   #copyright

T-34

2007 Schools Wikipedia Selection. Related subjects: Military History and War

   Polish T-34 Model 1943 in Poznań, Poland
                 T-34 Model 1943
             General characteristics
   Crew               4
   Length             6.75 m
   Width              3.00 m
   Height             2.45 m
   Weight             30.9 tonnes
               Armour and armament
   Armour             70 mm
   Main armament      76.2mm F-34 tank gun
   Secondary armament 2×7.62mm DT machine guns
                     Mobility
   Power plant        12-cyl. diesel model V-2
                      500 hp (373 kW)
   Suspension         Christie
   Road speed         55 km/h
   Power/weight       16.2 hp/tonne
   Range              465 km

   The T-34 is a Soviet medium tank produced from 1940 to 1958. It was the
   world's best tank when the Soviet Union entered the Second World War,
   and although its armour and armament were surpassed by later WWII
   tanks, it is credited as the war's most effective, efficient and
   influential design. First produced at the KhPZ factory in Kharkov (
   Kharkiv, Ukraine), it was the mainstay of Soviet armoured forces
   throughout World War II, and widely exported afterwards. It was the
   most-produced tank of the war, and the second most-produced tank of all
   time, after its successor, the T-54/55 series. The T-34 was still in
   service with twenty-seven countries as late as 1996.

Overview

   The T-34 was developed from the BT series of Fast Tanks, and was
   intended to replace both the BT tank and the T-26 infantry tank in
   service. At its introduction, it was the tank with the best balance of
   firepower, mobility, and protection in existence, although initially
   its battlefield effectiveness suffered from the unsatisfactory
   ergonomic layout of its crew compartment, lack of radios and poor
   tactical employment.

   In late 1943, the improved T-34-85 was introduced, with a more powerful
   gun. The design and construction of the tank were continuously refined
   during the war to improve effectiveness and decrease costs, allowing
   steadily greater numbers of tanks to be fielded. By the war's end in
   1945, the versatile and cost-effective T-34 had replaced many light and
   heavy tanks in service, and accounted for the majority of Soviet tank
   production. It was influential in the development of the late
   twentieth-century concept of the main battle tank.

Production history

Revolutionary design

          "We had nothing comparable" — Friedrich von Mellenthin (1956)

   Before 1939, the most numerous Soviet tanks were the T-26 light tank
   and the BT series of fast tanks. The T-26 was a slow-moving infantry
   tank, designed to keep pace with soldiers on the ground. The BT tanks
   were cavalry tanks, very fast-moving light tanks, designed to fight
   other tanks but not infantry. Both were thinly armoured, proof against
   small arms but not anti-tank rifles and 37mm anti-tank guns, and their
   gasoline-fueled engines liable to burst into flames "at the slightest
   provocation" (Zaloga & Grandsen 1984:111). Both were Soviet
   developments of foreign designs from the early 1930s: the T-26 based on
   the British Vickers 6-Ton, and the BT tanks based on a design from
   American engineer Walter Christie.

   In 1937, engineer Mikhail Koshkin was assigned by the Red Army to lead
   a new team to design a replacement for the BT tanks, at the Kharkov
   Komintern Locomotive Plant (KhPZ) in Kharkov. The prototype tank,
   designated A-20, was specified with 20 mm of armour, a 45mm gun, and
   the new model V-2 engine, using less-flammable diesel fuel. It also had
   an 8×6-wheel convertible drive similar to the BT tank's 8×2, which
   allowed a tank to run on wheels without caterpillar track (Zheltov
   1999). This feature had greatly saved on maintenance and repair of the
   unreliable tank track of the early 1930s and allowed tanks to travel
   over 85 km/h on roads, but gave no advantage in combat. By now, the
   designers considered it a needless waste of space and weight (Zaloga &
   Grandsen 1984:66, 111). The A-20 also incorporated previous research
   (BT-IS and BT-SW-2 projects) into sloped armour: its all-round sloped
   armour plates would be more likely to deflect armor-piercing shells
   than perpendicular armour.

   Koshkin convinced Soviet leader Joseph Stalin to let him develop a
   second prototype, a more heavily armed and armoured "universal tank"
   which could replace both the T-26 and the BT tanks. The second
   prototype Koshkin named A-32, after its 32 mm of frontal armour. It
   also had a 76.2mm gun, and the same model V-2 diesel engine (Zaloga
   1994:5). Both were tested in field trials at Kubinka in 1939, and the
   heavier A-32 proved to be as mobile as the A-20. Resistance from the
   military command and concerns about high production cost were finally
   overridden by anxieties about the poor performance of Soviet tanks in
   Finland and the effectiveness of Germany's Blitzkrieg in France. A
   still heavier version of the A-32 with 45 mm of front armour and wider
   tracks was approved for production as the T-34. Koshkin chose the name
   after the year 1934 when he began to formulate his ideas about the new
   tank, and to commemorate the decree expanding the armoured force and
   the appointment of Sergo Ordzhonikidze to head tank production (Zaloga
   1994:6).
   Polish T-34-85 in Poznań, Poland
                    T-34-85
            General characteristics
   Crew               5
   Length             8.15 m
   Width              3.00 m
   Height             2.60 m
   Weight             32 tonnes
              Armour and armament
   Armour             90 mm
   Main armament      85mm ZiS-S-53 tank gun
   Secondary armament 2×7.62mm DT machine guns
                    Mobility
   Power plant        12-cyl. diesel model V-2
                      500 hp (370 kW)
   Suspension         Christie
   Road speed         55 km/h
   Power/weight       15.6 hp/tonne
   Range              360 km

