Skip to main content

t34 history

Origins[edit]

In 1939, the most numerous Soviet tank models were the T-26 infantry tank and the BT series of fast tanks. The T-26 was slow-moving, designed to keep pace with infantry on the ground. The BT tanks were cavalry tanks: fast-moving and light, designed for manoeuvre warfare. Both were Soviet developments of foreign designs from the early 1930s; the T-26 was based on the British Vickers 6-Ton, and the BT tanks were based on a design from American engineer J. Walter Christie.[12]
In 1937, the Red Army had assigned engineer Mikhail Koshkin to lead a new team to design a replacement for the BT tanks at the Kharkov Komintern Locomotive Plant (KhPZ). Theprototype tank, designated A-20, was specified with 20 mm (0.8 in) of armour, a 45 mm (1.77 in) gun, and the new Model V-2-34 engine, using less-flammable diesel fuel in a V12configuration designed by Konstantin Chelpan. It also had an 8×6-wheel convertible drive similar to the BT tank's 8×2, which allowed it to run on wheels without caterpillar tracks.[13] This feature had greatly saved on maintenance and repair of the unreliable tank tracks of the early 1930s, and allowed tanks to exceed 85 kilometres per hour (53 mph) on roads, but gave no advantage in combat and its complexity made it difficult to maintain. By 1937-38, track design had improved and the designers considered it a waste of space, weight, and maintenance resources, despite the road speed advantage.[14] The A-20 also incorporated previous research (BT-IS and BT-SW-2 projects) into sloped armour: its all-round sloped armour plates were more likely to deflect rounds than perpendicular armour.[15]
During the Battle of Lake Khasan in July 1938 and the Battles of Khalkhin Gol in 1939, an undeclared border war with Japan on the frontier with occupied Manchuria, the Soviets deployed numerous tanks against the Imperial Japanese Army (IJA). Although the IJA Type 95 Ha-Go light tanks had diesel engines,[16] the Red Army's T-26 and BT tanks used petrol engines which, while common in tank designs of the time, often burst into flames when hit by IJA tank-killer teams[17] using Molotov cocktails. Poor quality welds in the Soviet armour plates left small gaps between them, and flaming petrol from the Molotov cocktails easily seeped into the fighting and engine compartment; portions of the armour plating that had been assembled with rivets also proved to be vulnerable.[18] The Soviet tanks were also easily destroyed by the Japanese Type 95 tank's 37 mm gunfire, despite the low velocity of that gun,[19] or "at any other slightest provocation".[20] The use of riveted armour led to a problem called "spalling", whereby the impact of enemy shells, even if they failed to disable the tank or kill the crew on their own, would cause the rivets to break off and become projectiles inside the tank.
Medium tank A-32
After these battles, Koshkin convinced Soviet leader Joseph Stalin to let him develop a second prototype, a more heavily armed and armoured "universal tank" that reflected the lessons learned and could replace both the T-26 and the BT tanks. Koshkin named the second prototype A-32, after its 32 mm (1.3 in) of frontal armour. It had an L-10 76.2 mm (3 in) gun, and the same Model V-2-34 diesel.[3] Both were tested in field trials at Kubinkain 1939, with the heavier A-32 proving to be as mobile as the A-20. A still heavier version of the A-32, with 45 mm (1.77 in) of front armour, wider tracks, and a newer L-11 76.2 mm gun, 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 that year's decree expanding the armoured force and appointing Sergo Ordzhonikidzeto head tank production.[21]
Valuable lessons from Lake Khasan and Khalkhin Gol regarding armour protection, mobility, quality welding, and main guns were incorporated into the new T-34 tank, which represented a substantial improvement over the BT and T-26 tanks in all four areas.[22] Koshkin's team completed two prototype T-34s in January 1940. In April and May, they underwent a grueling 2,000-kilometre (1,200 mi) 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.[21] Some drivetrain shortcomings were identified and corrected.[23]

Initial production[edit]

