападении. Результаты сравнительных испытаний немецкого танка и Т-34 оказались неутешительными для советской боевой машины. Т-34 превосходил «тройку» по вооружению и броневой защите, уступая по ряду других показателей. Pz-III имел трехместную башню, в которой были достаточно комфортные условия для боевой работы членов экипажа. Командир имел удобную башенку, обеспечивавшую ему прекрасный обзор, у всех членов экипажа имелись собственные приборы внутренней связи. В башне же Т-34 с трудом размещались два танкиста, один из которых выполнял функции не только наводчика, но и командира танка, а в ряде случаев и командира подразделения. Внутренней связью обеспечивались только два члена экипажа из четырех — командир танка и механик-водитель. Немецкая машина превзошла Т-34 и по плавности хода, она оказалась и менее шумной — при максимальной скорости движения Pz-III было слышно за 150 — 200 м, а Т-34 — за 450–500 м. Полной неожиданностью для наших военных явилось и превосходство «немца» в скорости. На гравийном шоссе Кубинка-Репище Pz-III разогнался на мерном километре до скорости 69,7 км/ч, в то время как лучший показатель для Т-34 составил 48,2 км/ч. Выделенный же в качестве эталона БТ-7 на колесах развил только 68,1 км/ч. В отчете об испытаниях отмечались и более удачная подвеска немецкого танка, высокое качество оптических приборов, удобное размещение боекомплекта и радиостанции, надежные двигатель и трансмиссия." Source: http://www.battlefield.ru/t34/stranitsa-4-razvitie-t-34.html That was reason why A43 /T-34M was designed. Whole problem with T-34 is that on paper is a great tank. But in reality quality production, bad layout, crew coordination inside and other problems cause that from good design you get weak and less effective tank.
    1
  17.  @nks406  "As for early shermans, they had cast hulls and gigantic "shoot me here" bulges for the driver and the radio operator, and they also lacked a turret hatch for the loader, not a very impressive design if you also consider that the manufacturing process for the sherman was much more expensive than for the T-34 which is a very similar tank in overall capabilities. " "Weak hull" as you named it, when both welded and casted hulls were similar in protection, casted were just thicker to compansate to welded. Hatches were on top of hull in any way making frontal armor weaker. In T-34 that was huge hatch in front plate. That make it less effective than any Sherman's. There is no way to make plate whit big hole as much tough like full plate. Also in any way Sherman was more expensive than T-34. You can't just claim that from air. Cost is based on numbers, workforce and material cost. If that was so expensive why was build in such large numbers like T-34? http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/data/sherman_production.html In comparison you have T-34 numbers. Not that impessive if you know whole picture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_combat_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II. "As for petrol, it is in fact a weakness especially when compared to the less flammable diesel which is harder to ignite. There is a reason why many cold war era tanks with diesel fuel had conforming ammo racks filled up with diesel effectively creating wetracks. " Reason why diesel is dominating is not because it is "is harder to ignite", because that is not true. Temperatures and surrounding elements in tank cause fire whatever iquid fuel you use. First lubricants start fire, do soviet diesel use other "fire resistant" lubricants? Next you have high temperature shell hitting hot surfaces of engine and fuel, enough ro ignate even diesel. You really don't know nothing about how fire starts in tank after hit. Plus statistic of destroyed tanks do not support your claim. Most of them were burned, but Shermans wasn't in any way worse in that T-34. M4A2 burn the same like T-34, both use diesel. Ammo storage and lubricants was main cause of fire, not gas or oil. "As for wet ammo stowage, they came a bit late to be really relevant, although if the ammunition didnt detonate from a direct hit, it could give a real chance for the crew to escape." That was point of using them, protecting life of crew members. Also this modification was use from February 1944 and was easy to implement in line tanks. That was important because most fighting Sherman did in West Europe into 1944/1945 and that modification did good job. Then not much irrrelevant as you claim.Easier is replace tank than crewman. Different than in USSR, where life of soldier didn't have value for commanders.
    1
  18.  @RussianThunderrr  Ok, let me give you few example of tanks with spoled armor build before T-34: FCM36 Souma S35 Christie prototypes in USA Char B1bis M2 medium tanks That is evidence that sloped armor is well konw conception before T-34. In realty that conception was taken from naval warfer. Nothing revolutinary in that. M4 for all production time keep high standards of quality and field usage. No big mechanic problems there.T-34 before T34/85 model was unreliable mechanically because of soviet standars in industry and maitance. Even in T-34/85 gearbox was weakest part of tank.That was first change in post-war modification. You really try to spin facts. I wrote about trails in Kubinka when they shoot to captured Tuger II. They use whole arsenal of tank and AT guns. F32 from T-34/76 was worse than 75mm M3 from Sherman. Proably that was caused by worse quality of ammunition, next problem with soviet production. L11 wasn't tested ther because in this time noone use it. That was effects of soviet trails, then no bias against F32! But the same effects were observed when american 76mm M1A1 gun was comapred to soviet 85 mm DT5 was used. Using standard (taken from production line) AT ammunition soviet guns have lower effectivness n comparision to US produced guns and ammunition. Problem with discusing with you is that you try skip contradiction in your statments. T-34/76 was produced from 1940 to 1944 and even with modification in thi time, still was unreliable mechanically. That model fought most defensive and offensive action in 1941 to 1944. Thats why I think you push T-34/85 as a example. To the end of production (for years in war) T-34/76 never became good product. After introducing T-34/85 biggest problem of T-34 was adressed, but still gearbox and transmition were weakest ponit of this construction. Yes they were better than previous models, but still not close enough to paper value that was official for this tank. I saw both tanks in Bovington in move and i didn't see in T-34 nothing special better than M4. And in this case that was post-war produced T-34/85 and Sherman was from war production series. In reality if I have to choose, my choice is M4A1 or M4A2 against T-34/76 (even with never turrets) and M4A1(76)W or M4A3E8 against T-34/85. They are in many ways better, but not perfect. Every tank have some weaknes. What i mean about "soviet" books? To 1991 legend of T-34 was undispiuted in USSR, today that is litte different but still Russians are biased angainst everything that is not with soviet label. Your arguments sound like taken straight from this books. You always point to T-34/85 as a better tank, but still it wasn't in comaparision as good as contemporary Shermans. Then tell me what you thik about this trails between T-34/76 and Panzer III? Not that good for T-34.
    1
  19.  @nks406  In M4A1 that bulges was part of this cast plate. Integral part, this way they didn't in any way compromise this plate. Not like T-34. Frontal armor of T-34 was in significant way weaker with this hole. You really don't understand that. You wrote about cost and production numbers. Americans didn't have that much militarised economy like USSR, Soviets industriqlisation was concetrated on weapons production fro 1930's. That is the difference, US economy could produce that amout tanks thanks to civilian industry. Soviets do it only cutting other fields of production, when they also have to move industry away from Germans. Plus money are only one factor. Manpower, technology of mass production ot even resources used in thi proces. That is real cost of producting a tank, that is way Germany can't win war with Tigers and Panthers. You also mention wet storage in T-55 and Japqness Type 90. Yes we all saw how efectiwe that was when most T-55 were destroyed by fire and ammo explosions. And Type 90 never was tested in combat.
    1
  20.  @RussianThunderrr  "In realty that conception was taken from naval warfer." -- What? Where do you getting that from? Have you ever heard about sloping armor in ships. Do you think that so much knowledge was didn't use in tank design? AP Shells and armor schemes in naval use were well known for tank designers from 19th century. Work on tanks like french Char 2 C series was supported by naval designers. Work on first tank was started by naval designers in UK, institution called Landship Comitte give you any suggestions? Whole armor penetration problem was worked from the time when first armor land on ships. Dear Lord, B1bis and other French tanks were study as a potential treat before 1940. Thats why Germans build Panzerjager I and prepare whole family of AT ammunition to deal with that treat. Yes, indeed T-34 was in that field, big step forward, but still in other countries they also work into development of that conception. M4 sloped armor front plate! Panther was a big tank and still his sloped side armor was well know weakness. Even soviet 45mm anti-tank guns can penetrate it. That was not good way to protect a tank. In case of Tiger II that was still not enough, plate there can't be thick enough to stop penetration. That is fact even today. You keep your claim that sloped armor on side plate was so good design feature. But that was first thing that disapear in T-44. Sloped sponsons were just ineffective with armore protection and take to many space. That is also important in turret armore protection, today noone slope side of tanks or turrets used on them. Only frontal armor is sloped, sides are mor curved but not that much sloped. Not even close like in T-34.
    1
  21.  @RussianThunderrr  Even on wike they know that history of AP shells: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armor-piercing_shell http://norfolktankmuseum.co.uk/types-of-ammunition/
    1
  22.  @RussianThunderrr  Plus FCM 36 design was in many ways similar to T-34. Sloped frontal and side plates! Diesel engine. Welded plates. All that in tank that was build years befor T-34.
    1
  23.  @RussianThunderrr  T-34 wasn't copied by Germans or anyone else. Panther just implement one design aspect nothing more, armor slope scheme. Any other element was taken from T-34. In any case Panther concept was copy of T-34. Maybe you talk about other tank, VK 3002 DB. For many years that myth was propageted as a evidence of greate influence on German tank desings, but that is far from truth.
    1
  24. ""You ( RussianThunderrr) keep your claim that sloped armor on side plate was so good design feature. But that was first thing that disapear in T-44. Sloped sponsons were just ineffective with armore protection and take to many space." -- Do you think T-44 tank have "storage sponsons" that needs armor protection? And where can I find storage sponsons on T-44 tank?" Maybe you din't understand. But sloped sponson were in T-34 not in T-44. Sloped side plates is abbandon road in tank design, wich was basicly T-34 never litteration with implemented expirence from WW2 tank warfare. "Yes, but I think Leonardo da Vinci's "tank" predates French and United Kingdom's navy, and consistently coming up in a past 40 years in a debate of "Slope Armor" vs "Tsygano's theory", which are not exactly the same thing... " You really belive that Vinci tank was inspiration for WW1 and WW2 AP ammunition?! That is just absud rethoric. Naval warfare give inspiration for many designs in tanks and ammunition to penetrate tank armor. Look on design of AP shells, they were clearly taken from naval gunnery. Problem was the same, build shell that will penetrate armor, do not bounce and will deliver enough punch to destroy target. Any theory can't change fact that sloped side armor take to much space in tank.