   Two prototype T-34s were completed in January 1940, and underwent a
   gruelling 2,000-kilometre drive from Kharkov to Moscow for a
   demonstration for the Kremlin leaders, to the Mannerheim Line in
   Finland, and back to Kharkov via Minsk and Kiev, in April and May
   (Zaloga 1994:6). Some drive-train shortcomings were identified and
   corrected (Zaloga & Grandsen 1983:6). The first production tanks were
   completed in September 1940, completely replacing the production of the
   T-26, BT, and the multi-turreted T-28 medium tank at the KhPZ. Koshkin
   died of pneumonia at the end of that month, and the T-34's drive train
   developer, Alexander Morozov, was appointed Chief Designer.

   The T-34 had the coil- spring Christie suspension of the BT, but
   dispensed with the weighty but ineffective convertible drive. It had
   well- sloped armour, a relatively powerful engine, and wide tracks. The
   initial version had a 76.2mm gun, and is often called T-34/76
   (originally a World War II German designation). In 1944 a second major
   version began production, the T-34-85 (or T-34/85) with a larger turret
   mounting a larger 85mm gun.

Establishing and maintaining production

          "Quantity has a quality all its own" —attributed to Joseph
          Stalin

   The T-34 posed new challenges for Soviet industry. It was the most
   heavily armoured medium tank produced to this point, and subassemblies
   originated at several plants: Kharkov Diesel Factory No. 75 supplied
   the model V-2 engine, Leningrad Kirovsky Factory (former Putilov works)
   made the original L-11 gun, and the Dinamo Factory in Moscow produced
   electrical components. Tanks were initially built at KhPZ No. 183, in
   early 1941 at the Stalingrad Tractor Factory (STZ), and starting in
   July shortly after the German invasion at Krasnoye Sormovo Factory No.
   112 in Gorki. There were problems with defective armour plates, however
   (Zaloga 1983:6). Due to a shortage of new V-2 diesel engines, the
   initial production run from the Gorki factory were equipped with the BT
   tank's MT-17 gas-burning aircraft engine, and inferior transmission and
   clutch (Zheltov 2001:40–42). Only company commanders' tanks could be
   afforded to be fitted with radios. The L-11 gun did not live up to
   expectations, so the Grabin design bureau at Gorki Factory No. 92
   designed a superior F-34 76.2mm gun. No bureaucrat would approve
   production, so Gorki and KhPZ started producing the gun anyway;
   official permission only came from Stalin's State Defence Committee
   after troops in the field sent back praise for the gun's performance
   (Zaloga & Grandsen 1984:130).

   There was political pressure from conservative elements in the army to
   redirect resources into building the older T-26 and BT tanks, or to
   cancel T-34 production pending completion of the more advanced T-34M
   design. Germany's surprise attack against the Soviet Union in June 22,
   1941 ( Operation Barbarossa) forced the Soviet Union to freeze further
   development, and shift into full production of tanks.
   T-34 Model 1942 rolls off the line at Zavod no. 112 Krasnoye Sormovo in
   Gorki
   Enlarge
   T-34 Model 1942 rolls off the line at Zavod no. 112 Krasnoye Sormovo in
   Gorki

   Germany's fast advances forced the monumental evacuation of tank
   factories to the Ural mountains. KhPZ was re-established around the
   Dzherzhinski Ural Railcar Factory in Nizhny Tagil, renamed Stalin Ural
   Tank Factory No. 183. The Kirovsky Factory was evacuated just weeks
   before Leningrad was surrounded, and moved with the Kharkov Diesel
   Factory to the Stalin Tractor Factory in Chelyabinsk, soon to be
   nicknamed Tankograd ('Tank City'). Voroshilov Tank Factory No. 174 from
   Leningrad was incorporated into the Ural Factory and the new Omsk
   Factory No. 174. The Ordzhonikidze Ural Heavy Machine Tool Works (UZTM)
   in Sverdlovsk absorbed several small factories. While these factories
   were relocating at record speed, the industrial complex surrounding the
   Stalingrad Tractor Factory produced forty percent of all T-34s (Zaloga
   & Grandsen 1983:13). As the factory became surrounded by heavy fighting
   in the Battle of Stalingrad, the situation there grew desperate:
   manufacturing innovations were necessitated by material shortages, and
   stories persist that unpainted T-34 tanks were driven out of the
   factory into the battlefields around it (Zaloga & Sarson 1994:23).
   Stalingrad kept up production until September 1942.

