How Russia Stopped The Blitzkrieg

[MiloMorai]

Did German Puma have a basket for its turret? If so, then it is a tank.

[Mastermariner]

I think this ludicrous claim about T34 is just to pry people away from the original topic 

 

Bingo!

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

I don't mind fighting a loosing Position. 

 

http://72ag-ded.ru/en/pilot/78/6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann/?tour=9

 

Really, I don't. It's fun. 

[Gunsmith86]

I don't mind fighting a loosing Position. 

 

http://72ag-ded.ru/en/pilot/78/6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann/?tour=9

 

Really, I don't. It's fun. 

 

Best you talk with him about TDs.

 

 

Its sometimes realy difficult to know what is what!

Edited May 29, 2017 by Gunsmith86

[Inkophile]

To say the T-34 isn't a tank because it in some regards is poorly designed feels very weird. That'd be like saying Harley Davidson's aren't motorbikes because they have issues with shaking apart and requiring regular and heavy maintenance, or that American cars aren't cars because most (not all) of them are bad compared to European/Korean/Japanese cars.

 

A tank is defined by its battlefield role, and by being tracked, armoured, enclosed and with a rotating turret. The T-34 fills all those requirements. The definition of a tank doesn't care about how good it is in all those respective areas.

 

The M18 and M10 GMCs aren't "tanks" because they aren't enclosed, and because their battlefield role doesn't include being infantry support, assault vehicles, or to directly engage enemy tanks. Their role was simply to be mobile AT guns, supposed to fire from a hidden and stationary position, filling gaps in the defense where enemy tanks have or threaten to break through the static/towed AT defenses. This however is well described in the video Gunsmith linked (a man who doesn't argue that something is way X because he "feels" like it is that way, but because he has facts to support it, like for example doctrines and manuals and reports).

[AndyJWest]

Here's a little conundrum. Why, if the T-34 wasn't a tank, did Heinz Guderian suggest that the best way to counter it was to produce a direct copy? (See  Stephen A Hart. Panther Medium Tank 1942-45 Osprey Publishing 2003.)

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

To say the T-34 isn't a tank because it in some regards is poorly designed feels very weird. That'd be like saying Harley Davidson's aren't motorbikes because they have issues with shaking apart and requiring regular and heavy maintenance, or that American cars aren't cars because most (not all) of them are bad compared to European/Korean/Japanese cars.

 

A tank is defined by its battlefield role, and by being tracked, armoured, enclosed and with a rotating turret. The T-34 fills all those requirements. The definition of a tank doesn't care about how good it is in all those respective areas.

The M18 and M10 GMCs aren't "tanks" because they aren't enclosed, and because their battlefield role doesn't include being infantry support, assault vehicles, or to directly engage enemy tanks. Their role was simply to be mobile AT guns, supposed to fire from a hidden and stationary position, filling gaps in the defense where enemy tanks have or threaten to break through the static/towed AT defenses. This however is well described in the video Gunsmith linked (a man who doesn't argue that something is way X because he "feels" like it is that way, but because he has facts to support it, like for example doctrines and manuals and reports).

Nope, Calling the T-34 a Tank is like Calling a Harley Big Boy a Light Tourer or Sportsbike. 

The T-34 is still an AFV, but it doesn't fill the Description for a Tank by the Mid 1930s, but rather that of an Assault Gun or Tank Destroyer, depending on Gun Fitted. 

The French Designs were largely Obsolete due to their Nature of having awful Ergonomics and Obsolete Doctrine. I would call them Scrap rather than anything else or maybe a Fire Support Vehicle. 

 

The Pz.III would also fill that same Role, but since it wasn't as horrible as the T-34 inside it could Operate well even with the Turret Rotated. 

The T-34s Effective Rate of Fire Decreased by up to 80% when the Turret was at a more than 45° Angle. And due to the Low Quality of the Welds the T-34-85s had Issues with Hull Roofs Warping in Sideways Shooting and Jamming the Turret. The Hulls weren't Reinforced until after the War. 

In general the T-34 was a horrible Working Environment, well Protected from Shellfire but badly Ventilated and Blind under Fire. 

The Pz.III wasn't as advanced as later Models but it's Semi-Floorless Design and large Space and generally good Crew Accomodations made it a more Efficient Vehicle. It just couldn't mount very Powerful Guns and thus was a Misadventure. 