Pre-production prototype A-34 with a complex single-piece hull front.
Political pressure came 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. This pressure was brought to bear by the developer of the KV-1 tank which was in competition with the T-34.
Resistance from the military command and concerns about high production cost were finally overcome by anxieties about the poor performance of Soviet tanks in the Winter War in Finland, and the effectiveness of German tanks during the Battle of France. The first production T-34s were completed in September 1940, completely replacing the production of the T-26, the BT series, and the multi-turreted T-28 medium tank at the KhPZ plant.[24] Koshkin died of pneumonia (exacerbated by the drive from Kharkov to Moscow) at the end of that month, and the T-34's drivetrain developer, Alexander Morozov, was appointed Chief Designer.[25]
The T-34 posed new challenges for Soviet industry. It had heavier armour than any medium tank produced to date, and there were problems with defective armour plates.[26] Only company commanders' tanks could be fitted with radios (originally the 10-RT 26E radio set), due to their expense and short supply – the rest of the tank crews in each company signalled with flags.[27] The L-11 gun did not live up to expectations, so the Grabin Design Bureau at Gorky Factory N.92 designed the superior F-34 76.2 mm gun(see Designations of Soviet artillery). No bureaucrat would approve production of the new gun, but Gorky and KhPZ started producing it anyway; official permission only came from the State Defense Committee after troops praised the weapon's performance in combat against the Germans.[25]
Production of this first T-34 series – the Model 1940 – totalled only about 400,[28] before production was switched to the Model 1941, with the F-34 gun, 9-RS radio set (also installed on theSU-100), and even thicker armour.[29]

Mass production[edit]