   Barring this interruption, the only changes allowed on the production
   lines were to make the tanks simpler and cheaper to produce. New
   methods were developed for automated welding and hardening the plate,
   including innovations by Prof. Evgeny Paton. The design of the 76.2mm
   F-34 gun Model 1941 was reduced to 614 parts, compared to the earlier
   model's 861 (Zaloga & Grandsen 1984:131). Over two years, the
   production cost of the tank was reduced from 269,500 rubles in 1941, to
   193,000, and then to 135,000 (Zaloga & Grandsen 1984:131). Production
   time was cut in half by the end of 1942, even though the majority of
   experienced factory workers were sent to the field and replaced by a
   workforce consisting of 50% women, 15% boys, and 15% invalids and old
   men. At the same time, new T-34s went from "beautifully crafted
   machines with excellent exterior finish comparable or superior to those
   in Western Europe or America" to much more roughly finished, although
   mechanical reliability was not compromised (Zaloga & Grandsen 1983:17).
   The T-34's 12-cylinder Model V-2 diesel engine, at the Finnish Tank
   Museum in Parola
   Enlarge
   The T-34's 12-cylinder Model V-2 diesel engine, at the Finnish Tank
   Museum in Parola

Evolutionary development

          "The technological pace-setter of World War II tank design" —
          Steven Zaloga et al. (1997:3)

   In 1942, a new hexagonal turret design derived from the abandoned T-34M
   project started to be built, improving the cramped conditions, and
   eventually adding a commander's cupola for all-round vision. Limited
   rubber supplies led to the adoption of steel-rimmed road wheels and a
   new clutch was added to the improved five-speed transmission and
   engine.

   After German tanks with the superior long 75mm gun were fielded in
   1942, Morozov's design bureau began a project to design an advanced
   T-43, aimed at increasing armour protection, while adding modern
   features like torsion-bar suspension and a three-man turret. The T-43
   was intended to be a universal tank to replace both the T-34 and the
   KV-1 heavy tank, developed in direct competition with a Chelyabinsk
   heavy tank design bureau's KV-13 project. (Zaloga et al 1997:5)

   But in 1943, the Soviets also encountered the new German Tiger and
   Panther tanks. Experience at the Battle of Kursk and reports from
   front-line commanders indicated that the T-34's 76.2mm gun was now
   inadequate. An existing 85mm antiaircraft gun was identified which was
   effective against the new German tanks, and could be adapted to tank
   use (Russian Battlefield 1998b). Unfortunately, the T-43 prototype's
   heavier armour was still not proof against the Tiger's 88mm gun, and
   its mobility was found to be inferior to the T-34's (and installing a
   heavier 85mm gun wouldn't have helped). Although it shared over 70% of
   its components with the T-34, committing to fabricating it would still
   have required a significant slow-down in production. (Zaloga et al
   1997:5)

   So the T-43 was cancelled, but the Soviet command made the difficult
   decision to retool the factories to produce a new model of T-34 with a
   turret ring enlarged from 1425mm to 1600mm, allowing a larger turret to
   be fitted. The T-43's turret design was hurriedly adapted to fit the
   T-34. The resulting new T-34-85 tank had a much superior gun and
   finally, a three-man turret with radio (which had previously been in
   the hull). Now the commander could just command the tank, leaving the
   operation of the gun to his gunner and loader.

   Overall production slowed down somewhat while the new tank started its
   production run. Although a T-34-85 was still not a match for a Panther,
   its improved firepower levelled the playing field. The decision to
   improve on the existing design instead of implementing a new one
   allowed the Soviets to maintain such an overwhelming numerical
   advantage that the difference in capabilities could be considered moot.
   In May 1944, the Wehrmacht had only 304 Panthers operating on the
   Eastern Front, while the Soviets had ramped up T-34-85 production to a
   rate of 1,200 tanks per month (Zaloga et al 1997:6).

Cost-effectiveness

   The cost to produce a T-34-85 tank was initially about thirty percent
   higher than a Model 1943, at 164,000 rubles, but by 1945 it was down to
   142,000 (Harrison 2002:181). During the course of the war, the cost of
   a T-34 tank had been reduced by almost half, while in the meantime its
   mobility remained nearly the same, and its main gun's armour
   penetration and frontal armour thickness nearly doubled.

   By the end of 1945, over 57,000 T-34s were built: 34,780 original T-34
   tanks in 1940–44, and another 22,559 T-34-85s in 1944–45 (The Russian
   Battlefield 1998a, 1998b). After the war, the T-34 was out of large
   scale production in the USSR by 1946 when 2,701 were built. Production
   was restarted under licence in 1951 in the People's Republic of Poland
   and Czechoslovakia, where 1,380 and 3,185 T-34-85s were made,
   respectively, by 1956. (Later, T-54/55 and T-72 tanks would also be
   built outside the Soviet Union) In the late 1960s Soviet T-34-85s
   underwent a modernisation program (T-34-85M) for export and reserve
   service, being retrofitted with drive train components from the T-54/55
   series tanks—a testament to the level of standardisation in Soviet tank
   design.