    1
  25.  @RussianThunderrr  Porsche turret was designed and produce by Krupp. The same was with the Henschel turret. That projects in any way were similar to turrets of T-34. You also claim as smaller tank hull (T-34), with the same ammo storage and bigger amout of fuel can be compare with bigger M4 hull in work space. That is just not possiable, simple third dimension space don't allowed it. Then T-34 wasn't smaller than M4 or was much more cramped. That what it is? Because you can't get both. And i know that later was much worse in later projects. https://www.google.pl/search?q=M4+SHERMAN+LAYOUT&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=jaslsHgdeHypeM%253A%252CpYQRmfjingPT_M%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kRe09yhmsyHrWvzoZ7bxSVGJGJ1xg&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiquuC7st3hAhVIxhoKHSbOAm8Q9QEwBHoECAcQDA#imgrc=PwyJSlI1rR1IbM:&vet=1 https://www.google.pl/search?tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=qmW6XPmNDcWflwTT3rHQBg&q=t-34%2F76+internal+layout&oq=t-34%2F76+internal+layout&gs_l=img.3...18924.27362..28345...0.0..0.258.1058.15j0j1......1....1..gws-wiz-img.SSTivckKjyw#imgrc=huCNaxka5Jn3CM: And in T-34/85 turret was better, but still that was tank which get on front in second part of 1944. https://www.google.pl/search?tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=AGW6XOfgAo-MlwSAgrzwBw&q=t-34+LAYOUT&oq=t-34+LAYOUT&gs_l=img.3...144067.145985..146418...0.0..0.139.369.4j1......1....1..gws-wiz-img.......0j0i7i30.dW9KluKF30s#imgrc=0EALB1_2brnrCM:
    1
  26.  @RussianThunderrr  They shoot from all directions to check how to derstroy Tiger II. That was test for deweloping new tactics and check even older models of guns. Thats why they tested all main guns that were in service. Few years ago I read whole series of articules about ihis tests. Tested tank was captured in Poland and transport to Kubinka. After brief inspection they shoot it as a test for armor against guns they use. You ave to ask them why they conduct that test.
    1
  27.  @RussianThunderrr  Yes that is true face of T-34, because M4 didn't have this problem in any time of service. Also this long march to battle was big issue with keeping unit ready to fight. Many of this tank need maintance repairs before battle. Still bigger precentage than in Sherman units.And into Kursk T-34 was in service nearly 3 years, a little too late to name that as a succses.
    1
  28.  @RussianThunderrr  "-- I think 69.7 Km/h(43.3 mph or almost double its maximum speed) is unrealistic even from a step downhill(that you won't find in Kubinka), and they claiming, that Pz-III was faster then BT tank without tracks... " Then you don't know that Panzer III on start was designed to get to 70 km/h. Later Wermacht generals decide that to resign from this speed. Everything about that is in history of development of Panzer III. Then they mount mechanical blockade into Pz III, you have the same feature in M1 Abrams, unlock this and Abrams can go even over 80 km/h but that will cause massive consumsion of fuel and damage suspension. Also that was Soviet trials, then your claim have to be adressed to RKKA comanders. In some way at start Pz III was like soviet BT tank series on tracks only. Also you have problem witg noise that was generated by suspension in T-34, that was very noisy tank. And if you claim that 3 man turret was that problematic to mount on T-34 orginal hull... Then that hull wasn't that wide, hmmm.... That was caused by sloped sides :) Plus for Sherman, The even could mount turret from M26 on original Sherman hull (not that good idea in reality). https://www.google.pl/search?q=sherman+with+m26+turret&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=t_WqYdrEfue4tM%253A%252Cbcmtkh3W0_oPdM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kScBOrrf_Ry0PacnSHljOHvkQbiYQ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj2iJqPy97hAhXLzKQKHTTMCj4Q9QEwAHoECAkQBA#imgrc=t_WqYdrEfue4tM: Then look on tanks like T-34M (A43) and T-34/85. After this trails 2 man turret was critisied. There was more there, like every Pz III was equiped in radio. Pz III was shock in case of how easy was to product that tank (that was Soviet conclusion!). That was cause why projects of T-50 were very similar in construction to Pz III. Suspension and other design feauters. http://armchairgeneral.com/rkkaww2//galleries/T-50/T_50_bp.htm  Little thing like ventilation, something that was problem even in T-34/85. Also Pz III long 50mm gun wasn't that bad, but as a main tank gun in 1942/43 was obselete. Not enough power in HE shells. But with problems to produce more Panthers and Panzer IV cause nessesity to produce Panzer III with biggest gun they (Germans) could build into original turret. Basicly that trails was wake up call for T-34 project. After modification this tank could be much better. But that happen much later because of Barbarossa and Stalin's decision to concetrate on production not modernisation.
    1
  29.  @nks406  Just look on this : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6xLMUifbxQ Around 27 min you have part about production of tanks. M4A3 became main model because it was cheaper in production. Welding is easier and cheaper than casting because of many reasons. Workforce, tools, amterials, etc. Just logistic and economy of war. The same happend whit T-34 and IS series. Sloped side armor of T-34 was easly penetrated by even 50mm Pak 38. That not mean that was worse, but just uneffecive like 38 mm Sherman plate. Simple truth, side armor never gona protect you that god like frontal, thats why you have to avoid open flanks! Look on Panther armor layout and problems with it. Next you still claim that fuel make tank less likely to burn. Sorry but statistics don't match that conclusion. T-34 burn like candle after penetration. Oil, lubricants, ammuniton, crew equipment, all that burn before fuel. That is why wet storage was very effective, because protect crew from imidetly casualities from explosin and fire (first types of ammunition in Shermans were from high flammable gun powder). That was a reason why so many crew members of M4 survive hit and why so many T-34 tankers die inside the tank. Plus if you talking about luxury in M4, you probaly talk about thins like: - Seats for crew,(thing that was a big problem in T-34 in war production) - Radio set in all tanks, - internal comunication system - fire extinguisher - and lot small thing that make tanka as a wepon efective. Then i prefer buy a tank with working gearbox and transmission. With seats and radio in each tank. Because that way i can use it to fight and manueuver not for blind charges in blocks like T-34 was been used in first years of war.
    1
  30.  @RussianThunderrr  That was Soviet test! They lie to themself? Tell me what was the reason? Source is a soviet official document, now you don't belive them?
    1
  31.  @RussianThunderrr  Really, you know that Sherman is in use now in South America with M3 ligth tank! You should check your infos. Israeli Shermans with french 105mm gun were use to destroy even T-55. T-34/85 didn't get any significant modernisation and can't fight with compared tanks to T-55. That offensive was possiable because top units from Germany was send into Manchuria. Kwantung Army was weaker enemy than Germans that way terrain was only big enemy for advancing RKKA. That was big logistic sucsess. But in any way something special. If you use best trained unit that is effect, even with "miracle" like T-34.
    1
  32.  @RussianThunderrr  Paraguay was using them up to 2018. Bolivia use them in police atcion. Chile stock them in reserve. Probaly they can be "mothballed" in other countries. That is some of this sources: https://www.thevintagenews.com/2016/09/04/56306-2/ https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/this-is-why-a-south-american-country-still-uses-wwii-era-tanks
    1
  33.  @RussianThunderrr  Yeah that take 3 years just to project of 3 man turret. Then why they build T-43? If that was so easy to just put this turret on standard T-34? Because Soviets were force to re-design hull of T-34 to adapt new ring of wider profile. The you claim is invalid.
    1
  34. Russian Thuderrr"- Well, if this is the case why then Tiger II came out to replace Tiger I with armor that is "sacrifice internal volume"? Explain please, since things "does not add up" in your statement." Because they build tank that was technical improwisation, with no real time to develope and check all feauters. Just wartime rush.
    1
  35.  @RussianThunderrr  But stiil that was Sherman after modification. In case of T-34 only Egiptyian use modified turret with 100mm gun, but whithout any sucsess. Then you can see that Sherman was open for modernisation. not like T-34. Using very wise words : If you don't have modern tank and your enemy don't have modern AT weapons even old tank is enough. The don't "cry" when facts don't get aloneg with your arguments. In Manchuria best RKKA units fight with underequiped japaness Army unit. You should know that best units were still fighting with nationalist and communist Chiness armies. About Red Army in 1941, that is different story. But lose over 20000 tanks, few thousends of planes and artilery guns plus nearly 4.5 million killed or taeken as a POW of soldiers don't give Red Army good reputation in 1941.
    1
  36.  @RussianThunderrr  If Pz III with with long 50mm gun was so obselete in 1942, why that was main German tank then?Into Fall Blau that was most common German tank. Why tha tanks could destroy masses of T-34 (because you should know that to 1943 Germans were destroying more T-34 tanks than soviet industry can produce. That was source for Kursk suprise for Germans, when soviet industry start mass production). Also 75mm use holow charge ammunition, enough effective to destroy T-34. Plus better HE roun than that from 50mm gun. Pz III never was designed as a tank destroyer, that was tank for cavalery. Created to replace in that role Pz II. Something like Souma S-35 in French Army.