T-34 tanks headed to the front.
Subassemblies for the T-34 originated at several plants: Kharkov Diesel Factory N.75 supplied the model V-2-34 engine, Leningrad Kirovsky Factory(formerly the Putilov works) made the original L-11 gun, and the Dinamo Factory in Moscow produced electrical components. Tanks were initially built at KhPZ N.183, in early 1941 at the Stalingrad Tractor Factory (STZ), and starting in July at Krasnoye Sormovo Factory N.112 in Gorky.[26][notes 1]
TypeProduction
(June 1941 –
May 1945)[30]
Light tanks14,508
T-3435,119
T-34-8529,430
KV and KV-854,581
IS3,854
SU-7612,671
SU-852,050
SU-1001,675
SU-1221,148
SU-1524,779
After Germany's surprise invasion of the Soviet Union on 22 June 1941 (Operation Barbarossa), the Wehrmacht's rapid advances forced the evacuation of Soviet tank factories eastwards of the Ural Mountains, an undertaking of immense scale and haste that presented enormous logistic difficulties and was extremely punishing to the workers involved. Alexander Morozov personally supervised the evacuation of all skilled engineers and labourers, machinery and stock from KhPZ to re-establish the factory at the site of the Dzherzhinski Ural Railcar Factory inNizhny Tagil, renamed Stalin Ural Tank Factory N.183.[31] The Kirovsky Factory, evacuated just weeks before the Germans surrounded Leningrad, moved with the Kharkov Diesel Factory to the Stalin Tractor Factory in Chelyabinsk, soon to be nicknamed Tankograd("Tank City"). The workers and machinery from Leningrad's Voroshilov Tank Factory N.174 were incorporated into the Ural Factory and the new Omsk Factory N.174. The Ordzhonikidze Ural Heavy Machine Tool Works (UZTM) in Sverdlovsk absorbed workers and machines from several small machine shops in the path of German forces.
While these factories were being rapidly moved, the industrial complex surrounding the Dzherzhinski Tractor Factory in Stalingrad continued to work double shifts throughout the period of withdrawal (September 1941 to September 1942) to make up for production lost, and produced 40% of all T-34s during the period.[32] As the factory became surrounded by heavy fighting in the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942, the situation there grew desperate: manufacturing innovations were necessitated by material shortages, and stories persist of unpainted T-34 tanks driven out of the factory directly to the battlefields around it.[33] Stalingrad kept up production until September 1942.
Soviet designers were aware of design deficiencies in the tank, but most of the desired remedies would have slowed tank production and so were not implemented: the only changes allowed on the production lines through to 1944 were those to make production simpler and cheaper. New methods were developed for automated welding and hardening the armour plate, including innovations by Prof. Evgeny Paton.[34] The design of the 76.2 mm F-34 gun Model 1941 was reduced from an initial 861 parts to 614.[35] The initial narrow, cramped turrets, both the cast one and the one welded of rolled armour plates bent to shape, were since 1942 gradually replaced with the somewhat less cramped hexagonal one; as it was mostly cast with only a few, simple flat armour plates welded in (roof etc.), this turret was actually faster to produce. Limited rubber supplies led to the adoption of all-steel, internally sprung road wheels, and a new clutch was added to an improved five-speed transmission and engine, improving reliability.[36]
Polish T-34 Model 1943 in Poznań, Poland. The model 1943's hexagonal turret distinguishes it from earlier models.
Over two years, the unit production cost of the T-34 was reduced from 269,500 rubles in 1941, to 193,000, and then to 135,000.[35] Production time was cut in half by the end of 1942, even though most experienced factory workers had been sent to the battlefield and were replaced by a mixed workforce that included 50% women, 15% boys, and 15% invalids and old men. Originally "beautifully crafted machines with excellent exterior finish comparable or superior to those in Western Europe or America", later T-34s were much more roughly finished; however, this did not compromise mechanical reliability.[31]
In 1943, T-34 production had reached an average of 1,300 per month; this was the equivalent of three full-strength Panzer divisions.[37] By the end of 1945, over 57,300 T-34s had been built: 34,780 T-34 tanks in multiple variants with 76.2 mm guns in 1940–44,[citation needed] and another 22,609 of the revised T-34-85 model in 1944–45.[38] The single largest producer was Factory N.183 (UTZ), building 28,952 T-34s and T-34-85s from 1941 to 1945. The second-largest was Krasnoye Sormovo Factory N.112 in Gorky, with 12,604 in the same period.[39]
At the start of the 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;[40] Zheltov 2001 lists even larger numbers).
Following the end of the war, a further 2,701 T-34s were built prior to the end of Soviet production. Under licence, production was restarted in Poland (1951–55) and Czechoslovakia (1951–58), where 1,380 and 3,185 T-34-85s were made, respectively, by 1956.[41] Altogether, as many as 84,070 T-34s are thought to have been built, plus 13,170 self-propelled guns built on T-34 chassis.[42] It was the most-produced tank of the Second World War, and the second most-produced tank of all time, after its successor, the T-54/55 series.[11]

Design [edit]

Overview[edit]