   Estimates for total output of T-34 tanks are as high as 84,070, plus
   13,170 self-propelled guns built on the T-34's chassis (Zaloga &
   Grandsen 1996:18). Some of these ended up in various Cold War conflicts
   around the world.

Variants

   Identification of T-34 variants can be complicated. Turret castings and
   superficial details, and equipment differed between factories. New
   features were added in the middle of production runs or retrofitted to
   older tanks. Knocked-out tanks were rebuilt, sometimes with the
   addition of newer-model equipment and even new turrets. Some tanks also
   had appliqué armour made of scrap steel of varying thickness, welded on
   to the hull and possibly the turret; these tanks are called s ekranami
   ("with screens").

Model naming

   German intelligence in World War II referred to the two main production
   models as T-34/76 and T-34/85, with minor models receiving letter
   designations such as T-34/76A—this nomenclature has been widely used in
   the West, especially in popular literature.

   The Red Army never had a consistent policy for naming the production
   models (Zaloga 1994:19). Since at least the 1980s however, many
   academic sources (notably, AFV expert Steven Zaloga) have been using
   Soviet-style nomenclature: T-34 and T-34-85, with minor models
   distinguished by year, as T-34 Model 1940. This system is used here.

   Some Russian histories use different names: they refer to the first
   T-34 as the T-34 Model 1939 instead of 1940, all T-34s with the
   original turret and F-34 gun as Model 1941 instead of Models 1941 and
   1942, and hexagonal-turret T-34 as Model 1942 instead of 1943 (Zheltov
   2001, passim).

   Captured T-34s in German service were designated Panzerkampfwagen
   T-34(r), for Russland ('Russia').

   The Finns called the T-34 Sotka after a diving duck common goldeneye,
   because the side silhouette of the tank resembles a swimming waterfowl
   (as related in the memoirs of Finnish tank ace Lauri Heino). The
   T-34-85 was called pitkäputkinen Sotka, 'long-barreled Sotka'.

Tank models

   The T-34 (German designation: T-34/76) was the original tank with
   76.2mm gun.
     * Model 1940 (T-34/76A)—Early production run with interim L-11 76.2mm
       tank gun in a two-man turret.
     * Model 1941 (T-34/76B)—Main production with heavier armour and the
       superior F-34 76.2mm gun.
     * Model 1942 (T-34/76C)—Many minor manufacturing improvements.
     * Model 1943 (T-34/76D, E, and F)—New cast hexagonal turret,
       nicknamed " Mickey Mouse" by the Germans because of its appearance
       with the twin, round turret-roof hatches open. Main production had
       a new commander's cupola.
     * T-34/57— Fewer than 324 T-34s in 1941 and 1943–44 were fitted with
       the ZiS-4 or the ZIS-4M high-velocity 57mm gun to be used as tank
       hunters (Wachowski 2004). Some of them took part in the Battle of
       Moscow.

   The T-34-85 (T-34/85) was a major improvement with a three-man turret
   and long 85mm gun.
     * Model 1943—Short production run of February–March 1944 with D-5T
       85mm gun.
     * Model 1944—Main production, with simpler ZiS-S-53 85mm gun, radio
       moved from the hull into a turret with improved layout and new
       gunner's sight.

   Various technical improvements continued to be made to the T-34-85,
   including major refurbishing programs in 1960 and 1969. All T-34-85
   models are externally very similar.

   Pre-war development of a more advanced T-34 tank was resumed in 1944,
   leading to the T-44. The new tank had a turret design based on the
   T-34-85's, but a new hull with torsion-bar suspension and
   transversely-mounted engine. It had a lower profile than the T-34-85
   and was simpler to manufacture. Between 150 to 200 of these tanks were
   built before the end of the war. With some drive-train modifications
   and a new turret and gun, it became the T-54, starting production in
   1947.

   Czechoslovakian-built T-34-85s can be recognised by a semi-conical
   armoured fairing (like a rear-facing scoop) on the left rear slanting
   side panel of the engine compartment sponson. These were widely
   exported.

Other AFVs

     * Flame-thrower tanks—OT-34 and OT-34-85 were fitted with an
       internally mounted flame-thrower replacing the hull machine gun.
     * PT-34— Mine roller tank, mostly built on T-34 Model 1943 or T-34-85
       chassis.
     * Self-propelled guns—The T-34 chassis was used as the basis for a
       series of self-propelled guns
          + SU-122
          + SU-85
          + SU-100

   After the Second World War, some T-34s were fitted with 122mm howitzers
   as self-propelled artillery by Syria and Egypt.
   T-34 ARV towing a disabled tank at the Battle of Kursk.
   Enlarge
   T-34 ARV towing a disabled tank at the Battle of Kursk.