    1
  37.  @RussianThunderrr  Cavalery was in use around 1945. Polish unit create by Soviet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Schoenfeld Geramns use cavalery even in Barbarossa. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Cavalry_Division_(Wehrmacht) (Division formed in 1939!) Pz III was fast cavalery tank, with canon capable to destroy tanks, but noone treat it in this time like tank destroyer. About ammunition for Kwk 37: K.Gr.rot.Pz. - Armour Piercing Capped Kt. Kw. K. - Canister Nbgr. Kw. K. - Smoke Gr.38 Hl - High Explosive Anti-Tank Gr.38 Hl/A - High Explosive Anti-Tank Gr.38 Hl/B - High Explosive Anti-Tank Gr.38 Hl/C - High Explosive Anti-Tank. Four last are HEAT, other known as a hollow charge! That is fact, not like you wrote:- You just "throwing anything out there, to see what will stick"? You don't have to do much deegging/reading to see that its not true, so stop with nonsense please." If you don't know that HEAT ammo was use in WW2 and there was transition period that cavalery in many countries change horse for tanks. Then you know really nothing about WW2. More I read you, more I'm sure you don't know that much as you claims. Everything i wrote is esay to check, bit you even check it, you just shout "that is not true". Sorry but you are wrong.
    1
  38.  @RussianThunderrr  You kidding. You know how many mistakes was made in design and production of Tiger II. You really have big holes in your knowledge about WW2.
    1
  39. For consideration about 7.5cm Kwk 37 ammunition: https://www.google.pl/search?tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=ZNi7XN6yBL6k1fAPrOmh0AQ&q=+Gr.38+Hl%2FB+-+High+Explosive+Anti-Tank&oq=+Gr.38+Hl%2FB+-+High+Explosive+Anti-Tank&gs_l=img.3...35932.54167..54974...0.0..2.63.389.7......3....1j2..gws-wiz-img.....0..35i39j0j0i67j0i30j0i5i30j0i19.BjwjwiAGLHg#imgrc=g7KhjrFsUYDD0M: http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/hollow-charge-german-75mm.html
    1
  40.  @RussianThunderrr  Dude that is only one example. There was lot of units. Wermacht and Waffen-SS form them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_in_World_War_II#Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Waffen-SS_units Soviet cavalery: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalry_division_(Soviet_Union) And what I mean about Pz III happend in 1930's, because in most armies tank forces were created on cavalery basis. That was in first concept tank for units that were transformed from cavalery to tank units! Elementary knowledge. Horse for most part of WW2 was main way of transport in many part of Wermacht. Don't brag with your ignorance.
    1
  41.  @RussianThunderrr  I see that when facts don't agree whit you, you just change subject or you try spin them. But that don't help you. Then how was with cavalery in WW2? German and soviet? How was with HEAT shells for 7.5cm Kwk 37? If you can't disprove that I assume you have to agree with me.....
    1
  42.  @RussianThunderrr  You really don't understand transformation of Wermacht. Cavalery units were form to become later a tank units. As a "cavalery" tank I mean just category of conception and design in case of Panzer III (used in german documents!), same case with Combat Cars (tanks) in american cavalery or french H-35 and S-35. The same proces was done in RKKA. ME: There was lot of units. (ABOUT WHOLE WW2) YOU: I'm sorry, come again how many cavalry divisions Wehrmacht had in operation Barbarossa? UNITS ARE NOT THE SAME AS A DIVISION! THAT IS CLASSICAL TACTIC OF CHANGENING NARRATION... Sorry but you wrote earlier: "Ah, Wehrmacht had cavalry? I did not know that..., let me check... -- No they did not, at least to the extend to create a special tank for it. Pz-III was designed from the beginning to fight other Panzers it come across." Wermacht and Waffen-SS HAVE CAVALERY UNITS! YOU JUST TRY TO CHANGE YOUR STATMENT. Basicly you don't reconize fact that Wermacht tank units take personel from cavalery! And still Wermacht have cavlery units! https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/wwii/horses-of-the-blitz-german-cavalry-in-world-war-ii/ https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057%2F9781137456335_4 https://ospreypublishing.com/axis-cavalry-in-world-war-ii-pb
    1
  43.  @RussianThunderrr  Plus what with HEAT amo in German tanks? Do this not exist? Do not Germans use it against soviet tanks? You try to push this asaide? You count that we can't read?
    1
  44.  @RussianThunderrr  "And what does that have to do(what happened in other Armies) with Wehrmacht panzer force? Wehrmacht did not count on having cavalry as a main elite force of "Blitzkrieg", it was never a part of their strategy." Cavalery tank is doctrinal and technical term. That not mean the same like tank for "horse cavalery"! It is a tank for units that were cavalery and in future will become tank units and will act like "tank cavalery"! That is simplest way I can adress your ignorance of terminology. Do american cavalery use horses? No those units today use helicopters and AFV! But still they use cavalery names!
    1
  45.  @RussianThunderrr  "How was with HEAT shells for 7.5cm Kwk 37?" -- It did not performed well against T-34 tanks, and was gone by the end of 1943." Penetration around 87 or 115mm is not enough to punch armor of T-34? You just amuse me with that wild lies. 700 tanks just disapper without shoting to enemy....
    1
  46.  @RussianThunderrr  First you claim that Wermacht didn't have cavalery. Now you claim that i wrote about divisions. I will tell that one more time, I wrote about units! Are you see difference! If not, discution with you on this subject is pointless. You can't understand difference! Also that still is not in anyway connected to development of Panzer III. You just change subject! In origin Panzer III was cavalery tank! But cavalery in doctrinal and technical sence! Basicly all medium tanks in pre-war period were cavalery tanks. That why Panzer IV was in category of heavy tanks! All this names have doctrinal roots, not just like you claim .
    1
  47.  @RussianThunderrr  Panzer III was as tank was develope to "cavlry" type warfare. Doctrins of Wermacht change in many ways befor war! That's all. Technicly you are right but, but Pz III origin is in mechanization of cavlry, in Wermacht this branch use cavlry colors even today! That was just doctrinal evolution! Tanks were in that doctrin like heavy and light cavlry and merchanized infantry became modern dragoons. Specially for infantry Germans create StuGs as a substiute of british special tanks. Do you now understand nuances? And that was german terminology not only british! About Pz III N, that was a tank that was a second standard tank. Problem with Kwk37 wasn't penetration but accuracy. Over 500 meters it was wery unaccurate. 50mm in tanks became obselete because changes in battlefield, not because problems with penetration. Germans start producing also much more powerfull tanks, but problem with production puxh them to use what they jave. Just like RKKA with T-60 and early T-34.
    1
  48.  @RussianThunderrr  HEAT was early developed into war, not used because Hitler affraid that this give chance to copied this by germans enemies. Second reason was that before Barbarossa standard AT shell were good enough against enemy tanks. Problem with HEAT is that in this time over 500 meters accuracy from rifled barrel was ot that good. Long 7.5 using normal AT round were much better.
    1
  49.  @RussianThunderrr  "- Why is that so hard for you to understand that "fire support vehicle" is not supposed to engage enemy tanks, but its armed with howitzer and it main target is enemy infantry and enemy AT guns." Any way Kwk 37 is horovitzer. And even fire support tanks were equiped in AT shells to fight with enemy tanks.
    1
  50. "BTW on the fuel burning subject... What burned is fuel vapor aka mixture of fuel and oxygen. In a sealed fuel tank, if there is no or very little oxygen it won't ignite or burn. And gasoline is vaporizes a lot easier and faster then diesel fuel, and hence easier to ignite and to burn then diesel fuel." Not really, you get vapore when fuel tanks are not air-tight. That why first Panther burn like crazy. When water storage was put in Shermans they burn in ratio 12-15%. Not like earlier 80%. This itself is disproving your argument about that subject. T-34 was burnig like other tanks, no evidence for diesel engine were more resistant to fire.
    1
  51.  @zidan1hao917  Exacly, but that don't match to "diesel was better" narration. Russian just have problem to understand that soviet tank were good but in any way the best.
    1
  52.  @zidan1hao917  When M26 destroy Panhter in Colonge, german tank burn like candle, when there was no hit to engine. That is one of the best single example for thing you wrote,
    1
  53.  @zidan1hao917  That is a point. Guard units didn't get Sherman without good reasons. In opposite, as a elite, Guard take it because in amny ways Sherman was better then T-34.
    1
  54.  @zidan1hao917  Indeed, T-34 was the best Soviet can get. But many flaws make this tank in many ways ineffective. People forget that tank is not only gun, armor and engine. That is why I am sure that Sherman is better tank than contemporary to him T-34.
    1
  55.  @RussianThunderrr  Nice tha you wrote abou RKKA doctrin, then you should also post name of gerals Isserson and Triandafillov. In 1941 sovier artilery was highly motorised. Loses that was caused by Barbarossa destroy much from trucks and artilery tractors (like Konsomolec). But Tukhachevsky died because Great Purge orderd by Stalin. That still not mean that Germans didn't order Pz III as a typical "cavalry" medium tank of 1930's. Germans just after first trials and field test change doctrin and units layout. In reality "cavalry" tank in british nomenclature was named as a "crusier" tank. Each nation use own names but still cavalry in Germany was main branch that was transform and involved in creation of Panzerwaffe.
    1
  56.  @RussianThunderrr  I agree. But still that is not the point of discussion.
