Russian T-34 tank

>entire crew in one single compartment
>tank

I might not have been the best tank of the war but since all russia had to do was zerg rush the nazis, it was probably the best tank for them.

Nice ctrl+c & ctrl+v skills

Btw is was bad too, but at least could get to the battlefield without bursting its engine or breaking its transmission

Attached: 48ec2c702581fe1ea161eebad41a0332208de20c.jpg (800x450, 58K)

>kill/loss ratio
If one side builds 1 tank and the other builds 10 tanks then of course the kill/loss ratio is going to be 1 to 10.

the level of autism in this post is beyond every immagination

You are fucking retarded.

>cramped
Oh, sorry that making a fucking apartment wasn't in priorities! What next? Put a shitter and running water inside?

Crude production and shoddy reliability was actually a strategic choice by the Soviets to better mass produce it. It was made to be a mass produced shitty tank, and still didn't have a lot of the glaring issues found in the Panther, which contrary to the T34 was made to be a quality tank. Anyway, yeah there's a lot of memes about it. Yes it gets memed up pretty heavily by tankies, but by no means more than panzers get by wehrboos.

Anyway youtube.com/watch?v=N6xLMUifbxQ is a good video on the subject, especially the Parshall bit specifically about the tank production is interesting.

lend-lease value
for Russia is greatly exaggerated, especially if we consider that the Americans also helped Nazi Germany during the war

>this is your brain on Krokodil

>meme lease
Nice meme.

nope

Attached: Гитлер и основатель IBM.jpg (1372x910, 141K)

Cramped = heavier crew fatigue inability to transport as much material and low escape ability.

It really isn't stressed well enough, Russia would not have been able to win without lend lease.

Perhaps, but they probably wouldn't lose without LL either.
Germans would have a better chance of forcing a stalemate.

>early war is the same as late war
try producing things when your industry is on wheels running away

No they'd lose land at the very least which would be considereda loss. The amount of material provided by foriegn powers even pre stalingrad was staggering.

>2 out of 3 trucks in the Red Army was foreign built by the end of the war
lmao

Was it?
I thought like 90% of aid came after Stalingrad.

thats not the same tank as in op user

Attached: absolutely_haram.jpg (524x465, 100K)

American contributions were smaller at the time due to their materials meant for the Soviets were cannibalized for the Pacific war effort. British lend lease however supplied aircraft and armor that was crucial to the defense of Moscow and stalingrad. British tanks made up about 30-40% of the Soviet medium and heavy tanks in the defense of Moscow which was incredibly important because they had lost over 20000 tanks from june to December in 1941.

Good luck winning a war with an air force without high octane fuel

The only difference is the turret

What? It is also a T-34, just a later version.

>USSR
>Provide germany with chrome and magnane to make quality armour steel, pretty much every nazi armour plate in every kraut tank is made using russian additives .
>Provide germany with massive iron to make abovementioned armour
>provide germany with fuel to run tanks build using above mentoined steeel
>provide germany with literally 1/4th of food supply (while russian peasants are eating grass and tree bark)

>B-but IBM sold Hitler their mechanised jew counting machine, see? US is just as bad!

Soviet iron didn't matter, Sweden was more important.

Steel additives did matter a lot however. You can't make armour steel without them (that is, you can make it , but it will be shit - read about dramatic drop of quality of late war german armour steel - it was weak, brittle and inferior quality. ) . And as i said before, german industry was almost completely reliant on russian supplies in that regard.
IIRC after pre 1941 supply was out, krauts were pretty desperate to get good steel, to the point where they stripped their shipyards from wotan steel stocks that was stockpiled for warship construction (the fact that they gave up on warships at that point certainly made this decision easy, but still it demonstrates the problems they had) .

"our hardened steel, whose quality was dropping due to a lack of natural resources, was inferior to the Russians' hardened steel."
-Heinz Guderian

Don't forget the Russians being crucial to building the German military to get around the Versailles treaty.

This hit's the nail on the head. I'd argue that the sherman was perhaps the best all around tank of the war, but the Soviet Union needed lots of current gen tanks, and it needed them immediately. everything about the T34 was designed to facilitate this and it accomplished that objective

also don't forget the USSR being essential to train German Luftwaffe pilots in secret

They were even going to abandon the Christie Suspension for a more conventional design, giving a 50% increase in internal volume for fuel and ammo

Then Hitler sperged out

Only a measly 2.1% of Lend-lease was delivered by the end of 1941, by which point it was clear to pretty much anyone the Germans weren't gonna win. If you really think the Soviets were the 2.1% of lend-lease supplies away from losing you really have little clue about the war.