Support vehicles

   There were many support vehicles and even civilian tractors and cranes
   built on the T-34 chassis starting during the war and continuing at
   least into the 1990s. The vast majority of these were conversions of
   old or damaged tanks and self-propelled guns.
     * Bridging tanks—Old tanks rebuilt in the field or at repair
       facilities. These were simply driven into water two abreast for
       special river-crossing operations, to be recovered later.
     * Armoured recovery vehicles—During World War II, some old tanks were
       rebuilt as armoured recovery vehicles (ARVs), by plating over the
       turret ring or adding a superstructure. After the war, this
       repurposing program was formalized in successively more elaborate
       models.

Table of tank models

   CAPTION: Soviet medium tank models of World War II

   T-34
   Model 1940 T-34
   Model 1941 T-34
   Model 1942 T-34
   Model 1943 T-43
   prototype T-34-85 T-44
   Weight 26 t 26.5 t 28.5 t 30.9 t 34 t 32 t 31.9 t
   Gun 76.2mm L-11 76.2mm F-34 76.2mm F-34 76.2mm F-34 76.2mm F-34 85mm
   ZiS-S-53 85mm ZiS-S-53
   Ammunition 76 rounds 77 rounds 77 rounds 100 rounds 60 rounds 58 rounds
   Fuel 460 L 460 L 610 L 790 L 810 L 642 L
   Road range 300 km 400 km 400 km 465 km 300 km 360 km 300 km
   Armour 15–45 mm 20–52 mm 20–65 mm 20–70 mm 16–90 mm 20–90 mm 15–120 mm
   Cost 270,000 rubles 193,000 rubles 135,000 rubles 164,000 rubles
   Notes: dimensions, road speed, engine horsepower did not vary
   significantly, except for the T-43 which was slower than the T-34.
   References: Zaloga & Grandsen (1984:113, 184), Harrison (2002:181),
   KMDB (2006).

Combat history

   T-34 Model 1942 s ekranami, with appliqué armour welded to the hull,
   near Leningrad, 1942.
   Enlarge
   T-34 Model 1942 s ekranami, with appliqué armour welded to the hull,
   near Leningrad, 1942.

   The T-34 is often used as a symbol for the effectiveness of the Soviet
   counterattack against the Germans. The appearance of the T-34 in the
   summer of 1941 was a psychological shock to German soldiers, who had
   been prepared to face an inferior Soviet enemy; this is shown by Alfred
   Jodl's diary, who seems to have been taken by surprise at the
   appearance of the T-34 in Riga. The T-34 could take on all 1941 German
   tanks effectively. However, the new tank suffered from severe
   mechanical problems, especially with its transmission and clutch—at
   least fifty percent of the first summer's total tank losses were due to
   breakdowns rather than German fire, although this also included old
   tanks in disrepair (Zaloga & Grandsen 1984:127). There was a shortage
   of recovery and repair equipment, and it was not uncommon for early
   T-34s to go into combat carrying a spare transmission on the engine
   deck. The mechanical troubles were eventually sorted out.

   During the winter of 1941–42, the T-34 again dominated German tanks
   through its ability to move over deep mud or snow without bogging down.
   German tanks simply could not move over the same terrain the T-34 could
   handle. The German infantry, at that time armed mostly with PaK 36 37mm
   and PaK 38 50mm towed antitank guns, had no effective means of stopping
   T-34s. Only the poor level of Soviet crew training and the ineptitude
   of Soviet commanders prevented the T-34 from achieving greater success.

   The emphasis in the Red Army in 1942–43 was on rebuilding the losses of
   1941 and improving tactical proficiency. T-34 production increased
   rapidly, but the design was 'frozen'—generally, only improvements that
   sped production were adopted. Soviet designers were well aware of the
   need to correct certain deficiencies in the design, but these
   improvements would have cost production time and could not be adopted.
   By mid-1943 T-34 production was running at about one thousand tanks per
   month, much higher than the German rate. However, Soviet losses greatly
   exceeded German losses due to continued tactical inferiority.

   In response to the T-34, the Germans were beginning to field larger
   numbers of high-velocity PaK 40 75mm guns, both towed and
   self-propelled. They were also able to put the Tiger heavy tank into
   the field in late 1942 and Panther medium tank by 1943. By mid-war the
   T-34 no longer held technical superiority over German tanks. Loss
   ratios remained unfavourable to the Soviets; as their technical
   superiority waned, their tactical proficiency was not catching up fast
   enough.
   T-34-85 equipped with stand-off screens to protect thinner side and top
   armour from the HEAT warheads of Panzerfausts during street fighting.
   These particular shields were constructed from 5-8 mm steel wire.
   Berlin, May 1945.
   Enlarge
   T-34-85 equipped with stand-off screens to protect thinner side and top
   armour from the HEAT warheads of Panzerfausts during street fighting.
   These particular shields were constructed from 5-8 mm steel wire.
   Berlin, May 1945.

   By the last years of the war, the Soviets' improving tactics remained
   inferior to the Germans', but the Red Army's growing operational and
   strategic skill and its larger inventory of tanks helped bring the loss
   ratios down (Zaloga & Grandsen 1984:223). The appearance of the T-34-85
   in early 1944 gave the Red Army a tank that had better armour and
   mobility than German Pzkw IV and Sturmgeschütz III but it could not
   match the Panther in most respects. To the Soviet advantage there were
   far fewer Panthers than T-34s, and the T-34-85 was good enough to allow
   skilled crew and tactical situations to tip the balance.