    1
  57.  @RussianThunderrr  Ahh Zukhov as a great commander. He was responsiable for defet of Red Army at the first months of Barbaossa more then Stalin. He preper with his staff all plans, offensive and deffensive. How it goes for Red Army under his command? What with operation "Mars" when Stalingrad was succses, he with larger forces get slaugthered. Mass defat whitout any succsess. Operation that cos Red Army great numbers in equipment and soldiers. A liitle catch, nowhere in documents is no evidence that he preper plans for Stalingrad or Kursk battle. He just pinpoint on himself as a USSR saviror in his own eyes. At last his final battle to captured Berlin and disaster on Seelowe Hights. He won because in this moment Germans didn't have any reservs. But he lose whitout any good reason thousends of soldiers. There was one reason, he want to be first in Berlin. Tujachevske died because he knew that Stalin was responssiable for defet in 1920 with war with Poland. He also was knew that Trotsky was responissable for succsess of first moths of revolution, not Stalin! Third reason Stalin don't need him anymore, hi wasn't usefull any more. He was a treat for Stalin's power. I do not say that soviet scientist vere not behind T-34 succsess. But all things you mention were well knowed in 1930's. Shipbuilders and tank designers were aware of all advantages of different armor scheme. About metalurgy and material craftsmen. All that knowledge was there. But building tank with sloped armor, welded or casted was very costly in 1930's. That why only France and USSR build before WW2 tanks like that. Other countries prefer cheaper technology, but when war starts, cost lose with speed of production and in the end welding became cheaper even casting. I always hear that T-34 was great tank, yes it was good combination of many things. But in overall in 1941 it was true, but in 1942/43 this was long past. And its falws then cause that from one of the best tanks it became mediocer. Much thanks from soviet industry. This story is very similar with story of LaGG fighters, great prototypes and failed plane in war. Nothing of this problems was seen in M4. Yes it wasn't perfect tank, but other side without flaws that was in T-34 project and production. And about speed of T-34 and Panzer III in soviet trials. That is the biggest problem that was soviet trials and how you gonna spin this, that was SOVIET TRAIL. Then bias was to be more into soviet construction. You now the letter (primary source) then you have to bring evidence that that trials never get to this conclusion. The same is with conclusion from testing firepower of M4 with 75 and 76mm against T34/76 and T34/85. Soviet documentation don't agree with you about conclusion about "greatness" of T-34. I don't have to belive you i belive soviet trails.
    1
  58.  @RussianThunderrr  But you can put that turret on the same hull. Not like in T-34.
    1
  59.  @RussianThunderrr  Konsomolec was one of many types of tractors in RKKA.
    1
  60.  @RussianThunderrr  Oh you still claim that only soviets can design tanks with modern technology. I wrote you many times what was the biggest flaws of T-34. As a design and production features. You will claim othervise. "T-34 was getting progressively better throughout the war. Things improved for T-34 as the war progressed. " Maybe late 1943 and into T-34/85 that was good tank, but earlier quality production kill that values. That is fact. "Oh, hello! After Simen Lavochkin put Shetsov's radial air cooled engine on that plain, it(La series fighters) produced most of Allied highest scoring aces in WWII, 5 out of 10 top scoring Allied aces flew better part of the war Lavochkin's fighters. Its just a fact! " Yes nicer half-truth, because we wrote about two different planes. LaGG 3 was dissaster. La-5 was better. Engine and much more better quality of production, But still that wasn't in line with moder fighters from both sides. Still the best soviet fighter was La 5 not LaGG 3. Pilkots called LaGG 3 "guaranteed lacquered grave". Worst soviet fighter of WW2. "" You now the letter (primary source) then you have to bring evidence that that trials never get to this conclusion. " -- What "letter", what are you talking about?" Letter form Yakov Nikolayevich Fedorenko to Voroshylov. " Изучение последних образцов иностранного танкостроения показывает, что наиболее удачным среди них является немецкий средний танк “Даймлер-Бенц- Т-ЗГ”. Он обладает наиболее удачным сочетанием подвижности и броневой защиты при небольшой боевой массе — ок. 20 т . Это говорит, что указанный танк при сравнимой с Т-34 броневой защите, с более просторным боевым отделением, прекрасной подвижностью, несомненно более дешевый, чем Т-34, и потому может выпускаться большой серией. Согласно особому мнению тт. Гинзбург, Гаврута и Троянова, главным недостатком указанного типа танка является его вооружение из 37-мм пушки. Но согласно сент. с.г. разведобзора, эти танки уже модернизируются путем усиления брони до 45-52 мм и вооружения 47-мм или даже 55-мм пушкой. Считаю, что немецкая армия в лице указанного танка имеет сегодня наиболее удачное сочетание подвижности, огневой мощи и броневой защиты, подкрепленное хорошим обзором с рабочих мест членов экипажа... Необходимо не медля ни минуты продолжить работы по танку “126” с целью доведения всех его характеристик до уровня немецкой машины (или превосходящих ее), а также внести в конструкцию других наших новых танков наиболее удачные решения немецкого танка, как то: 1. конструкция эвакуационных люков; 2. схема охлаждения двигателя; 3. конструкция КПП; 4 схема питания с размещением двигателя и топливного бака за герметичной выгородкой от команды; 5. командирской наблюдательной башенки; 6. размещение радиостанции в корпусе. Прошу принять решение по проведению доработки конструкции новых танков в виду вновь открывшихся обстоятельств... Федоренко 13/1Х-40” https://www.e-reading.club/book.php?book=99552 "Soviet documentation don't agree with you about conclusion about "greatness" of T-34. I don't have to belive you i belive soviet trails." -- Again what trails are you referring to? Do you got any links to the trails you are talking about?" Kubinka trial of capturerd Tiger II. Firepower of both T-34/76 and T-34/85 were in AT role worse than M4 with 75mm and 76mm in comparition. Just look on documentation about trails in Kubinka on captured Tiger II. I read long articules with documentation. Report with designation: CAMD RF 38-11377-129 report. "But you can put that turret on the same hull. Not like in T-34." Can you quote me please, so I can see what are you talking about? T-34-85 went on the same hull, with only one difference of enlarged turret ring. " To put new turret they change turret ring for bigger! You can't put turret from T-34/85 no unchanged hull of T-34/76. Not that simple modification if take 3 years( sarcasm). Really that was possiable but you have to modify hull. And little photo for you: https://www.google.pl/search?biw=1491&bih=925&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=mafFXPDkC9LrxgPA_abACg&q=m4+with+m26+turret&oq=m4+with+m26+turret&gs_l=img.3...437922.445254..445590...0.0..1.127.1126.17j1......2....1..gws-wiz-img.....0..35i39j0i67j0j0i30j0i19j0i8i30i19j0i5i30i19.nfNax2aI8-s#imgrc=t_WqYdrEfue4tM:
    1
  61.  @RussianThunderrr  Because you claim that T-34 was in many ways revolutionary. You bring theories that tank was the best because some of it's special qualities. But that is not true, Optimisation of shape of armomr is well know much earlier, how it is connected with internal space is also nothing new. All that was used in complex projects in 19th and 20th century. Shaping oh hulls and armor of ships give much knowledge to tank desingners. You just reject facts about desining knowledge known long before T-34 was created. 1)Diesel engine -first in japaness, french and polish tanks. 2)Sloped armom is in first tanks builded in WW1 technology' 3)Welding french FCM 36. All that you claim was secret knowledge to anyone but not for Soviets. Dude designers build tanks with technology they have. They can't implement sloped welded armore with very costly welding when whole industry use bolts! T-34 was very problematic to produce when Soviets didn't have enough profesioanl welders! Most of turret for T-34/85 was firstly casted, then welded because that was only option that soviet industry had! Most T-34 tanks in 1941 was lose because malfunctions. Gerabox and transmotion were main killer of this tank. Weak gerbox just force you to use only small part of engine power! Thats why they use only second set! If you try something more you end up with destroyed gearbox. Trained or not crewman can't chane shit materials and shit quality machine you have! Only late war T-34/85 were produced with better gearboxes and higher quality. Not even close to M4 reliabity.
    1
  62.  @RussianThunderrr  Tsyganov's theory wasn't need to design Sherman or other tanks. You really can't get that modern technology of production and design was known outside USSR. Tanks used in WW2 were in many way produscts of local industrial powers. That mean that knowledge is universal if you get right science and technology. Yes Panther was influenced by soviet designs, but the same other tanks implemented changes when new enemy tanks occured on battlefields. Did soviets engeniers didn't study Tigers and Panthers? They study very carfeuly. Unrealibity of T-34 didn't change that much before Kursk and still was problem nr 1. But that was 3rd year of production of T-34! I still M4 was reliable and roduced in great quantity. You can't say that T-34 was as good in reliablility. Even maintance of this two tanks is two different worlds! Try to change engine or transmition in T-34 vs M4. In Sherman you just remove cover and go, how it goes in T-34? Transmision packed in back , not that easy to remove. Sherman crews spend much more less time with everyday maintance than enyother tank crews of WW2. If i get two tanks with similar armor, gun but one is reliable and better equiped, I will takje M4 contemporary to T-34. And you really don't read what iI wrote! I wrote about LaGG 3 you mention La! That is two different planes in reality. From worst soviet fighter to best is long way. Redesign and new engines that is why La is so different! And when i wrote about some models i think about contemporary models: Like early La 5 vs P-51 B or early model D. Also contemporary Spitfire models were better than early models La 5. La was good low-medium altitiude figher. But can't go so fast and can't fight higher like contemporary german and allied models. That was caused by weaker soviet engines and lack of good compessors. Some soviet aces used P-39 Aircobra and like it, that not mean that was a good plane. Sorry but soviet tank industry was better and more succsefull than aircraft producers in USSR. Soviet Union didn't produce good enough engines and other key elements for aircrafts in comaprision to other powers of WW2. And you are right, it should be " lacquered guaranteed grave" from russian : лакированный гарантированный гроб. That was dark humor of soviet pilots translating LaGG that way.
    1
  63.  @RussianThunderrr  This letter was no speculation! That was opionion about results of trail that was done by Soviets on two Panzer III they buy. I give you source and you try to spin it. Pure dishonesty! You try to say that soviet designers and generals didn't wrote that T-34 need changes? But they wrote it! Why the hell A43 was designed before Barbarossa?! I all the time wrote about soviet industry problems and now you just mention that like that was little problem because:" it was a dozen of welders working on German panzers vs 1 not highly skilled worker in USSR do the same job faster". I'm very curious from where you get that statistic? Pz III and Pz IV were easy to mass product, Panthers and Tigers not that much. T-34 was not that easy and cheap to produe as you claim. Not any problems with M4 from start. And again M4 from start was better.
    1
  64.  @RussianThunderrr  The why the hell this simple change can't be possiable 3 years earlier? M4 didn't have this problem. You also point that M4 with 105mm french gun need extended modernisation to mount it. Remind me how many T-34 modification get gun over 85mm? I know one, not really succsessfull.