The T-34 had well-sloped armour, a relatively powerful engine and wide tracks.[27] The initial T-34 version had a powerful 76.2 mm gun, and is often called the T-34/76 (originally a World War II German designation, never used by the Red Army). In 1944, a second major version began production, the T-34-85, with a larger 85 mm gun intended to deal with newer German tanks.[27]
Comparisons can be drawn between the T-34 and the U.S. M4 Sherman tank. Both tanks were the backbone of the armoured units in their respective armies, both nations distributed these tanks to their allies, who also used them as the mainstay of their own armoured formations, and both were upgraded extensively and fitted with more powerful guns. Both were designed for mobility and ease of manufacture and maintenance, sacrificing some performance for these goals. Both chassis were used as the foundation for a variety of support vehicles, such as armour recovery vehicles, tank destroyers, and self-propelled artillery. Both were an approximately even match for the standard German medium tank, the Panzer IV, though each of these three tanks had particular advantages and weaknesses compared with the other two. Neither the T-34 nor the M4 were equals to Germany's heavy tanks, the Panther or the Tiger I; the Soviets used the IS-2 heavy tank and the U.S. the M26 Pershing as the heavy tanks of their forces instead.[43]
Soviet medium tank models of World War II[44]
ModelT-34 Model 1940T-34 Model 1941T-34 Model 1942T-34 Model 1943T-43 prototypeT-34-85T-44
Weight26 t (29 tons)26.5 t (29.2 tons)28.5 t (31.4 tons)30.9 t (34.1 tons)34 t (37 tons)32 t (35 tons)31.9 t (35.2 tons)
Gun76.2 mm L-1176.2 mm F-3476.2 mm F-3476.2 mm F-3476.2 mm F-3485 mm ZiS-S-5385 mm ZiS-S-53
Ammunition76 rounds77 rounds77 rounds100 rounds60 rounds58 rounds
Fuel460 L (100 imp gal; 120 US gal)460 L (100 imp gal; 120 US gal)610 L (130 imp gal; 160 US gal)790 L (170 imp gal; 210 US gal)810 L (180 imp gal; 210 US gal)642 L (141 imp gal; 170 US gal)
Road range300 km (190 mi)400 km (250 mi)400 km (250 mi)465 km (289 mi)300 km (190 mi)240 km (150 mi)300 km (190 mi)
Armour15–45 mm (0.59–1.77 in)20–52 mm (0.79–2.05 in)20–65 mm (0.79–2.56 in)20–70 mm (0.79–2.76 in)16–90 mm (0.63–3.54 in)20–90 mm (0.79–3.54 in)15–120 mm (0.59–4.72 in)
Cost270,000 rubles193,000 rubles135,000 rubles164,000 rubles
Dimensions, road speed and engine horsepower of the various models did not vary significantly, except for the T-43, which was slower than the T-34.

Armour[edit]

T-34 Model 1942 s ekranami (Russian for "with screens"), with appliqué armour welded to the hull, near Leningrad, 1942
The T-34 was one of the best-protected tanks in the world in 1941. The heavily sloped armour design made the tank better protected than the armour thickness alone would indicate. The shape also saved weight by reducing the surface area. A few tanks also had appliqué armour of varying thickness welded onto the hull and turret. Tanks thus modified were called s ekranami (Russianс экранами, "with screens").[27]
The USSR donated two combat-used Model 1941 T-34s to the United States for testing purposes in late 1942.[45] The examinations, performed at theAberdeen Proving Ground, revealed problems with overall armour build quality, especially of the plate joins and welds, as well as the use of soft steel combined with shallow surface tempering. Leak issues were noted: "In a heavy rain lots of water flows through chinks/cracks, which leads to the disabling of the electrical equipment and even the ammunition".[46] Earlier models of the T-34, until the Model 1942, had cast turrets whose armour was softer than that of the other parts of the tank, and offered poor resistance even to 37 mm anti-aircraft shells.
In addition, close examination of the T-34 at the Aberdeen Testing Ground showed that a variety of alloys were used in different portions of the armour on the T-34. "Mn-Si-Mo steels were employed for the thinner rolled armour sections, Cr-Mo steels for the thicker rolled armour sections, Mn-Si-Ni-Cr-Mo steels were employed for both rolled and cast steel components from 2" to 5" in thickness, and Ni-Cr-Mo steels were employed for some of the moderately thick cast armour sections".[47] The armour was heat-treated in order to prevent penetration by armour-piercing shells, but this also caused it to be structurally weak, resulting in strikes by high explosive shells causing spalling.
Despite these deficiencies, the T-34's armour proved problematic for the Germans in the initial stages of the war on the Eastern Front. In one wartime account, a single T-34 came under heavy fire upon encountering one of the most common German anti-tank guns at that stage of the war: "Remarkably enough, one determined 37 mm guncrew reported firing 23 times against a single T-34 tank, only managing to jam the tank’s turret ring."[48] Similarly, a German report of May 1942 noted the ineffectiveness of their 50 mm gunas well, noting that "Combating the T-34 with the 5 cm KwK tank gun is possible only at short ranges from the flank or rear, where it is important to achieve a hit as perpendicular to the surface as possible."[28] However, a Military Commissariat Report of the 10th Tank Division, dated 2 August 1941 reported that within 300–400 m the 37 mm Pak 36's armour-piercing shot could defeat the frontal armour.[49][50] According to an examination of damaged T-34 tanks in several repair workshops in August to September 1942, collected by the People's Commissariat for Tank Industry in January 1943, 54.3% of all T-34 losses were caused by the German long-barreled 50 mm KwK 39 gun.[51][52]
As the war went on, the T-34 gradually lost some of its initial advantage. The Germans responded to the T-34 by fielding large numbers of improved anti-tank weapons such as the towed 75mm gun, while hits from 88 mm-armed Tigers, anti-aircraft guns and PaK 43 anti-tank guns usually proved lethal.[53] A Wa Pruef 1 report estimated that, with the target angled 30° sideward, a Panther tank could penetrate the turret of a T-34-85 from the front at ranges up to 2000 m, the mantlet at 1200 m, and the frontal hull armour at 300 m.[54] According to thePantherfibel, the T-34's glacis could be penetrated from 800 m and the mantlet from 1500 m at 30° sideward angle.[55] Ground trials by employees of NIBT Poligon in May 1943 reported that the KwK 36 88mm gun could pierce the T-34 frontal hull from 1,500 metres at 90 degrees and cause a disastrous burst effect inside the tank. The examined hull showed cracks, spalling, and delamination due to the poor quality of the armour. It was recommended to increase and improve the quality of welds and armour.[56]