   At the outset of the war, T-34 tanks amounted to only about four
   percent of the Soviet tank arsenal, but by the war's end, they
   comprised at least 55% of the USSR's massive output of tanks (based on
   figures from Zaloga 1984:125–6, 225; Zheltov 2001 lists even larger
   numbers). By the time the T-34 had replaced older models and became
   available in greater numbers, newer German tanks (including the
   improved German design based on the T-34, the Panzer-V 'Panther')
   outperformed it. The Soviets' late-war Iosif Stalin heavy tanks were
   also better-armed and better-armoured than the T-34.

   An obvious comparison can be made between the T-34 and the US M4
   Sherman medium tank. Each tank formed the backbone of the armoured
   units in their own and allied armies. Both were good designs at the
   time they debuted. Both were improved significantly without much loss
   of effectiveness. Both could be manufactured in large numbers and
   maintained in difficult conditions. Neither could take on the best
   German Tiger and Panther tanks on equal terms, but too much has been
   made of this fact, as these heavy vehicles were both in a class more
   comparable to the Soviet IS-2 heavy tank (Zaloga & Grandsen 1983:37).
   Tanks were expected to have many roles on the battlefield, the foremost
   being infantry support and exploitation. The tank-vs-tank role is
   nonetheless very important. That German tank production was limited to
   relatively small numbers of superior but complex vehicles (in part
   because of production diversion into self-propelled guns) told against
   them. The Soviet decision to build large numbers of T-34s, gradually
   improving and simplifying the design, was a much better decision and
   helped to win the Second World War.

After World War II

   North Korean T-34-85 which was caught on a bridge south of Suwon by
   U.S. attack aircraft during the Korean War.
   Enlarge
   North Korean T-34-85 which was caught on a bridge south of Suwon by
   U.S. attack aircraft during the Korean War.

   Since the Second World War, T-34-85s have been in use in many
   Soviet-client and formerly-Soviet client states. The North Korean
   invasion of South Korea in 1950 was spearheaded by a full brigade
   equipped with about 120 T-34-85s. There they were pitted against the
   M24 Chaffee, M4 Sherman and M26 Pershing but not the Centurion tanks of
   the UN forces. The 105th Armoured Brigade saw some early successes
   against South Korean infantry and U.S. M24 light tanks, but lost its
   momentum when faced with U.S. M26 medium tanks and infantry
   well-equipped with antitank weapons. After the first few months, North
   Korean armour was rarely encountered (Zaloga & Kinnear 1996:34–38).

   T-34s equipped many of the Warsaw Pact Armies and were employed in the
   suppression of the Hungarian uprising in 1956. They were also used in
   the Middle East, the Vietnam War (most famously in the attack on Lang
   Vei) and even as recently as the Bosnian War. Croatia inherited
   twenty-five or thirty from Yugoslavia but has since withdrawn them from
   service. T-34s were sporadically available in Afghanistan (it is
   unknown if T-34s were used against coalition troops) and Saddam Hussein
   had T-34s in his army in the early 1990s. Several African states,
   including Angola and Somalia, have employed T-34-85s in recent years.
   Cuban T-34-85s have also seen action in Africa.

   Cyprus National Guard forces equipped with some thirty-five T-34-85
   tanks were used to enforce a coup by the Greek junta against
   democratically-elected President Archbishop Makarios on July 15, 1974.
   They also saw extensive action against Turkish forces during the
   Turkish Invasion in July and August 1974, with two major actions at
   Kioneli and at Kyrenia on July 20, 1974. (Drousiotis 2006)

   China produced T-34 under the designation Type 58, though production
   soon stopped when Type 59 became available. A small number of T-34's
   have also been spotted in China, converted into fire-fighting vehicles.
   Hungarians inspect a T-34-85 in Budapest, during the 1956 Revolution
   Enlarge
   Hungarians inspect a T-34-85 in Budapest, during the 1956 Revolution

   The T-34 has been employed by the following 39 countries, as late as
   1996 by 27 of them indicated by asterisks * (Zaloga & Kinnear 1996:34).

   Europe and the Americas
     * Albania*
     * Austria
     * Bulgaria*
     * Cyprus
     * Czechoslovakia
     * Cuba
     * Finland
     * East Germany
     * Hungary
     * Poland
     * Romania*
     * Soviet Union
     * Yugoslavia*

   Middle East and Asia
     * Afghanistan*
     * Egypt*
     * Iraq
     * Laos
     * Lebanon*
     * Libya*
     * Mongolia*
     * North Korea*
     * People's Republic of China*
     * Syria*
     * Vietnam*
     * South Yemen (PDRY)*
     * North Yemen (YAR)

   Africa
     * Algeria*
     * Angola*
     * Congo*
     * Equatorial Guinea*
     * Ethiopia*
     * Guinea*
     * Guinea-Bissau*
     * Mali*
     * Mozambique*
     * Somalia*
     * Sudan*
     * Togo*
     * Zimbabwe*

Combat effectiveness

   T-34 Model 1942. Note the different turret shape from the Model 1943's
   (top of page).
   Enlarge
   T-34 Model 1942. Note the different turret shape from the Model 1943's
   (top of page).