    1
  65.  @RussianThunderrr  No one is downplaying soviet design school. Lot of this knowledge was state secret in USSR. Also for many years soviet authors and many western historians claim that T-34 was a miracle tank. But when after the fall of USSR we get documentation and uncernsored first hand relation that myth go away. Problem is that you still can get that things like "additional" armor"/ "экранированная броня" were use in shipbuilding long before anyone think about tanks! Try to comapre compexity of battleship construcion to tank then maybe you will see how funny is claim that soviets invent something new in design. I would say that tank desingners were just trying to get many of technologies that was well known in other fields. You called that Tsyganov's theory, in West they just called that metallurgy and ergonomy. The iI will tell you that in T-34 and other WW2 tanks stole polish invention, you know what was that?
    1
  66.  @RussianThunderrr  Before Barbarossa the same factories that were evacuated have big problems with production. Lot of new technology into T-34 and problems with personel. I wrote how evecuation caused that T-60 became main product of soviet industry. Do I mention Chieftain in this? If repair and removing transmission was so easy in T-34 why so many of them were lost because of this malfuncion? Simple in design not mean simple in use.
    1
  67.  @RussianThunderrr  M4 was easy to product. With higher quality of production then T-34. Only big disadvantage was it's high profile. All that with other advantages make for me M4 better tank than T-34.
    1
  68.  @RussianThunderrr  Letter was produced after soviet trials of two Pz III G or F (problem in identification in soviet sources) version bought by USSR from Germany when both countries cooparate (Soviets bought also few types of planes, Bismarck battleship plans and crusier!). Trials done in Kuibinka! That was soviet result not some spy work in Germany! Soviets done trials Pz III model with 37 mm gun but they know that Germans work on 50mm gun (55mm is probably a mistake in letter or wrong information from inyelligence). If you look on production of early T-34 in comaprision Pz III wasn't expensive in any way. Soviets didn't make "cheaper" T-34 before late 1942, not in 1941 when trials were done! About trials you can also read here: http://www.battlefield.ru/t34/stranitsa-4-razvitie-t-34.html That why I stick with that 67-69 km/h done by Pz III! I get sources, now you claim that is not true, becuse.................your bias. Everything that disproof that T-34 is great tank can't be true in your eyes.
    1
  69.  @RussianThunderrr  You confusing two different things! Design of tank take lot of from shipbuilding. I do not claim that shipbuilders will build good tanks, just that all technology to build tank was there! You mention Churchill, you forgott what was main task for this tank! Infanty support, used even in Red Army! And this tank do it very well. But that is not the point. Welding, production of thick armor plates, optics, engines and lot of technology implemented in tanks come from shipbuilding! Tand design never exist in void, always was connected with countries industrial capacity. Battleship was just example how complicated technologies were in use before tank was first build! In reality is easier to design tank than battleship. You need smaller designers team, less industrial capacity to produce tanks and all support for them.
    1
  70.  @RussianThunderrr  "And you really don't read what iI wrote! I wrote about LaGG 3 you mention La! That is two different planes in reality." -- Quite contrary, and I gave you measured answer, which you have a hard time figuring out." LaGG 3 use liquid cooled engine, La 5 use air cooled. La 5 get so many changes in construcion and internal design that there were very similar plane but not the same. That was like Ki-61 and Ki-100, in theory one construcion but with changes two different planes. ""And when i wrote about some models i think about contemporary models: Like early La 5 vs P-51 B or early model D." -- So, how does that work per your theory does P-51 models A and B is the same aircraft as model D? Or since Spitfire Mk-XII use different engine, should it be called something else? How about air cooled FW-190 A, and liquid cooled FW-190"Dora" is that the same aircraft or different aircraft in reality? " Really? I set boundries to contemporary! That mean use in the same time! Which model of Mustang you mean D, razorback or with bubble canopy? A,B and D were different planes, but still with bettter performance as CONTEMPORARY MODELS of La 5. Do I claim that LaGG 3 nad La 5 are the same plane or you? AND I STILL WAS TALKING ABOUT PERFORMANCE OF LaGG 3! You try to spin it with "proof" that La 5 ios the same plane! Plus some hint about JAK's, the had very weak integral construction. And had many operational losses (officialy unkown cause, but in reality planes killed more pilots than Germans). That why Jakovlew aftrer war was kicked from his position in soviet government. "There is a "story" proliferated by Russian trolls, that top Soviet ace Ivan Kozhedub in his La-7 shut down two P-51D, that attacked him, when mistaken for FW-190. I don't believe this story since it was not from Ivan Kozhedub himself, and a lots of facts just don't make sense, but its out there..." That story never get confirmation in any allied documentation. Kozhebub is known for inflatiing his score. Ther is not that much evidence that he shoot that much planes. Soviet aieforce were inacurate in confirming that scores. Lot of claims of soviet aces in 1990's was disproof by comapration of documents in soviet archives. This story is one of this "claims". "here were shortages of aluminum thought WWII in Soviet Union," About that. W2 engine was build from? Yes from aluminium, you need lots of it to build thousend of them. Thats why aluminium was shortage exist in USSR.
    1
  71.  @RussianThunderrr  Then you don't see difference between LaGG 3 and La 5?! Because changes in construtcion between P-51A and B or even D version was smaller than between LaGG 3 and La 5. You comapring this two planes not me! I see difference in construcion and engine in La 5 when it is campare to LaGG. Contemporary means that when Soviets use LaGG 3 it was compared to Bf 109E and F or FW 190A. You want to claim that La 5 was existing then in 1941 and early 1942? About Jakovlev. He was vicecomissar of aircraft production in WW2. But performave of his planes cause that he was remove from this office after war. That is fact not fiction. Also loses of JAK units was bigger from "unknow reason" then from enemy fire. Soviet airforce raport show that clearly.
    1
  72.  @RussianThunderrr  La 5 was basicly heavly modified hull of LaGG with new engine. Not the same plane! Plus production of LaGG planes was much more worse quality than La 5. With change of model in factories Soviets push new quality norms. Same story when T-34/76 was replaced by T-34/85.
    1
  73.  @RussianThunderrr  Really La 5 wasn't modifiy to get new engine install? There is big difference in put radial engine in place old one which is liquid cooled. And yes you have ridght i was thinking about fuselage.
    1
  74.  @RussianThunderrr  I know all of that, but still that not change a fact that between LaGG 3 and La 5 was dramatical difference in performance. To put radial engine you have to wider front of original LaGG 3 fuselage, that wasn't small change in strucure of plane. LaGG 3 was much worse in air combat than La 5. Engine and higher production standard make great difference. LaGG 3 was well known for poor performace and maintaince standards. This planes even just desintagerated after rain on airfields or were so full of water that they cant start! All of that because of carless workforce. Glass part of canopy in LaGGs were removed by pilots becuase after short use that part became matt and block observation for pilot. Also many times when you compare protoype series to production models, they were heavier because of low quality work in soviet factories. Thas I mean when I say about difference between LaGG 3 as a prototype and line plane. La 5 was from start free from most of this problems. Engine with twice more power give La edge against enemy fighters that LaGG never have. That was sence of my opinion about LaGG 3, from good prototype, to worst fighter plane to be change by second gemaration in La 5. You can name this two planes as one model, but in reality that was two different planes in performance.
    1
  75.  @RussianThunderrr  Also if you compare line of development LaGG to La, you see a pararel to development T-34 from 1940 to T-34/85 from 1944, That was just comparison of weakness of this orginal models to later developed modernisation. Soviets from flawed early designs build quite modern T-34 (but still not that good) tanks like contemporary Shermans. When you compare T-34/76 model 1942 to M4A1, M4A2 or M4A3 you should see the difference. The same is in comaprision to M4A1 76(W) or M4A3E8 you see that Shermas were better tanks. More prone to modification and modernisation than T-34. In percentage value for me that was between 20 to 25% combat efficency.
    1
  76.  @RussianThunderrr  I know the difference between those types of engine. It is difference in layout of pistons and totaly different cooling method, plus lot of small differences in construction. But when you say that you just swap engines and make little changes in mout you are wrong. Whole cooling instalation attached to Klimov engine is removed, plus you need wider mounts for radial engine. All this changes plus removing mass of arrament plus amunition removed from front of plane. This mean you have to calculate proper mount for new engine and do it that with care to keep plane as a stable platform because you change location of mas in front of it. This is not little modification. Yes you got right, I make mistake, canop wasn't glass. But still after short use pilots remove them to see anything. Because material was so poorly produced that loss transparence. Of you dont understand whe I wrote about desintegration I adress that LaGG fuselage just fall apart when after rain, pilotes find their planes basicly destroyed by water. Or when rain make LaGG to heavy to flight. Soviet pilots hate with passion this plane. Because it was danger to fly and slow because overweight construction. Only good quality of this plane was arrament and resistance of plane to enemy fire when it could fly. Also I never heard that La had this problems. That mean that quality control in factory was much better in time, or censorship didn't allowed to wrote about it. And I never claim that La was without flaws. Every construction have it. About engines, yes maybe I exaggerate differnence. But if you count all changes in mass of plane and at least that radial engine in La 5 didn't suffer overheating like Klimov engine in LaGG you have giant difference in real power in this two planes. Then my statment was simplification of bigger problem. Maybe that you will understand.
    1
  77.  @RussianThunderrr  First projects to change engines in LaGG was done in 1940.It is not just 5 days to make swap. It take much more time to prepare this changes and twst them. Whent everything is ready and recheck you can implemented that in factory. When materials used in prototyoe series of LaGG were good, in production series planes were produce without proper control and worse materials. Workers like in whole soviet industry were pushed to produce fast and in great numbers, but products with poor in quality. Whole soviet production suffer from this syndrome. WW2 revise that model with great losses on soviet side, losses that they could avoid.
    1
  78.  @RussianThunderrr  Also radial engines are easier in cooling, because of construction. Many timesn first models have that problem, which was solve by redesigning of fuselage and mounts. Liquid cooled engines need more work on this area.