Not providing lend lease would've crippled the Soviet war effort offensively but the Eastern front still would've held and more likely have turned into a stalemate situation. The only thing that would've changed significantly would be the fact that instead of the Soviets carrying the war on the ground, the western allies would have to, and if there overblown dramatization of D-day and pearl harbor are anything to go by, they would've had a whole other thing coming.

this. pic related. The reliability and "hurr durr piece of shit needs hammer" memes are greatly exaggerated by freeaboos

Attached: reliability-1.jpg (750x258, 81K)

quality fucking post user

>And they say Panther was the worst tank, kek.
The Panther had a better combat debut than the T-34 lol

>Only a measly 2.1% of Lend-lease was delivered by the end of 1941, by which point it was clear to pretty much anyone the Germans weren't gonna win.

The Soviet Union wasn't out of the clear until the end of 1942, by that point their entire air force was practically running on fuel from the US and the less common materials that their industry would've stalled out without were being provided as well.

*loses 80% of its production in combat*

for those who can't make it out, theres are figures for engine life
"T-34: 2000-2500 km, 250-300 hours
IS/ISU-122: 1200-1800 km, 230-280 hours
M4A2: 2000-2500 km, 250-300 hours
SU-76: 1200-1800 km, 180-200 hours

To put it in perspective the Panther is 700-1000km of engine life (which the Germans thought was great) The T-34 was more than reliable

>The Soviet Union wasn't out of the clear until the end of 1942
By then winter and poorly planned logistics had done to the Germans whatever the Soviets couldn't do, they still would've held Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad regardless. As you should know its offensive actions that consume the vast majority of an armies resource's and without lendlease the Soviets wouldn't of been able to push the Germans back like they did. But I assure you they still had enough men, motivation and weapons too hold onto their key positions and probably launch local counter offensives, they just would've lost the ability to spearhead through the thinly held German front lines.

>Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad regardless.

All cities that would've starved without offensives into Ukraine.

>I assure you they still had enough men, motivation and weapons too hold onto their key positions and probably launch local counter offensives

Without an airforce or strong industry to back them I doubt they'd be very effective.

>All cities that would've starved without offensives into Ukraine.
Widespread famine and starvation? Sure. Enough to significantly decimate the defending armies? Simply no. The civilians would've taken the brunt of the famines, something that was basically routine in Russia ,tens of millions had died from starvation that century already its not an absurd circumstance for the average Russian peasant.

>Without an airforce or strong industry to back them I doubt they'd be very effective.

Allies supplied 57% of aviation fuel, of which over 80% was delivered from 1943 onward. The Soviet air force wouldn't of been grounded like you exaggerations claim nor would they have lost the defensive ability that was more important. A majority of the soviet airforce was wasted on offensive operations, just look how much they poured into Il-2's even though history has shown us that their effectiveness was dubious at best, not being able to commit the majority of their airforce to dated ground attack operations would'nt of been a nail in the coffin for a Russia on the defense.

That's debatable but I kinda agree with the user.
Germans lost their chance of victory in front of Moscow. And that battle wasn't even as ''close'' as people think. They weren't even close to surrounding Moscow, and taking Moscow which was Stalingrad on steroids would be even tougher proposition.

Case Blue was too fucking optimistic. Even if everything went according to the plan, it would be tough to accomplish. Reaching Baku in time was downright impossible. And for the German side, even if they captured those oil fields it would take them a lot of time and effort to bring the production back to relevant levels.

Another factor that's ignored here is that Soviets would probably use their resources more carefully if situation was that shitty.

But all that shit is irrelevant. LL was a major aid to Soviets, and anyone who says otherwise is an idiot.
But it's also idiotic to say ''LL won the war on EF''. No. That downplays Soviet efforts on a ridiculous level. Ultimately, Germans were defeated by Soviets. Not by weather, not by mud, not by American tanks or fuel or trucks, but by Soviets.

...and ultimately, Allied victory in WW2 was a team effort. Neither of the major countries on Allied side (USA, UK, USSR) won on it's own. All three made huge contributions.
It's just pointless to separate their efforts...one thing led to another.