Firepower[edit]

T-34 side view, displaying the F-34 gun, with an ISU-122 and T-54 in background
The F-34 76.2 mm (3 in) gun, fitted on the vast majority of T-34s produced through to the beginning of 1944, was able to penetrate any early German tank's armour at normal combat ranges. When firing APCR shells, it could pierce 92 mm of armour at 500 m.[57] The best German tanks of 1941, thePanzer III and Panzer IV, had no more than 50 or 60 mm frontal armour.[58] The F-34 also fired an adequate high explosive round.
The gun sights and range finding for the F-34 main gun (either the TMFD-7 or the PT4-7[59]) were rather crude, especially compared to those of their German adversaries, affecting accuracy and the ability to engage at long ranges.[60] As a result of the T-34's two-man turret, weak optics and poor vision devices, the Germans noted:
T-34s operated in a disorganised fashion with little coordination, or else tended to clump together like a hen with its chicks. Individual tank commanders lacked situational awareness due to the poor provision of vision devices and preoccupation with gunnery duties. A tank platoon would seldom be capable of engaging three separate targets, but would tend to focus on a single target selected by the platoon leader. As a result T-34 platoons lost the greater firepower of three independently operating tanks.[61]
The Germans also noted that the T-34 was very slow to find and engage targets, while their own tanks could typically get off three rounds for every one fired by the T-34.[61]
When new German tanks types with thicker armour began appearing in mid-1942, the T-34's 76.2 mm cannon had to fire at their flanks to assure penetration. As a result, the T-34 was upgraded to the T-34-85 model. This model, with its 85 mm (3.35 in) ZiS gun, provided greatly increased firepower compared to the previous T-34's 76.2mm gun. The 85 mm gun could penetrate the turret front of a Tiger I tank from 500 m (550 yd) and the driver's front plate "DFP" from 300 m (330 yd) at the side angle of 30 degrees, and the larger turret enabled the addition of another crew member, allowing the roles of commander and gunner to be separated and increasing the rate of fire and overall effectiveness.[62] Against the frontal armour of thePanther at 30 degree sidewards, the T-34-85 could penetrate the non-mantlet of its turret at 500 m (550 yd),[54] meaning that even upgraded models of the T-34 usually needed tungsten rounds or had to flank a Panther to destroy it.[63][clarification needed]
The greater length of the 85 mm gun barrel (4.645 meters) made it necessary for crews to be careful not to plough it into the ground on bumpy roads or in combat. Tank commander A.K. Rodkin commented: "the tank could have dug the ground with it in the smallest ditch. If you fired it after that, the barrel would open up at the end like the petals of a flower." Standard practice when moving the T-34-85 cross-country in non-combat situations was to fully elevate the gun, or reverse the turret.[64]
The T-34's 12-cylinder Model V-2-34 diesel engine at the Finnish Tank Museum inParola