    1
  79.  @RussianThunderrr  "All modifications took Lavochkin's team 10 days, and another 5 to pass a flight test. " Ok my bad you claim 15. But in relity Lavochkin start work on it in 1940 after he finish work on LaGG 3! All that you should check before you claim that La 5 was put to production so fast. This proces was supported by work of main designer that start that in 1940! When La 5 go to production in 1942. Also radial engines are easier to cool, even in twin star set. Many planes were redesigned because of that problem in prototypes. A6M Zero or french Bloch MB. 150 have two-row air-cooled radial engines and after prototype stage this planes get ride of overheating. Yes you need proper changes to mout and rearrange engine housing, but you claim not me, that La 5 is practicly the same plane as LaGG 3! You should decide what option you choose. Engine change wasn't in any way cause by problems with overheating in FW 190, all operation was regulated by automatic system which works perfectly. Only prototypes have this problem, modified production plane were whitout this problem. I wonder why you push that false claims. Any source of that? Pilots adore 190 for performance and I never read about your claim that FW 190 engine cause any problems. That was one of the best fighters in every model it was produced. Change was done because Jumo 213 was much better engine and that engine wasn't been use in Bf 109 (what was very important in war economy). That was normal development not forced by "overheating". Also you are running away from gigantic problems with standars of production in USSR before war and first 3 years of war (1939-1942). What ever you claim, main problems with soviet equipment was drasticly low quality of it. Only guns and small arms were on quite good level. Planes, tanks, ships were much more worse in quality in compariton to other nations. Just look on problems with war with Finland or two first years of war with Germans.
    1
  80.  @RussianThunderrr  From articules in press, monography and from internet. LaGG was so "good" plane that Lavochkin start works on modifications in 1940, but as you know all studies were stop after Barbarossa. But in 1942 Lavochkin get green light for his project. La 5 didn't just pop from nowhere.
    1
  81.  @RussianThunderrr  You don't belive me then read this: "Needless to say, this was not a simple task. For one thing, the Shvetsov engine was a full 18 inches (46 centimeters) wider than the Klimov. Moreover, the M-82 was 550 pounds (250 kg) heavier than the M-105, meaning that the new engine would significantly shift the aircraft’s center of gravity forward. Nevertheless, Alekseyev’s team was able to make the necessary adjustments to the LaGG-3’s airframe to allow for the large radial engine to be installed on the narrow fuselage. In order to attach the M-82 to the airframe, Alekseyev’s team bonded plywood skirting to the outer forward fuselage, which helped ease the cumbersome radial engine’s transition onto the LaGG’s airframe. Two variable cooling flaps were installed on both sides of the fuselage, which allowed the 20 mm ShVAK cannons to be mounted above the M-82 (however, this later led to significant problems with the aircraft overheating, since the top cylinders frequently did not benefit from the cooling flaps). Work on the prototype was completed in February 1942 at Plant No. 21 in Gorky, and its inaugural flight of the new aircraft, designated the LaGG-3 M-82, was made the following month. " "Nevertheless, the aircraft’s operational performance, in general, left much to be desired, prompting Semyon Lavochkin to search for ways to increase the LaGG-3’s power. Indeed, the aircraft’s poor service record in the summer of 1941 caused Lavochkin to fall out of favor with the Soviet leadership, and in the fall, factories that had previously been assigned to LaGG-3 production were turned over to building Yakovlev Yak-1s and Yak-7s. In December, Deputy Commissar of Aviation Industry Pyotr Dementyev told Semyon Lavochkin, “the storm is coming down on you. Your days are numbered. Now you must take extraordinary steps to completely change the attitude of the military and the government toward the LaGG-3.” https://vvsairwar.com/2016/08/18/the-development-of-the-lavochkin-la-5/ Then how about this 15 days?
    1
  82.  @RussianThunderrr  Everything is ok in this information. But still if that material is produced properly. Something which was a big problem in soviet industry. Plus wood is in reality much more problematic material in production. Each metal always is acting the same in control conditions of producion. Wood is different, each batch is different and you need high skilled workers to work with wood. Germans lern that when they start production of Ta154. LaGG 3 suffer from this problems, too big tolerances cause problems with materials and that just riun that plane .
    1
  83.  @RussianThunderrr  Still you not see difference between development from year 1940/1941 to 15 days? Todays sources are more reailble becausethey work with a lot more materials than older one. When you compare our knowledge about WW2 to knowledge from 1970 there is stagering difference. I understand you don't want to admit to mistake. Modern sources show that road from LaGG to La starts between 1940 to 1941. Lavochkin and Gutkov take different ways to reach the same point, change of engine. Lavochkin after moths of work on modifing LaGG, turn to engine change and chabges in construcion of plane in case of this modernization. You will sick with 15 days, ok that is the legend. Facts show something else. You probaly don't grasp that development of this plane was done earlier and 15 days is just time when prototype was completed and tested. That is not he same like R&D process. "Semyon Lavochkin, desperate to get the LaGG-3 flying right, focused on re-engining the type. He initially tried the improved Klimov M-107 vee-12 engine, but engine overheating proved a chronic problem; every flight of the test aircraft resulted in an emergency landing. However, engine designer Akady Shvetsov had come with a new, powerful 14-cylinder two-row air-cooled radial engine, the "M-82" -- a derivative of the US-made Wright R-1820 Cyclone -- with aircraft designers investigating the powerplant to see what it could do for them. Re-engining the MiG-3 and Yak-7 with the M-82 provided no real improvement, leaving Shvetsov with no demand for the engine. Lavochkin was having an analogous problem in early 1942, being faced with phase-out of LaGG-3 production; he focused on the M-82 as a potential salvation. Gudkov had tinkered with fitting the new powerplant to the LaGG-3, but had been sidetracked to other tasks, so the Lavochkin design team was starting from scratch. Adapting the LaGG-3 to the new powerplant was not trivial, since it was wider and heavier than the M-105P inline; it also had no provision for a motorcannon, meaning the armament scheme had to be rethought. The engineers threw themselves into the task, designing a mounting scheme for the engine, and fitting twin 20 millimeter ShVAK cannon in the upper cowling. " https://www.airvectors.net/avlagg.html#m2
    1
  84.  @RussianThunderrr  Yes that is true, but they also were thinking, I mean Lavochkin and Gudkov (both doing that in separation) about testing other engines. One of option was change to radial engine. This proces take time and I-180 trials was hint for soviet designers that radial engines are as good as a liquid cooled. Chkalov death cause closening I-180 development. There were some rumors about sabotage and that catastrophy of I-180 was cause by some who try destroy Polikarpov career. Nothing new in USSR.
    1
  85.  @RussianThunderrr  Did you read what was in sources I provide you? In simple words, even soviet designers wrote that change from LGG 3 to LA 5 take lot of work and start much sooner then 1942. They made projects to swap whole front section of plane whit aditional redesign! Not in days, but they work on this solution months. Days that you put were just last day of whole process. Better terms probaly will be redesign, mounting prototype, testing and using modern term "homolgation of final product". I don't claim that La 5 is new design, I clai that way from LaGG 3 to La 5 was a little longer than mentioned by you 15 days.
    1
  86.  @RussianThunderrr  Well, I guess now you don't claim that La 5 is a new design, but you did before, right? Maybe qoute? I wrote many times that LaGG 3 and La 5 are different plane in performance not in basic project! La 5 was redesign of fuselage used to produce LaGG 3. That mean that was modification for new engine and new instalation! Not just engine swap! "Needless to say, this was not a simple task. For one thing, the Shvetsov engine was a full 18 inches (46 centimeters) wider than the Klimov. Moreover, the M-82 was 550 pounds (250 kg) heavier than the M-105, meaning that the new engine would significantly shift the aircraft’s center of gravity forward. Nevertheless, Alekseyev’s team was able to make the necessary adjustments to the LaGG-3’s airframe to allow for the large radial engine to be installed on the narrow fuselage. In order to attach the M-82 to the airframe, Alekseyev’s team bonded plywood skirting to the outer forward fuselage, which helped ease the cumbersome radial engine’s transition onto the LaGG’s airframe. Two variable cooling flaps were installed on both sides of the fuselage, which allowed the 20 mm ShVAK cannons to be mounted above the M-82 (however, this later led to significant problems with the aircraft overheating, since the top cylinders frequently did not benefit from the cooling flaps). Work on the prototype was completed in February 1942 at Plant No. 21 in Gorky, and its inaugural flight of the new aircraft, designated the LaGG-3 M-82, was made the following month. " You just concetrate on final product of modification. Then time was from 7 December 1941 to February 1942. That was final work done by Lavochkin. But there is a catch... "Interestingly, the installation of an M-82 to an LaGG-3 had already been attempted by Mikhail Gudkov, one of the LaGG-3’s original designers, in the summer of 1941. Gudkov took the nose section of a Sukhoi Su-2 light bomber, which also housed an M-82, and attached it to the airframe of an LaGG-3. The resulting aircraft, which was known as the Gu-82, made its first flight in September, and reached a top speed of 360 mph (580 km/h). Though the aircraft did have a number of issues, specifically regarding its stability, initial flight tests showed promise, and it was certainly an improvement over the LaGG-3. In October 1941, Gudkov wrote to Soviet leader Josef Stalin, “Currently, I am carrying out complex developments that give me reason to believe that I will be able to increase the speed of my machine to 600 km/h, without taking into account the elimination of defects in the mass production [of LaGG-3s]… after staying at the front, I distinctly imagine that we need to have an airplane with an air-cooled engine since the use of fighters with liquid-cooled engines in air battles and especially in ground attack against the enemy brings a great percentage of losses in pilots and material, because of the great vulnerability of the water system of the engine… proceeding from these considerations, I ask you, in order to gain time, without waiting for the end of flight testing, to allow me to introduce my aircraft with the M-82 at one of the production plants that produce the LaGG aircraft.” However, Gudkov did not immediately receive a response, and by the time he did, the LaGG-3 M-82 project was already underway, and the Gu-82 was not further pursued. While it is unclear why, exactly, the LaGG-3 M-82 project was chosen instead of the Gu-82, especially since the latter was several months ahead of the former, historians believe that it was due to Lavochkin’s close relationship with members of the Soviet leadership. "   Hmm, two designers that create LaGG 1 and 3 try in the same time put the same engine on the same plane. But wait Lavochkin do it in only few weeks, what a genius. Something that Gutkov start doing 6 moths earlier. And that is why I think that wasn't true. Works was done with other trials to modify LaGG, Lavochkin just benefit from both desings and thats why officially he created his plane so fast. Because him and Gutkov were working about that from start when LaGG was produced. Nopthing new in design and plane production. But I'm sure that your version is closer to truth because that is claim of official soviet sources (yes that is sarcasm).