>T-34M
Better, but damn fugly
T-44 is much better

Attached: 1365006468_8.jpg (800x430, 52K)

See
Implying lend lease wasn't crucial is the most egregious historical revisionism I have seen in modern times.

Yuri shouldn't you be trying to hack another election?

>Implying lend lease wasn't crucial
Literally no one is saying that, on the contrary freeaboos are going about saying without leandlease the Soviets would have lost. Which as a number of anons have pointed out is factually untrue, thats the only revisionism going on here.

>Yes radio.
you are grossly misinformed

>Allies supplied 57% of aviation fuel, of which over 80% was delivered from 1943 onward

They didn't use fuel as was, they boosted their own through mixing and TEL additives which had been coming in before '43. Without which the VVS would've been in deep shit.

>Enough to significantly decimate the defending armies? Simply no. The civilians would've taken the brunt of the famines

Industry fails when those who work it starve, its a simple matter of productivity. The average Moscowite lost 15lbs in the first year alone. A factory worker laboring 12+ hours a day in a factory can only subsist at such a level for so long.

absolute americunt thinking
>sure a lot of guys died needlessly in our shit Sherman, but murrka we won the war

>shoddy reliability was actually a strategic choice by the Soviets
oh cope cope cope HAHAHAHAHA

No, you are. By design, T-34 had a radio, and so did every T-28 which was originally designed in early 30's.
Now in practice radios were in short supply and radios that were issues were quite shit. But we are talking about a tank design here.

Except 30-40 percent of soviet medium and heavy armor was supplied by British lend lease and 15 percent of the Soviet airforce was hurricanes and tomahawks supplied by the allies. Add to that foreign training and specialized industrial shipments and then you get the picture of why lend lease was important. The battle for Moscow was about as dire as portrayed in the past, anyone who tells you otherwise is either looking at troop numbers and assuming things or a neo communist trying to bolster their ideology.

>We really lack accurate data for K/D ratio of particular models.

All we need to know is that they lost more T-34s than Germany produced Tanks.

>Be German infantry
>Horde of T-34 coming at you
>Radio for tank support
>No tanks available
>Get crushed under T-34 tracks
>Last words: but muh kill/loss ratio

Attached: 1398293369486.jpg (748x695, 92K)

Which is exactly what I am arguing, the Soviets would not have won without lend lease period.

But the Sherman was one of, if not the safest tanks in WW2. Provided you wear a helmet like a smart person and unlike Bongloid tankers.

>T-34s drive past your unit because they can't see anything

>Except 30-40 percent of soviet medium and heavy armor was supplied by British lend lease
You misunderstood that number. At one point, 30-40 percent of Soviet medium and heavy tanks on Moscow front were British. At one point. On Moscow front. Not on the entire Eastern Front.
>foreign training
I wasn't aware LL had a training aspect?
>and specialized industrial shipments
Overwhelming majority of that stuff came after the battle of Moscow was concluded.
>was about as dire as portrayed in the past
No it wasn't and I explained why. The fact they were able to stage a counter-attack which almost broke German front also hammers my point further.
>neo communist trying to bolster their ideology
And of course, you just HAVE to accuse someone of being something.

I'm not a communist, or Russian, I'm just a bit more knowledgeable about history than you are.

>T-34 breaks down before even reaching the front and is written off completely

Soviets counted losses differently. Some tanks were lost several times. Loss means operational loss. A tank ditching a track is lost. A tank with a broken engine or transmission is lost.

Of course, many T-34s were destroyed, just not as many as you think.

>The average Moscowite lost 15lbs in the first year alone. A factory worker laboring 12+ hours a day in a factory can only subsist at such a level for so long.
You do realize that the Soviets lasted until the end of 1942 (or into the "clear" as you would say) without making significant advances into the Ukraine right? So this whole tangent about them all starving to death and losing the war without lendlease in 1941-42 is pretty fucking trivial and pointless.

>They didn't use fuel as was, they boosted their own through mixing and TEL additives which had been coming in before '43. Without which the VVS would've been in deep shit.
They still had there own fuel supplies and would've used it far more sparingly and strategically had lend lease not been avalible. For starters they wouldn't of put colossal effort into making ground attack aircraft (iL-2s, ei the most produced military aircraft in human history) and focused on interception and strategic defense. Which all amounts to much less then you think anyway considering the Germans strategic bombing capability was fucking laughable and they thought things like air supplying an entire army was clever use of resources.

