The Armory - Guns, Knives, and Axes

[Speaker to Animals]

I would definitely not want to be an American tank crew in a tank battle with the Germans.

Put me in a B-17 to die in a fireball if it has to be like that. Our tanks sucked.

[Speaker to Animals]

That said.. light tanks are not meant to fight head on with heavy tanks at all. If the Germans advanced with a tank column, I think the preferred tactic was to send the Army Air Forces to kill them.

[Montegriffo]

Not what I said. And Yes, we built Pershings and fielded them in WWII. However, I specifically stated the Pershings outclassed teh T-34-85s. The T-34-85 and the M26 Pershing didn't face each other in WWII, so comparing them is conjecture. However, both tanks were shipped to units in 1944, about 10 months seperate their fielding.

This is what you said, I disagree.

T-34's are overrated, their reputation came from massively outnumbering German Tanks

Their reputation came from superior armour design, reliability and cheapness to produce compared to German tanks. That was part of the reason they could so easily outnumber German tanks. German tanks often had to be abandoned because they couldn't be repaired in the field.

[C-Mag]

Again, they failed once they were put up against American Pershings.

You base the T34 greatness on facing German tanks, don't pretend the T34-85s didn't massively outnumber German tanks. Plus, the Germans destroyed nearly 80% of the T-34's fielded , talk about burning coffins. EIGHTY PERCENT LOSSES, I don't call that great.

That the T-34-85 outnumbered the Panther is a well-known fact, but the consequences of this imbalance for individual tank crews are often overlooked. Between the beginning of Panther production in spring 1943 and the defeat of Nazi Germany two years later, 6,000 Panther tanks were built.
During the same period 29,400 T-34-85s rolled off Russian assembly lines. This disparity was increased by the low proportion of Panthers that were operational at any one time due to their poor mechanical reliability.
Consequently, an engagement in which a Panther destroyed four or five T-34-85s before being disabled could still be considered, from a strategic point of view, a Soviet victory. Over the course of the war, the Soviets manufactured 57,000 T-34s (both 76mm and 85mm variants). Of these, around 45,000 were destroyed in battle – a loss rate of almost 80 percent.
https://militaryhistorynow.com/2015/03/ ... t-t-34-85/

[Montegriffo]

Again, they failed once they were put up against American Pershings.

You base the T34 greatness on facing German tanks, don't pretend the T34-85s didn't massively outnumber German tanks. Plus, the Germans destroyed nearly 80% of the T-34's fielded , talk about burning coffins. EIGHTY PERCENT LOSSES, I don't call that great.

That the T-34-85 outnumbered the Panther is a well-known fact, but the consequences of this imbalance for individual tank crews are often overlooked. Between the beginning of Panther production in spring 1943 and the defeat of Nazi Germany two years later, 6,000 Panther tanks were built.
During the same period 29,400 T-34-85s rolled off Russian assembly lines. This disparity was increased by the low proportion of Panthers that were operational at any one time due to their poor mechanical reliability.
Consequently, an engagement in which a Panther destroyed four or five T-34-85s before being disabled could still be considered, from a strategic point of view, a Soviet victory. Over the course of the war, the Soviets manufactured 57,000 T-34s (both 76mm and 85mm variants). Of these, around 45,000 were destroyed in battle – a loss rate of almost 80 percent.
https://militaryhistorynow.com/2015/03/ ... t-t-34-85/

You were talking about reputation, not greatness. Different things.
Your article backs up what I said about reliability, ease, cost and speed of production though.
Quality of manpower should be taken into account too.
Just look at what Martin Wittman was able to do in Villers-Bocage with one tank against a village full of allied armour.
The Russians didn't have the calibre of men that the Germans had.

[C-Mag]

Again, they failed once they were put up against American Pershings.

You base the T34 greatness on facing German tanks, don't pretend the T34-85s didn't massively outnumber German tanks. Plus, the Germans destroyed nearly 80% of the T-34's fielded , talk about burning coffins. EIGHTY PERCENT LOSSES, I don't call that great.

That the T-34-85 outnumbered the Panther is a well-known fact, but the consequences of this imbalance for individual tank crews are often overlooked. Between the beginning of Panther production in spring 1943 and the defeat of Nazi Germany two years later, 6,000 Panther tanks were built.
During the same period 29,400 T-34-85s rolled off Russian assembly lines. This disparity was increased by the low proportion of Panthers that were operational at any one time due to their poor mechanical reliability.
Consequently, an engagement in which a Panther destroyed four or five T-34-85s before being disabled could still be considered, from a strategic point of view, a Soviet victory. Over the course of the war, the Soviets manufactured 57,000 T-34s (both 76mm and 85mm variants). Of these, around 45,000 were destroyed in battle – a loss rate of almost 80 percent.
https://militaryhistorynow.com/2015/03/ ... t-t-34-85/

You were talking about reputation, not greatness. Different things.
Your article backs up what I said about reliability, ease, cost and speed of production though.
Quality of manpower should be taken into account too.
Just look at what Martin Wittman was able to do in Villers-Bocage with one tank against a village full of allied armour.
The Russians didn't have the calibre of men that the Germans had.

I wasn't talking about reputation. I'm talking about facts. The M26 Pershing outclassed and out performed the T34-85. I have showed that the T34 relied on numbers to defeat the Germans, that 80% of the T34's were destroyed in combat, after stating facts its clear the T34 doesn't deserve the respect and reputation you are giving them.

BTW: 50,000 Shermans were produced in WWII. Their losses were less than 10K. That's a 20% loss rate, vs the T34 loss rate of 80%.

Soviet Equipment Sucked!

[TheReal_ND]

Soviets probably saw a lot more combat with their tanks than Americans but whatever. t-34 certainly did not suck.



IF you need anymore reason to distrust the dishonest media, they are calling this violent home invasion an "unwanted house visitor." You cant make this shit up.

Police say a New Jersey man fought off an unwanted house visitor by using the suspect’s own gun — ultimately killing him

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083574260982005760

[doc_loliday]

LMAO.

[C-Mag]

Not what I said. And Yes, we built Pershings and fielded them in WWII. However, I specifically stated the Pershings outclassed teh T-34-85s. The T-34-85 and the M26 Pershing didn't face each other in WWII, so comparing them is conjecture. However, both tanks were shipped to units in 1944, about 10 months seperate their fielding.

This is what you said, I disagree.

T-34's are overrated, their reputation came from massively outnumbering German Tanks

Their reputation came from superior armour design, reliability and cheapness to produce compared to German tanks. That was part of the reason they could so easily outnumber German tanks. German tanks often had to be abandoned because they couldn't be repaired in the field.

AGAIN...……………. they took 80% losses, how is that superior.

I don't know where you are getting your information, I can only guess it is from some Red sympathizer sources or early war sources. Early in Operation Barbarossa T-34 did better because they were goign up against Panzer II, III and IV tanks. That advantage was short lived and as soon as Tigers, Panthers and Sturmgeschütz IV showed up that advantage was over.

[C-Mag]

I would definitely not want to be an American tank crew in a tank battle with the Germans.

Put me in a B-17 to die in a fireball if it has to be like that. Our tanks sucked.

Everything up through the M4 did suck. As soon as the Pershing comes on the scene American tanks hold their own and start outperforming everyone else. That's where this argument started. The only fact based evidence we have of what American tanks do against T34's were during Korea when Pershings met T34-85s. The Pershings totally dominated them. Even though the field of the T34-85 and the Pershing were only 10 months apart.

Amongst military historians its a well known fact that Soviet tanks were evolutionary, while American tanks were revolutionary.