    1
  87.  @RussianThunderrr  LaGG 3 have reputation of plane that gonna kill you or save you if you are lucky, because only quality was it massive construction. I never find that crtitic about La. One thing I point and you just dancing around, main fault of LaGG 3 was low production standard. Planes were poor in performance and dangerous in use. Last series were better produced but with whole opionion that stick to them soviet pilots didn't trust them. You just push notion that La is just a LaGG with new engine and change was done very fast. I give you many sources that don't agree with that notion. You will claim othervise, ok maybe creating nefwwhole front in plane is easy (designers don't agree with you, what they can know). Everyone who knows something about plane construction will know that is not that easy, just swap engine and put instalation there. It is a hard and very demanding work, even on existing design. For me whole that notions about greatnes and quality of soviet tank name T-34 don't match battle performance (crew and flawed command staff take big role in that). To many thing don't match. It is like argument that diesel engine is less prone to burn. Statistic and practice don't support that. Basicly every part of legend of T-34 do not match reality. It is the same with bad reputation of Sherman. Opinion could be subjective, but facts just kick in face. You bring up many arguments, some valid, some just blund propaganda. It was nice to "talk" with you.
    1
  88.  @RussianThunderrr  Then if I claim, as I claim from start, LaGG 3 was poor plane in many ways worse than La 5 (whatever we agree or not, that is the same plane or modification of original plane) I am right in claim that LaGG 3 was one of worst planes in WW2. That mean when I compare difference between T-34/76 to T-34/85 using example of LaGG 3 (from good prototype to very weak line fighter). You just go from LaGG 3 to La 5, but for my example is eve better. LaGG 3 was disappointment, La 5 was better as fighter. Point is that for most time T-34 was poorly produced and equiped machine. And Sherman in any way get this problems. We wrote about comparision, but we have to compare real machines, not projects. In reality T-34 in any way was better than M4.
    1
  89.  @RussianThunderrr  "T-34 was a lot better off road, because it had bigger wheel(so it goes better over large obstacles), and long travel suspension, on top of that wider tracks and lower center of gravity" Really? When in the most cases T-34 drivers can use only one gearbox setting! Even when in T-34/85 they fix more of this problems, still drivers very fast were tired because of great force need to operate gearbox, they even have to use hammer to change gearbox setting! How you can praise whole tank if only engine was good element there (in any competition best tank engine in WW2).Try to go stop and fast start in war production T-34 and you just destroy gearbox! Thats why for the most time soviet tankers even didn't try to do it with T-34. Whole transmision and suspention was obselete and poorly made. Christie suspension was big and very noisy. Didn't work very well for crew and tank. This tank was known for problems with suspention, that is one of most common named disadvantage of this tank! Thats why after T-34 in USSR they resign from Christy suspension. IS or T-44 use torsion bar suspention because of T-34 problems! If you claim are true, then why in Korea and Arab-Israeli wars Shermans in anyway shown this disadvatage? Also test done by Soviets, Germans and Americans show that difference on paper don't match real performance. T-34 on paper was better but in reality, suspension and gearbox killed that "advantage". About quality. Evacuation was done in summer of 1941. When the tanks produced in 1940 and before Barbarossa were dying in great numbers from mechanical faliures. Big portion of T-34 was lost in 1941 because of it! Not just from enemy fire! That mean that production standards wasn't so great from start! M4 never had this problems, from start of production it was easy to produce and maintain tank, not like T-34. Yes after war T-34/85 get great modification program, but tha was after the war! If that was so food tank before, why USSR done this basicly after the war! Yes 85mm was better as a soft target killer, but for that M4 with 75mm or 105mm was keep in fight. And tank warfare is not one tank versus one! Soviet adress that building assalute guns like SU-76, SU/ISU122 and 152. Also 75mm from M4 was very good AT gun. Only german tanks that was protected from front against it was Tiger, Elefant and Panther family. Up to distance of 1000 meters this gun can destroy from front tanks like Pz IV and T-34 whithout any problems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/75_mm_Gun_M2/M3/M6 You forget that in 1941 was one more model of T-34, T-34/57 because Soviet decide build tank with better AT gun than F-32 gun! Then they just did the same as Americans, whole your argument is false that way.They resign because Germans didn't get better armored tanks in Barbarossa. Shermans 76mm M1 gun was better in destroying hard targets, look again to Kubinka's report about gun and ammunition performance against Tiger II tank. Soviets admit that M1 was better than 85mm tank gun. Sorry but still your claims miss the point that paper performace is not the same like real life action.
    1
  90.  @RussianThunderrr  Gun M6 in M24 is different than M3 in M4. That is lighter version with much less potent ammo( have to correct, ammo was the same). Penetration values for M3 gun are much better like that for M6 (penetration values were the same). You just show that you really don't know nothing about american tank guns! (mistake made by comparision to M6 to M1 76mm which was main gun for M4 when M24 join to action) Really you just make me laugh with your ignorance.(made the same mistake) Is like claiming that L-11 is the same gun like F-32 because both are 76.2mm. Correction: At 1000 meters M3/M6 penetrate with best AP ammo 80mm plate. When best shell from F-32 penetrate 60mm. Then which gun is better?
    1
  91. I have to correct, they use the same ammo, but M6 couldn't keep the same fire rate. Plus there is no evidence that that shells from M6 gun bounce from T-34! If you have source for your claim show that, becuase penetrtaion values don't support your claim. I agree I make mistake, but still penetration values are higher for M3 than F-32. Panzer IV frontal plate have 80mm, T-34 whit slope was close to this value, but big driver hatch weaken this plate. Fact is that M3 can penetrate both plates even from 1000 meters.
    1
  92. Plus if you comapre T-34/85 with M24, that is joke. Becuse T34 with 85mm can destroy M24 from any distance, when M24 can do it under 1000 meters. Then if you comapre guns uyou should compare M3 to F-32!
    1
  93.  @RussianThunderrr  There is two things here: First that M3, F-32 and Kwk 40 7.5cm L42 and L48were very similar in firepower. German gun in both versions were very good in anti-tank role, M3 was little behind and F-32 was step after. In reality on battlefields each tank can destroy it's opponent in distance from 900 meters to 1km. That is proven by balistic test of this guns and ammunition for them. Plus battle reports. Simple fact. to push both Soviets and Americans to change guns in tanks they need to meet Tigers and Panthers on battelfields. If you comapare 76mm M1 and 85mm guns from T-34 (D5-T and ZIS-53) was better in AT role. About bouncing shells from M6 gun from T-34 I think you mean first months of Korean War when Americans try use M24 like normal tank. Yes T-34/85 in this time easly destroy M24, but that was caused by weak performance of untrained US tankers and taking firefight from great distances when M24 was just light tank that shouldn't be use like that. When Shermans with 76mm arrive T-34/85 were destroy without big problems because better crews in Shermans and weak performance of korean crews. Also like in bazookas ammunition in first weaks of this conflict prove to be substandard. Americans just use ammunition from magazines from Japan and there was big problem with quality of maintance. Ammunition was just old and storage in bad condition. That many time cause problems with combat use. Many time shells didn't explode or underperform.
    1
  94.  @RussianThunderrr  If you wrote about muzzle velocity you sholud specify about which shell you talking about. Because some shells are slower then others. On paper F-34 with its ammunition was better, not that much as so many people belive. But big problem with soviet ammunition was again poor standards of quality control. Some of shells were like in catalouge, some just break when they hit target or fuses explode shels prematurly. That was basicly problem with whole soviet ammunition fabrication. I send you information about trails of captured Tiger II. Conclusion was that M3 was better than F-34 in anti-tank role. That was soviet specialist report! And M3 had 41 calibers barrel. Difference between muzzle velocity was minimal between this two guns. If you compare this guns firts is Kwk 30, second is M3 and at the end is F-34. And I'll as a mistake wrote F-32 when should be F-34.
    1
  95.  @RussianThunderrr  I wrote that I in mistake wrote F-32, but that should be F-34. Test and data shows that F-34 was little worse than M3. That is easy to check. Again look on soviet trails against Tiger II. Here some more data: http://www.theshermantank.com/wp-content/uploads/M3-gun-Data.pdf
    1
  96.  @RussianThunderrr  "And M3 had 41 calibers barrel." -- Are you sure? " Yes that is specification of M3 75mm tank gun. ""Difference between muzzle velocity was minimal between this two guns." -- Defiantly not, and M3 AT projectile slower then F-34 gun, so how about that? " Which round? And speed and mass are important, but also composition an shape are also important in penetration. Even slower shell with greater mass and better shape can make better penetration. And in regard to most sources, M3 always have bigger penetration than F-34. "That is probably explains why you were looking at the wrong gun specs." I made mistake, but still i wrote about gun that was main gun in T-34/76. Maybe is not wise admit to mistake, but that is any way argument that I don't know what I am talking about. Then tell me what is F-32 gun? What are specs for it?
    1
  97.  @RussianThunderrr  " Driver don't have to shift gears as often on diesel engine, and people do learn how to change gear, however steering the tank is a hard physical job(unless you have power assist like in Tiger tank) after all those are 30 tons tanks, that is including Sherman." Then how you want drive dynamic in terrain without changing gears? And how diesle engine is different in conection to gearbox setings or transsmision? To operate with efficency a tank engine you need flexiable and easy to operate gearbox and transmission. Sherman have that easy to operate system, also easy to service in field. T-34 gearbox need much more strenght to operate. Even you admit that. http://www.theshermantank.com/tag/transmission/
    1
  98.  @RussianThunderrr  Ok I make mistake, I agree M3 tank gun was 40 caliber barrel.