Edited May 29, 2017 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[AndyJWest]

Please answer my question. Why did Guderian suggest copying the T-34?

[Gunsmith86]

Please answer my question. Why did Guderian suggest copying the T-34?

Because he believed that copying the T-34 and improve it would be faster and simpler than building a new tank. He was wrong and the Panther was build.

[Finkeren]

So the T-34 was a less-than-perfect design with horrible ergonomics, in particular for the loader, occasionally poor production quality and a spotty combat record? No argument there. But how does any of this translate into not being a tank?

 

Adam Sandler is a horrible actor with a rare stroke of brilliance, but he is absolutely without question an actor.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

This then is a Tank Destroyer. 

 

 

 

Jet Steel can't fuel Melt Beams

 

[MiloMorai]

 

 

The T-34 is still an AFV, but it doesn't fill the Description for a Tank by the Mid 1930s, but rather that of an Assault Gun or Tank Destroyer, depending on Gun Fitted.

 

Sherman is not a TANK as its purpose was to support infantry as a mobile assault vehicle.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

In Fact, there are no Tanks. They are nothing but Fiction. You Sheeple have been programmed to believe in their Existence but in Truth there are only AFVs. 

According to Schroedinger any Tracked Vehicle is both a and not a Tank. Even a Horse. 

 

To Conclude, the Video misses some of the Most Important Aspects of Tank Design being Ergonomics, Mobility etc. and therefore is not Recommended. 

 

Could we please Concentrate on the Important things like Correct Gender Pronouns for People who sexually identify as Attack Helicopters or something? 

[Guest deleted@83466]

          

        

 

           

 

 

Platoon of non-tanks in wedge formation

[Gunsmith86]

This then is a Tank Destroyer. 

 

 

 

It may sound funny but yes this could be a Tank Destroyer if it was ordered into service by the Tank Destroyer branch of the army.

Edited May 29, 2017 by Gunsmith86

[Inkophile]

Aaaaand another person onto the ignore list. Causing a faux argument for the sake of arguing is hardly a positive contribution to the forum, or to anything in the world at all.

[unreasonable]

In Fact, there are no Tanks. They are nothing but Fiction. You Sheeple have been programmed to believe in their Existence but in Truth there are only AFVs. 

According to Schroedinger any Tracked Vehicle is both a and not a Tank. Even a Horse. 

 

To Conclude, the Video misses some of the Most Important Aspects of Tank Design being Ergonomics, Mobility etc. and therefore is not Recommended. 

 

Could we please Concentrate on the Important things like Correct Gender Pronouns for People who sexually identify as Attack Helicopters or something? 

 

Funny: but not quite right. "According to Schroedinger" the vehicle is both a tank and not a tank when it is not being observed . Once an observation is made, the wave function collapses and the vehicle becomes a tank. (Or not). Since we have observed the T-34, it is in fact a tank. 

 

I put "according to Schrodinger" in quotes because his argument was actually a reductio ad absurdum. As for your last point, surely this would be "mil". 

[Finkeren]

So Schrödinger's Fw 190 walks into a bar...

 

...and doesn't.

[unreasonable]

Either way he could not get a drink because he could not see the barkeep behind the bar.

[Mastermariner]

...or couldn't get a tankard because he had no basket

 

Are we losing it?

[Finkeren]

I'm not certain there was much to lose in the first place....

[unreasonable]

Vladimir and Estragon, waiting for Battle of Kuban.

[Finkeren]

Vladimir and Estragon, waiting for Battle of Kuban.

That analogy doesn't bode well for BoK. Certainly you have more faith in the devs?

[unreasonable]

 Yes I do actually. 

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

The Great thing about the Internet is the Possilibility for everybody to Speak his Mind. 

The Bad Thing about the Internet is that Everybody does it. 

Edited May 30, 2017 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[Trooper117]

The one thing the army taught me and was drummed into me at an early age... yes, speak your mind. But also admit when you are wrong, admit to your mistakes... it's the mark of a true man, and even if you are lambasted for your mistake, people will still think highly of you.