          “The finest tank in the world” — Field Marshal Paul Ludwig Ewald
          von Kleist (Liddell Hart 1951)

   Combat effectiveness of early war T-34s can best be evaluated in terms
   of 'hard' factors—armour, firepower, and mobility—and 'soft' factors:
   ergonomic features such as ease of use, vision devices, crew task
   layout and so forth. The T-34 was outstanding in hard factors and poor
   in soft ones.

   The 'big three' of tank design have always been armour, firepower, and
   mobility. The T-34 was an outstanding balance of all three throughout
   its World War II life cycle. In 1941 its thick, sloped armour could
   defeat all German anti-armour weapons at normal ranges. T-34s could be
   knocked out only by the towed 88mm Flak guns or at close range by 50mm
   and 75mm short-barrelled tank guns. The majority of German tanks in
   1941 did not have 75mm guns; indeed 37mm guns were far more common. By
   mid-1942 the T-34 was vulnerable to improved German weapons and
   remained so throughout the war, but its armour protection was equal to
   or superior to comparable tanks such as the US M4 Sherman or German
   Pzkw-IV. In terms of firepower, the T-34's 76mm gun could penetrate any
   1941 German tank with ease. This gun also fired an adequate HE round.
   In 1943, the 76mm was out-ranged by the Panther's long 75mm and the
   Tiger's 88mm. The introduction of the Soviet 85mm gun in 1944 did not
   make the T-34-85 equal in firepower, but the 85mm could penetrate both
   Panthers and Tigers at reasonable ranges.
   Rear view of a T-34-85. In the centre is a circular transmission access
   hatch, flanked by exhaust pipes, MDSh smoke canisters on the hull rear,
   and extra fuel tanks on the hull sides.
   Enlarge
   Rear view of a T-34-85. In the centre is a circular transmission access
   hatch, flanked by exhaust pipes, MDSh smoke canisters on the hull rear,
   and extra fuel tanks on the hull sides.

   In terms of mobility, the T-34's wide track, good suspension and large
   engine gave it unparalleled cross-country performance. First-generation
   German tanks could not begin to keep up.

   Overall then, in hard factors the T-34 was the worldwide trend-setter
   for tank development in the first half of the war.

   In terms of ergonomics, the T-34 was poor, despite some improvements
   during the war. All 76mm-armed versions were greatly hampered by the
   cramped two-man turret layout. The commander's battlefield visibility
   was poor; the forward-opening hatch forced him to observe the
   battlefield through a single vision slit and traversable periscope. He
   was also over-tasked by having to fire the main gun. In contrast,
   contemporary German, British and US medium tanks had much superior
   three-man turrets with commander, gunner and loader. The three-man
   turret layout allowed the tank commander to concentrate on leading his
   crew and co-ordinating his actions with the rest of his unit, without
   having to manage an individual task such as laying or loading the gun.
   This makes an enormous contribution to crew effectiveness. The T-34-85
   corrected this problem, which had been recognised before the war. Many
   German commanders liked to fight "heads-up", with the seat raised and
   having a full field of view. In the 76mm-armed versions of the T-34,
   this was impossible (Zaloga & Grandsen 1984:135–7).
   Turret of the T-34-85, with commander's cupola allowing all-round
   vision (introduced part way through the production run of the T-34
   Model 1943).
   Enlarge
   Turret of the T-34-85, with commander's cupola allowing all-round
   vision (introduced part way through the production run of the T-34
   Model 1943).

   Visibility from the driver's seat was also poor. Tactically, this
   affected the driver's ability to use terrain to their advantage, since
   he could not see folds in the ground as well, or have as wide a range
   of vision as in some other tanks.

   The loader also had a difficult job due to the lack of a turret basket
   (a rotating floor that moves as the turret turns). This problem was
   shared with many other tanks, for example, the US M-3 Stuart. The floor
   under the T-34's turret was made up of ammunition stored in small metal
   boxes, covered by a rubber mat. There were nine ready rounds of
   ammunition stowed in racks on the sides of the fighting compartment.
   Once these initial nine rounds were fired in combat, the crew had to
   pull additional ammunition out of the floor boxes, leaving the floor
   littered with open bins and matting. This distracted the crew and
   degraded their performance (Zaloga & Grandsen 1984:137).