    1
  99.  @RussianThunderrr  Diesle or not when transmission and gearbox are not designed or not produced in proper way, you not gonna use this power. That is case of T-34. Gearbox and transsmition were from start very heavy to operate, plus easy to break. That why drivers use only one settig and push engine to maximum when they can. Which cause problems with overloading the engine. The same problems was seen in KW series for the most time. Transsmision and gerabox was one of weakest points of T-34 design. Aberdeen trails state that T-34 was equiped in obselete and very fragile gearbox and transmission which can't use properly whole power of engine. All claims about that transmission and gearbox in T-34 were reaible are just false. Transmission and gearbox were first part of this tank which were modernise in war production vehicles. From 1942 Soviets start producing never models with new gearbox, but still that was far behinde transmission and gerboxes of M4, which also was modernize. I see that you to undermine your opponent arguments you put comparison that way, that you compare the newest T-34/85 to older models of M4 or Pz IV. You use this rhetoric to undermine arguments. When i talk about comaprision of ealry M4 to T-34/76, you jump to T-34/85 and just "forget" what about was argument and disscussion. The same was with LaGG 3 and La 5. I said that LaGG 3 was bad plane in many ways. You jump nad "shout" but La 5 was good. When my point was that the without proper standars of production that plane from prototype to production plane change into worst soviet fighter. Argument show that when project of T-34 in many ways was good, but need modernisation of many parts of it. Like cramp turret. Transsmition and gearbox. Suspenssion from Christy Type to torssion bars. Whole that argument you cover "shouting" "but La 5 was greate". That is not the point of this argument. About M3 and F-34 guns, muzzle velocity and weight of ammunition, that is important part of penetration problem, but also you should remeber that type of shell and materials are very important. You can't just throw away argument like velocity and mass are only two parts of penetration. Simple example HEAT or HESH rounds use tottaly diffrent approach to penetration. In case of this two types is better use slower shell.  Plus if you wrote about ammunition you should mention that when they test T-34 in Aberdeen Americans noticed that muzzle velocity is lower then catalog values. Soviets claim that is not true but documents claim othervise. Next you have test in Kubinka when Soviets shoot to Tiger II using all guns they use and guns from vehicles from Lend Lease. They observe that F-34 was worse than M3. That is in CAMD RF 38-11377-129 report which is made after trails. The two independent sources, which are tank institutes claim tha F-34 was worse in anti-tank firepower then M3. What can I say. About comaprision I made, when i made them I use models from the same time. M4A1 vs Pz IV F2 or G vs T-34/76 model 1941 or 1942. M4A1 (76)W or M4M4A3E8/M4A3(76)W HVSS vs Pz IV H or J vs T-34/85. That is proper way to compare this tanks. Next your trick is changing subject when you can't respond. What with CAMD RF 38-11377-129 report or other reporth that claim that T-34 wasn't in any way superior to other tanks from era, rather othervise. Good in elements but as a whole design much more prone to mechanical faliure. What with problems in quality of soviet production? Evacuation is not only reason that it happened, that was one of the vices of communism. About soviet tankers on M4: Loza talk much about this tank and praise it. Talk about weakness and strong point, he even said that in comparision when M4 burn he observe that ammo didnt explode and lot of crews survive this. But when T-34 start burning they always try to run far away because when it's start burning ammo explode. Praise M4 for internal space, mechanical efficency. Things that T-34 tanks were lacking. https://iremember.ru/en/memoirs/tankers/dmitriy-loza/ You ponit my mistakes but you can't admit to yours. That is not really honest disscution. You turn disscusiom from points that you can't respond and point to other way. Yes I made mistakes but I can correct them. You can't. Simple example you claim that frontal plate of T-34 was in any way weaken by driver's hatch. But that is not true, every specialist will tell you that if you made a huge cut in structure you make it weaker. You claim that Kwk 37 7.5 cm L/24 couldn't penetrate frontal armor of T-34, when with HEAT round it could! https://panzerworld.com/7-5-cm-kw-k-l-24
    1
  100.  @RussianThunderrr  Source of claim pls. Because what ammunition was used in M24 in this engament. What was distance? What is point using this argument if you can't provide this information. Reports from combat and test prove that M3 could destroy on distance of 1 km tanks like T-34 and Pz IV. You wrongly claim othervise. Then wher is proof of that?
    1
  101.  @RussianThunderrr  I give you sources and coments about them. If you claim that lie prove it. Designation of soviet report is: CAMD RF 38-11377-129 I read it in paper version in military newspaper. There wher original version with translation, pictures and tabels. About test in Aberdeen: http://english.battlefield.ru/documents/29-technics/95-evaluation-of-the-t-34-and-kv.html
    1
  102.  @RussianThunderrr  One example, whitout any information what ammunition was use in M24. Still this is in contradiction with M3 parameters. Under 500 yards AP M72 shell can penetrate 3" plate. Again you just use one memoires to claim that they give you argument. Sorry in this case that is one example, without any aditional information.
    1
  103.  @RussianThunderrr  You ask me where I take my information about lower muzzle velocity! I don't claim that they wrote about M3. Nice try but not true in this part! Next example how you twist my words for your argument.
    1
  104.  @RussianThunderrr  HEAT were main AP shells in later part of war (1943/44) for tanks like Pz III N! You miss that? This ammunition was use because 7.5 cm L/24 was in this moment use only in Pz III N and lighter vehilces. In Pz IV they use long 7.5 cm L/48. Nice try but here you are wrong. I wrote this from start!
    1
  105.  @RussianThunderrr  This tankkers were from occupation forces from Japan. No real treaning in tank combat. Ammunition was taken from storage whitout any testing it!
    1
  106.  @RussianThunderrr  Ask soviet general who use that quote. About, CAMD RF 38-11377-129 I wrote to you that I read it in paper! Probem with understanding! This report is mention in many articules in military press, that is signature of soviet report from test trials of Tiger II. Look on books, not every document you can find in internet.
    1
  107.  @RussianThunderrr  Turret in Pz IV G was still 50 mm thick, only part of G version get 30 mm aditional armor plate on hull. That mean that hull have 80 mm thickness, but not as one plate! That mean that it was substancial worse than single plate!
    1
  108.  @RussianThunderrr  That not mean anything! That is just scope view. That not is information about ammo used in that battle! To use new shells crewmans use manulas or special plates mounted inside tank. Plus that is just visualisation, if you put faith in that I don't know why I read your's opinion.
    1
  109.  @RussianThunderrr  You ask me from where i take information about performance of F-34 on trails. I give you anwser and you claim that I was talking about M3! Not even close!
    1
  110.  @RussianThunderrr  Do i wrote that Pz III N was use as a tank destroyer. NO! I wrote that Kwk 37 7.5 L/24 with HEAT could penetrate frontal armor of T-34. You again claim something I never wrote!
    1
  111.  @RussianThunderrr  Like that, frontal plate of T-34 in theory thanks to slope is effective like 90mm armor. That is weaken by driver hatch and mg mout. Plus M72 and M61 shells can penetrate 100 mm RHA plate. Next in T34/76 turret depend of version was protected worse than hull. Also under the main gun mantlet, between turret and hull was big surface that was easy to penetrate even from big distances. Surface that was prone to catch ricochet. That I am very sceptical that M3 can't penetrate from under 200 m hull of T-34.
    1
  112.  @RussianThunderrr  Then I can tell you, both models L11 and F-32 were used basicly in T-34 produced and used in 1940/41. I wrote about F-34 gun and I myself wrote about my mistake. You even didn't notice that! My msiatake was just bad writing not mean that I don't see difference between L/11 and F-34!
    1
  113.  @RussianThunderrr  Yes, but it is case of usage of equipment that you have because you don't have nothing better. 7.5 cm L/24 was use because it was gun that fit to turret Pz III. The same was using T-34/76 against Tigers and Panthers. StuG III in any way was build to fight as a TD but Germans use it like that.
    1
  114.  @RussianThunderrr It looks like when numbers from reports contrradict your claim, report are not valid. You have source from russian officer from tank branch. He wrote what he wrote. You now claim that you know that he was wrong because you knew better? This letter show which vices of T-34 were to change. Even if speed were overated, Pz III in trails show that in many fields were better than T-34. That was main conclusion! It really looks like you never will aprove arguments and documents that are not in you favor. Then sources are valid only when you claim they are? Sorry but real science work in different way. Americans and British, Germans and Soviets made similar assumption in trails. But some other soviet report claim something else. Which source I should belive? When everybody write about weak transmision and bad gearbox, only some soviet documents state that was superb product. Then who is lying, who done proper study? I made my mistakes and I admit to them.
    1
  115.  @RussianThunderrr  Not every Pz IV Aufs. G get additional hull plate. Also turret was still with 50 mm plate. Even with addition plate, turret was prone to penetration from M3 with M72 shell. That is 50 mm vertical plate! https://ww2-weapons.com/panzer-iv-g/ You again use half truth. Only some part of G version was with that additional plate from start. There is some difference in estimation, but today it looks like that was about 50% of this tank came from factory with this plate. Later Germans could mout that plate in field repair units. That is always problem with field modifications. Life is not computer games as you wrote some time ago.
    1
  116.  @RussianThunderrr  That video is total CGI. Only thing that was real was this veteran tanker. Rest were just asumptions of Discovery Channel. Not the best source for real historic data.
    1
  117. Christie suspention was one of reasons why T-34 was so problematic in service. Take a lot of space inside tank!
    1
  118. That is not Panther II, that is Panther F. Two different tanks!
    1
  119.  @frankwhite3406  Yes but still Panther you refer earlier is Panther F, new turret and hull. But still 7.5cm, any plans to put 8.8 into Schmallturn. People mix three tanks, Panther II, Panther F and E50.
    1