[claw]

I found this an interesting discussion, 

Regarding the T-34 I liked the way both points of view were presentend. They made me realise once again you can't take anything on face value. Klaus' conclusion the T-34 isn't a tank is vallid based on his definition of a tank.

I woud have considered the T-34 a tank without giving it much thought. And that is what the discussion made me do: think.

What makes a tank a tank? What is the definition? 

A rotary turret? I'm an artillery man myself and spent a lot of time around M-109's which is a howitzer but has a rotary turret (no basket). A lot of people would call it a tank at first sight.

The Swedish S-type tank is widely considered a tank but has no turret.

 

Wikipedia on the S-type: "...While turretless armoured fighting vehicles are usually classified as assault guns or tank destroyers, despite its unique gun laying process^[6][7][8] the Strv 103 is considered a tank because its designated combat role matched those of other tanks within contemporary Swedish doctrine"

 

For me that sums it up. The defining factor is the primary battlefield role of its designer. If it is designed to be a tank and fulfill that role on the battlefield it is a tank. Even if the design is flawed by any standard.

 

All in all I found it an enjoyable read. 

[Finkeren]

Problem is, that the T-34 was designed to fulfill every role of a tank at that time, and regardless what Klaus claims, it functioned in those roles. It was not perfect and had the aforementioned serious drawbacks in terms of ergonomics, commander workload (T-34-76), poor field of vision (especially the early ones), occasional poor production standards, poor radio reliability (when it had radios at all) etc.

 

However, it was still a fully functional tank in every sense of the word, and contrary to what Klaus seems to think, the gun could be fired and reloaded with the turret at any traverse angle.

[Finkeren]

We can discuss whether the T-34 was a good tank - in some aspects it definitely was, in others it definitely wasn't.

 

But a discussion about, whether it should even be considered a tank is kinda silly.

[Holtzauge]

After giving it some though, what I personally would define as a tank is a tracked fighting vehicle whose primary weapon is a cannon and is armoured to a level that provides decent protection against other fighting vehicles so equipped. This means that in general it’s quite heavy and equipped with a large calibre cannon capable of firing high velocity ammunition (does not preclude HEAT of course!) but in general designed to be able to defeat other tanks by kinetically penetrating the armour. So by this definition a Jagdpanther and a Swedish S would count as tanks which I think they should. Of course the main mission of the Jagdpanther is that of a tank destroyer missing a turret so you could place it in another subspecies Tankus Turretlessus but definitely part of the tank family Tankus Tankus . And before anyone argues, I spoke to Carl von Linne about the correct tank taxonomy and he totally agrees. So there case closed!

[Holtzauge]

And when slang is used by many people for an extended period of time it generally becomes an adopted word just like tank is in the Anglo-Saxon part of the world.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Well, by Stridsvagen Standards the StuG III Ausf.G, JgPz 38 (t) (what became know as "Hetzer" Post-War) could be categoried as tanks since especially the StuG offered the Protection and Mobility to Effectively Work as a Tank.

And the Hetzer could suppress Infantry without Exposing it's Crew as well while Offering Good Anti-Tank Firepower as well. 

[Finkeren]

I never quite understood, why some people insist on describing the Stridsvagn as a proper tank. On this one I agree with Klaus. It was very clearly a design intented for defense against tanks with some limited direct-fire infantry support capabilities. In that sense it is clearly a tank destroyer that could double as assault gun, much in the same vein as the Su-85/Su-100, Jagdpanther and others.

 

The Stridsvagn is in many ways noteworthy, not least because it is one of the very few AFVs that could theoretically be fully functional with a crew of just one man, but IMHO it is not a tank.

[unreasonable]

After giving it some though, what I personally would define as a tank is a tracked fighting vehicle whose primary weapon is a cannon and is armoured to a level that provides decent protection against other fighting vehicles so equipped. This means that in general it’s quite heavy and equipped with a large calibre cannon capable of firing high velocity ammunition (does not preclude HEAT of course!) but in general designed to be able to defeat other tanks by kinetically penetrating the armour. So by this definition a Jagdpanther and a Swedish S would count as tanks which I think they should. Of course the main mission of the Jagdpanther is that of a tank destroyer missing a turret so you could place it in another subspecies Tankus Turretlessus but definitely part of the tank family Tankus Tankus . And before anyone argues, I spoke to Carl von Linne about the correct tank taxonomy and he totally agrees. So there case closed!

