T-34 Vs Tiger Serial Number
Amancio Mccrae
The T-34 was the mainstay of the Soviet Red Army armoured forces throughout the war. Its general specifications remained nearly unchanged until early 1944, when it received a firepower upgrade with the introduction of the greatly improved T-34-85 variant. Its production method was continuously refined and rationalized to meet the needs of the Eastern Front, making the T-34 quicker and cheaper to produce. The Soviets ultimately built over 80,000 T-34s of all variants, allowing steadily greater numbers to be fielded despite the loss of tens of thousands in combat against the German Wehrmacht.[9]
At the start of the German-Soviet war, T-34s comprised about four percent of the Soviet tank arsenal, but by the end it made up at least 55% of tank production (based on figures from;[42] Zheltov lists even larger numbers[43][page needed]
As the war went on, the T-34 gradually lost some of its initial advantages. The Germans responded to the T-34 by fielding large numbers of improved anti-tank weapons such as the towed 7.5 cm Pak 40 anti-tank gun, while hits from 88 mm-armed Tigers, anti-aircraft guns and 8.8 cm Pak 43 anti-tank guns usually proved lethal.[56] In 1942 the German Panzer IVs were refitted with the 7.5 cm KwK 40 due to the inadequate anti-tank performance of previous German tank designs against the T-34. The upgunned Panzer IV posed a serious threat to the T-34-76, being able to penetrate the frontal turret of a T-34-76 at a range of 1,200 m (3,900 ft) at any angle.[57][full citation needed]
As the invasion progressed, German infantry began receiving increasing numbers of the 7.5 cm Pak 40 anti-tank guns, which were capable of penetrating the T-34's armour at long range. Larger numbers of the 88 mm Flak guns also arrived, which could easily defeat a T-34 at very long ranges, though their size and general unwieldiness meant that they were often difficult to move into position in the rough Soviet terrain.[114]
In July 1943, the Germans launched Operation Citadel, in the region around Kursk, their last major offensive on the Eastern Front in the Second World War. It was the debut of the German Panther tank, although the numbers employed at the resulting Battle of Kursk were small and the brunt of the burden was carried by the Panzer III, StuG III, and Panzer IV. The campaign featured the largest tank battles in history. The high-water mark of the battle was the massive armour engagement at Prokhorovka, which began on 12 July, though the vast majority of armour losses on both sides were caused by artillery and mines, rather than tanks.[115] Over 6,000 fully tracked armoured vehicles, 4,000 combat aircraft, and 2 million men are believed to have participated in these battles.
The German army often employed as much captured materiel as possible and T-34s were not an exception. Large numbers of T-34s were captured in fighting on the Eastern Front though few were T-34-85s. These were designated by the Germans as Panzerkampfwagen T-34 747(r). From late 1941, captured T-34s were transported to a German workshop for repairs and modification to German requirements. In 1943 a local tank factory in Kharkiv was used for this purpose.[130] These were sometimes modified to German standards by the installation of a German commander's cupola and radio equipment.[citation needed]
On 3 May 1995, a VRS T-34-85 attacked an UNPROFOR outpost manned by the 21st Regiment of the Royal Engineers in Maglaj, Bosnia, injuring six British peacekeepers, with at least one of them sustaining a permanent disability.[150][151] A number of T-34s being stored by the VRS at a base in Zvornik were temporarily confiscated by UNPROFOR as part of a local disarmament programme the following year.[149]
Cuba received 150 T-34-85 tanks as military aid from the Soviet Union in 1960. The T-34-85 was the first Soviet tank to enter service with the Cuban Revolutionary Armed Forces (FAR), along with the IS-2. Many T-34-85 tanks first saw action in April 1961 during the Bay of Pigs Invasion with an unknown number destroyed or knocked out during the battle.[154] In 1975, many T-34-85s were also donated by the USSR to the FAR to support its lengthy intervention in the Angolan Civil War.[142]
Over a hundred Cuban T-34-85s and their respective crews remained in Angola as of the mid 1980s. In September 1986, Cuban president Fidel Castro complained to General Konstantin Kurochkin, head of the Soviet military delegation to Angola, that his men could no longer be expected to fight South African armour with T-34s of "World War II vintage"; Castro insisted that the Soviets furbish the Cuban forces with a larger quantity of T-55s.[156] By 1987 Castro's request appeared to have been granted, as Cuban tank battalions were able to deploy substantial numbers of T-54Bs, T-55s, and T-62s; the T-34-85 was no longer in service.[157]
During the Vietnam War, the North Vietnamese Army was equipped with many Soviet T-34-85 and these were used in the Operation Lam Son 719, the 1972 Easter Offensive and the 1975 Spring Offensive. They were later used during the Vietnamese invasion of Kampuchea and the Sino-Vietnamese War.[166] A small number are currently being used as trainers. The rest are in storage and no longer serve as active duty battle tanks.