USA probably lost more tanks in the Pacific than the Japs ever sent against them.
Doesn't mean the Jap tanks were better.

Also, obviously, not all tanks were lost in direct combat either.

What? Destroy civilian morale you said?

Fire up the Lancasters!

Attached: arthur_harris_raf.jpg (1772x2329, 1.09M)

Source?

I'm looking at soviet records both their loss rates and differences in operational strength during the war, production during the war and strength at the end during the war.

>I'm literally pulling stats from my anus because I can't defend one of the worst tanks ever made

>Russia lost more T-34s, just T-34s than German tank production during the war
>Germany also fought the western allies
>You seriously think that your position can be defended

>Except 30-40 percent of soviet medium and heavy armor was supplied by British lend lease
It was just over 25% of Soviet medium and heavy tanks and only 6.5% of total soviet tank production. Not to mention in comparison to Soviet medium and heavy tanks (T-34's and KV-1s respectively) the matildas and valentines were fucking terrible, and were used as cannon fodder too free up units for counter attacks (hence why such a large number were used in Moscows defense).

>Destroy Civilian Morale
>Destroy Civilian

Do it again bomber Harris

>You do realize that the Soviets lasted until the end of 1942 (or into the "clear" as you would say) without making significant advances into the Ukraine right? So this whole tangent about them all starving to death and losing the war without lendlease in 1941-42 is pretty fucking trivial and pointless.

No shit, starvation was a result of the USSR losing its most productive agricultural region. My point is that it was immediate and drastic the first year after they lost it, without literally millions of tons of food being shipped in they'd be in serious trouble.

>They still had there own fuel supplies and would've used it far more sparingly and strategically had lend lease not been avalible.

This means most of the VVS is unserviceable.

> focused on interception and strategic defense.

Soviet EW was behind everyone else's, they are dealing with a massive front and don't actually have the capacity to cover it. The only reason they even developed semi-decent sets later in the war was British technical sharing (and theft).

>Germans strategic bombing capability was fucking laughable

Their ability to hit depots, infrastructure, and compensate for a lack in artillery, however, was not.

If you got a lot of tanks you lose a lot of tanks. That's just how it goes.
Even if the enemy brought 0 tanks you would lose most of them to anti-tank guns, mines, etc.

>one of worst tanks ever made
>wins war

Let me guess you think it was 10 T-34s too every Panzer as well? Look at the numbers for lots of the battles on the EF, the soviet armor didn't typically outnumber the Germans to the extent retards like you imagine, more often ratios like 2:1 or 3:1. Factor in the fact they were generally attacking, had terrible crews and logistics and still came out on top you come to the conclusion that maybe it had a bit more going for it then "one of the worst tanks ever made".

Heck even the Germans grabbed some and pic related even achieved 27 kills over the course of a few months in one of the worst tanks ever made, on par with many panzer 3 and 4 records.

Attached: das_reich5.jpg (1024x546, 101K)

You actually have a good summary here.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipment_losses_in_World_War_II

Also, higher Soviet losses weren't necessarily due to equipment faults. Soviets were inferior in tactical and operational sense to Germans for a good part of the war, and they were also on the offensive a lot longer than Germans. Higher losses are to be expected, especially materiel losses.

I don't know about you chief, but I'd rather lose most of my nation's tanks and win the war than get my naton's cities btfo and cucked by an invanding army

Attached: 1536025740681.png (230x298, 86K)

Also, notice in the same article how around 7000 Shermans were lost in WTO in 1944/1945.
Does that mean Sherman was a shit tank?
No, it means combat losses are to be expected and Allies were attacking while Germans were defending 90% of the time.

Still needing that there source for

"Soviets counted losses differently. Some tanks were lost several times. Loss means operational loss. A tank ditching a track is lost. A tank with a broken engine or transmission is lost."

I don't need a link to equipment losses for the soviets from wikipedia. I have better primary sources on hand thank you.

>Also, higher Soviet losses weren't necessarily due to equipment faults.

Make your mind up. Tank with shitty quality breaks so we write it off ))), WAIT NO THATS WRONG ((((.

Also if they're on the offensive its easy to recover equipment. Look at the allies in Normandy and their ability to put equipment back in the field incredibly quickly.