 

The trouble with that definition is that one of the ur-tanks, as used by the British in WW1, would not be a tank, since the Female Mk I was armed with MGs. Actually rather few species of the families would, since with rather few exceptions, the penetrating capabilities of the guns mounted on tanks have exceeded the armour protection against that same gun by a considerable margin. 

 

In my own view the term originally simply meant tracked armoured fighting vehicle, to distinguish it from wheeled armoured fighting vehcle - armoured cars already being in common use but unfit for use in the wastes of no-man's land.  Usage in this sense is, IMHO, still perfectly proper, because although there are the various races of tanks - general purpose, infantry, cruiser, tank destroyer, assault gun and more - they are all to a degree multi-purpose.

 

Aha I hear you say, but would this not then include APC's as tanks? Yes it would.  The Kangaroo was after all a tank with the turret removed. The Israeli Merkava could carry an infantry section. Again there is no clear dividing line.

 

Future tanks may give up on large calibre guns altogether and use some other weapons systems - they will still be tanks. 

[Finkeren]

The problem with the definition tank=tracked AFV is, that it leaves us with no term to speficy the kind of "tank" most of us are thinking of, when we hear that word, one with the main armament in a rotating turret.

 

To be practical I think we'll need a definition of a "post-WW1" tank, that excludes the early developments which were designed solely to deal with infantry and didn't have to deal with opposing tanks.

 

I think the definition of a "proper" post-WW1 tank would have to include a few specific criteria as well as a rough assessment of the purpose of its design. My suggestion would be:

 

1. Fully tracked

 

2. Fully armoured and enclosed hull

 

3. Some armament placed in a rotating turret (or similar tactical flexibility like multiple guns pointing in different directions)

 

4. Must have some ability to combat other AFVs.

 

5. Must be designed primarilly as a breakthrough weapon.

 

6. May not be primarilly a transport vehicle.

 

This definition would still have some issues. It would exclude vehicles like the Pzkw I (no anti-armour capability), but I think it'll do for the far majority of cases.

Edited May 31, 2017 by Finkeren

[AndyJWest]

I'm not sure we need a definition at all. If something is commonly described by knowledgeable people (e.g. Sandhurst lecturers like Stephen Hart) as a tank, it is a tank. If there are edge cases (e.g. the Stridsvagen) it will become apparent in discussions amongst such experts as to whether the subject is or isn't a tank. Attempting to concoct our own definition won't change the usage elsewhere. And it won't affect the military capabilities of the vehicle either.

 

As for whether the T-34 was a good tank, I'm sure that it could have been improved. Though quite possibly at the cost of production rates. A cost that might have been hard to justify, given the circumstances.

[Finkeren]

Especially given that the high production rates was the single biggest asset of the T-34. It had other qualities to be sure, but strength in numbers was always the most important.

[MiloMorai]

 

As for whether the T-34 was a good tank, I'm sure that it could have been improved. Though quite possibly at the cost of production rates. A cost that might have been hard to justify, given the circumstances.

 

T-44

[Holtzauge]

The problem with the definition tank=tracked AFV is, that it leaves us with no term to speficy the kind of "tank" most of us are thinking of, when we hear that word, one with the main armament in a rotating turret.

To be practical I think we'll need a definition of a "post-WW1" tank, that excludes the early developments which were designed solely to deal with infantry and didn't have to deal with opposing tanks.

I think the definition of a "proper" post-WW1 tank would have to include a few specific criteria as well as a rough assessment of the purpose of its design. My suggestion would be:

1. Fully tracked

2. Fully armoured and enclosed hull

3. Some armament placed in a rotating turret (or similar tactical flexibility like multiple guns pointing in different directions)

4. Must have some ability to combat other AFVs.

5. Must be designed primarilly as a breakthrough weapon.

6. May not be primarilly a transport vehicle.

This definition would still have some issues. It would exclude vehicles like the Pzkw I (no anti-armour capability), but I think it'll do for the far majority of cases.

Well if you delete bullet 3 above then your definition of a tank agrees with mine and the Swedish army's: They designate the S as a tank (Stridsvagn) or Strv 103 right in between Strv 101 Centurion and Strv 121 Leopard so not turrent needed ;-)