   Other key factors diminishing the initial impact of T-34s on the
   battlefield were the poor state of leadership, tank tactics, and crew
   training, a hangover from Stalin's purges of the Soviet officer corps
   in the late 1930s, which were aggravated by the loss of the
   best-trained personnel during the disastrous defeats suffered by the
   Red Army in 1941. Many crews went into combat with only their basic
   military training plus seventy-two hours of classroom instruction.
   These problems were exacerbated by the T-34's poor ergonomics and lack
   of radios during the early war, making it practically impossible to
   co-ordinate tank units in combat. German tank soldiers found that the
   Soviet armour attacked in rigid formations and took little advantage of
   terrain (Zaloga & Grandsen 1984:126–27, 135). By 1943–44 these problems
   had largely been corrected, although Soviet crew training never reached
   the level of German training.

   The durability of the T-34 is is underlined by the recovery in 2000 of
   a T-34 Model 1943 which had spent 56 years at the bottom of a bog in
   Estonia. The tank had been captured and used by retreating German
   troops, who dumped it in the swamp when it ran out of fuel. There were
   no signs of oil leakage, rust, or other significant water damage to the
   mechanical components. The engine was restored to full working order.

Tank as a symbol

   War memorial in Kaliningrad, Russia.
   Enlarge
   War memorial in Kaliningrad, Russia.

   Hundreds of T-34s were installed as war memorials in Soviet-bloc
   countries.

   At least one such tank, mounted atop the monument to Soviet tank crews
   in Prague, was the focus of significant controversy. The monument,
   intended to represent Lt I.G. Goncharenko's T-34-85, the first Soviet
   tank to enter Prague in May 1945, actually bore an IS-2m heavy tank. To
   many in Prague, the tank was also a reminder of the Soviet invasion
   which ended the Prague Spring of 1968. The tank was painted pink by
   artist David Černý in 1991. Following an official protest from the
   Russian government, the arrest of Černý, a coat of official green
   paint, public demonstrations, and a further coat of pink paint applied
   by fifteen parliamentary deputies, the tank was finally removed to a
   military museum (Wright 2001:379, Zaloga & Kinnear 1996:42–43). Another
   T-34 formerly painted pink is the Mandela Way Tank in London.

   Four tankers and a dog ( Czterej pancerni i pies) was a very successful
   Polish television series of the 1960s which made T-34 tank number 102
   an icon of Polish popular culture. It was also shown in other
   Soviet-bloc countries, and was especially well received the German
   Democratic Republic. It is now re-run in Czech Republic television,
   with apparent success.

   The news on the unconventional use of T-34 broke, quite unexpectedly,
   from Budapest on October 23, 2006. A month-long crisis centred around
   the Ferenc Gyurcsány cabinet scandal climaxed during the official
   fiftieth anniversary of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution. Protesters
   managed to run an unarmed T-34 tank which was part of a memorial
   exhibition and used it in riots against police forces.

Importance

   Monument to T-34 in front of theatre in Hrodno.
   Enlarge
   Monument to T-34 in front of theatre in Hrodno.

          "The impression that it made was to influence greatly subsequent
          tank development throughout the world" — John Milsom (1975)

   The T-34 was among the most important weapons systems in the Red Army
   in the Second World War. Since the Soviet-German front was the decisive
   land theatre of the Second World War, the importance of the T-34 can
   hardly be exaggerated. At the time it was first fielded in 1940, it was
   easily the finest tank design in the world. By mid-war it was no longer
   technically superior to all its opponents, but it was still better than
   most, and it was available in huge numbers.

   The improved T-34-85 remained the standard Soviet medium tank with an
   uninterrupted production run until the end of the war. The Germans
   responded to the T-34 by introducing completely new, very expensive and
   complex second-generation tanks, greatly slowing the growth of their
   tank production and allowing the Soviets to maintain a substantial
   numerical superiority in tanks (Zaloga & Grandsen 1983:37). The T-34
   replaced most light, medium, and heavy tanks in Soviet service. Its
   evolutionary development would lead directly to the T-44 and T-54/55
   series of tanks, built until 1981 and still operated today.

   The effectiveness of the T-34 tank, when employed with the lessons of
   mobile combined-arms operations learned in the war, would have a
   profound impact on the practice of warfare. The infantry tank/ cavalry
   tank concept was shown to be obsolete, and abandoned by all nations by
   the war's end. While more economical types of vehicles would take over
   the various supporting roles of tanks, well-balanced medium tank
   designs could become more specialized and optimized for their role in
   mechanized warfare. The demonstrated potential of the medium tank would
   lead to the development of the modern main battle tank (MBT).

Surviving vehicles

   There are hundreds of surviving T-34s. Examples of this tank are in the
   collections of most significant military museum, and hundreds more
   serve as war memorials. Many are in private ownership, and
   demilitarised working tanks change hands for between $20,000 and
   $40,000 USD.

   Significant surviving T-34s include a Model 1941 at the US Army
   Ordnance Museum in Aberdeen, Maryland. This is one of the oldest
   surviving vehicles. Other older 76 mm-armed T-34s have recently been
   recovered from old battle sites, but there is no known remaining T-34
   Model 1940, with an L-11 gun.
   Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34"
   This reference article is mainly selected from the English Wikipedia
   with only minor checks and changes (see www.wikipedia.org for details
   of authors and sources) and is available under the GNU Free
   Documentation License. See also our Disclaimer.