>without literally millions of tons of food being shipped in they'd be in serious trouble.
It was only 1.75 million tons of food over the course of the entire war you dingus, stop resorting too gross exaggerations to try make an argument its pathetic.

>This means most of the VVS is unserviceable.
Most of the VVS was committed to offensive action with limited returns, they still would've had enough to contest the German air force over key cities and areas, which is mostly a moot point anyway given how laughably rubbish the Luftwaffe was at strategic bombing.

>Their ability to hit depots, infrastructure, and compensate for a lack in artillery, however, was not.
Did you miss the memo where Soviet industry pulled back behind the Urals or what?

That's not the point of this thread, and I don't think that's his argument. But his argument is still flawed.
For start, T-34 wasn't really a great design by late war standards. But it was still adequate, and it's literally insane to declare it ''the worst medium tank of WW2''.

>Losing 7000 Shermans is the same as losing over 80% of T-34 production

doubt.png

>According to Grigori F. Krivosheev: "All losses of arms and equipment are counted as irrecoverable losses, i.e. beyond economic repair or no longer serviceable

Excellent quote from an excellent book user.

Attached: Soviet tank losses 1.jpg (1600x1031, 224K)

Attached: Soviet tank losses 2.jpg (1600x1021, 236K)

>Most of the VVS was committed to offensive action with limited returns

Putting pressure on the German rear line was valuable even if they didn't destroy everything back there, they could afford such actions and they drew Luftwaffe resources away. It meant fewer fighters that could be devoted to escort offensive operations.

>which is mostly a moot point anyway given how laughably rubbish the Luftwaffe was at strategic bombing.

Are you physically incapable of grasping the concept of tactical level bombing?

>Did you miss the memo where Soviet industry pulled back behind the Urals or what?

Are you trying to say the red army put their depots, bridges, railyards, artillery positions, and roads there too?

>they made like 50,000 of them

>implying the red army could afford half of those
>implying Russia has roads

>It was only 1.75 million tons of food over the course of the entire war you dingus

4,468,582 short tons.

Well I didn't initially know whose number are you quoting. Krivosheev just states that 45,000 medium tanks were lost, and not all of them were T-34s. He also states 43,000 German tanks were lost. 50,000 were produced in WW2. So you were wrong even with that number.
And I honestly can't don't remember where exactly did I read this. Could've been some book from Glantz. Point is Germans declared their losses differently, if a tank could be repaired it wasn't counted as lost. That's why some day they lose shitload of tanks even if there was no major battle because some repair depot gets overrun.
But that concerns losses in certain operations, not overall losses.
How many Shermans were deployed in WTO?
What was the scale of operations in WTO compared to EF?

You're just reducing the argument to numbers and your argument is flawed from the start.

T-34 wasn't the worst medium tank of the war (for fucks sake, check the Japanese, British, or French designs), not by far.

Not having as much aviation fuel would've given the Germans a significant advantage in all the shit you say, but not enough to change the outcome of German offensives only enough to diminish or nullify the ability of the Soviets to conduct major offensives of their own as I've been saying this whole fucking thread.

>At the same time, the United States was contributing enormously to the war in Russia through Lend-Lease, almost $11 billion in materials: over 400,000 jeeps and trucks; 12,000 armored vehicles (including 7,000 tanks, enough to equip some twenty-odd U.S. armored divisions); 11,400 aircraft; and 1.75 million tons of food.

This is according to the US Army Center Of Military History itself

'
> not enough to change the outcome of German offensives only enough to diminish or nullify the ability of the Soviets to conduct major offensives of their own as I've been saying this whole fucking thread.

Yeah, it would've allowed them to practically cripple the Soviet's ability to supply and move its forces and allow the German's to overcome their most glaring weakness in the field, but yeah no big deal I guess.

>This is according to the US Army Center Of Military History itself

And the 4mil ton figure is from a report by the State Department, who actually managed the program.

My favorite part about your argument is that you didn't even read your source to get the correct figures.

So the Allies lose "7000" Shermans. Total production is 49234 of all types. 14% losses. 14% losses is not 80.3%.

T-34 fought on the ostfront and basically only on the ostfront. They lose 80.3% of production fighting the Germans. 44.9 thousand tanks.

If we take the entire German losses of 42,700 AFV they still have a positive kill / loss ratio if they were only fighting T-34s which they weren't.

T-34 is shit. Soviet Union is shit. Your argument is shit.

Accept it.