What are the chances we will see the t-34-85? I mean the T34-76 is just no match for the Tiger or Panther even in large numbers. That leaved the tiger and Panther in Tank crew with really no worthy opponent...
In his book "Tiger in the Mud", Otto Carius describes the problem of Russian tank guidance in such a way that the hatch was mostly closed. In addition - at least at the beginning of the war - there was a lack of or insufficient radio equipment. The fine tanks were discovered too late and could not be reported further. After the first and last tank of a column were shot down, panic developed.
The Israelis also noticed this panic among the Arab crews of the T-55 and T-62 tanks supplied by the Russians in previous wars. They found a number of tanks that had no bullet damage, but whose crews were dying of failure of the autonomic nervous system due to the panic of panic.
I wish people would stay on subject......Tank Crew is a recreation of The Battle of Kursk, and the fact is, HUNDREDS of T-34's where destroyed by a relative few number of German tanks before the German offensive was stopped. I totally agree with Lofte, in that to be historically correct, the T-34 gunnery should be downgraded. I'd rather see a Battle of Kursk simulator based on historical accuracy than some aberration of World of Tanks.
profile register preferences faq search UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic next oldest topicAuthorTopic: Tiger loss/kill ratios on the eastern frontWWII=interest
Senior Member posted 01-26-2003 04:11 PM Is there really a set definition on Tiger kill/loss ratios for the eastern front during it's employement?I have heard numbers thrown around such as 1 Tiger loss goes with 20 T-34 losses. I have also heard the same thing, except the T-34 losses going down all the way to 7 or reaching all the way up to 57. Does anybody know of anygood estimates on this subject?IP: Logged
Kill ratio in action 1:12.16Kill ratio total 1:5.44 (this includes Tigers destroyed out of combat)For both east and west, but not, it appears, including the Tiger companies that were attached to some SS-PDs in 1943 (and after?).Not quite what you are after, but still does not sound too unreasonable.The numbers are broken down by Abteilung, so if you know which one fought where, you will be able to get better figures out of the table.The thesis can be DL'd from CALL database, search all libraries, and type in 'schwere panzer abteilung'. Haven't read it all myself yet. It's 150 pages, and I am strapped for time. IP: Logged
How can you? The German divisions were operating with one or two tank battalions (briefly four in the case of the GD PzGrD)...and there were seven tiger companies, each attached to a different armor division. I may be able to assemble what the Germans claimed for each division for each day....and I know what the Soviet armor losses were (usually for each day). But, how to seperate them out as to how many were by tigers, versus other tanks, versus air, versus AT, versus artillery, versus Marders, versus Sturmgeshutz, versus infantry, versus mechanical breakdown.....Now, I may in some cases have claims from the Tiger company/battalion (there was only one battalion in the south...but it has been seperated into three companies and each attached to a division), and claims from the tank regiments, and I have some aggregate claim for the day sometimes for the air, and an overall division claim...but unless these claims are consistently reported and assembled...there is really no way to apportion out cause of loss. This is assuming, of course, that the total number of losses claimed from all the individual claimers does not greatly exceed that which the Soviets actually lost. quote:Regarding AT units at Kursk, Popjel again makes one of these statements you really come to appreciate when reading Kommissar memoirs Something along the lines of 'While our AT Brigades all died in a day, they had made themselves immortal in the minds of the Soviet people.' Sounds like a pretty big desaster to me, but at least it is nicely dressed up in heroics.These are the kind of statements that if you read them backwards, sometimes really tell you something. The first two defense lines went real quick, as did the attached AT units. Popyel is putting a good face on what appears to be a really bad deployment on the part of the Soviets. Furthermore, it doesn't appear that these formations did anywhere near the damage to the German armor that one would expect.Is it possible to get a copy of Popyel's discussion on Kursk?
IP: Logged