Mobility[edit]

The T-34 was powered by a Model V-2-34 38.8 L V12 Diesel engine of 500 hp (370 kW),[notes 2] giving a top speed of 53 km/h (33 mph). It used the coil-spring Christie suspension of the earlier BT-series tanks, using a "slack track" tread system with a rear-mounted drive sprocket and no system of return rollers for the upper run of track, but dispensed with the heavy and ineffective convertible drive.[27]
During the winters of 1941–42 and 1942-43, the T-34 had a marked advantage over German tanks through its ability to move over deep mud or snow — especially important in Russia's twice-annual rasputitsa mud seasons — without bogging down. The Panzer IV, its closest German equivalent at that time, used an inferior leaf-spring suspension and narrow track that tended to sink in such conditions.[65]

Ergonomics[edit]

The T-34 suffered from the unsatisfactory ergonomic layout of its crew compartment. The two-man turret crew arrangement required the commander to aim and fire the gun, an arrangement common to most Soviet tanks of the day; this proved to be inferior to the three-man (commander, gunner, and loader) turret crews of German Panzer III and Panzer IV tanks.[citation needed]
Early in the war, the commander fought at a further disadvantage; the forward-opening hatch and the lack of a turret cupola forced him to observe the battlefield through a single vision slit and traversable periscope.[66] German commanders liked to fight "heads-up", with their seat raised and having a full field of view – in the T-34 this was impossible.[67] Soviet veterans condemned the turret hatches of the early models. Nicknamed pirozhok (stuffed bun) because of its characteristic shape, it was heavy and hard to open. The complaints of the crews urged the design group led by Alexander Morozov to switch in August 1942[68] to using two hatches in the turret.[69]
The loader also had a difficult job due to the lack of a turret basket (a rotating floor that moves as the turret turns); the same fault was present on all German tanks prior to the Panzer IV. 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 rounds had been used, the crew had to pull additional ammunition out of the floor boxes, leaving the floor littered with open bins and matting and reducing their performance.[70]
The main weakness [of the two-man turret of a T-34 Model 1941] is that it is very tight. The Americans couldn't understand how our tankers could fit inside during a winter, when they wear sheepskin jackets. The electrical mechanism for rotating the turret is very bad. The motor is weak, very overloaded and sparks horribly, as a result of which the device regulating the speed of the rotation burns out, and the teeth of the cogwheels break into pieces. They recommend replace it with a hydraulic or simply manual system.[46]
The problems created by the cramped T-34/76 turret, known before the war, were fully corrected with the addition of a three-man turret on the T-34-85 in 1944.

General reliability[edit]

The T-34's wide track and good suspension gave it excellent cross-country performance. Early in the tank's life, however, this advantage was greatly reduced by the numerous teething troubles the design displayed: a long road trip could be a lethal exercise for a T-34 tank at the start of the war. When in June 1941, the 8th Mechanised Corps of D.I. Ryabyshev marched towards Dubno, the corps lost half of its vehicles. A.V. Bodnar, who was in combat in 1941-42, recalled:
From the point of view of operating them, the German armoured machines were almost perfect, they broke down less often. For the Germans, covering 200 km was nothing, but with T-34s something would have been lost, something would have broken down. The technological equipment of their machines was better, the combat gear was worse.[71]
The tracks of early models were the most frequently repaired part. A.V. Maryevski later remembered:
The caterpillars used to break apart even without bullet or shell hits. When earth got stuck between the road wheels, the caterpillar, especially during a turn – strained to such an extent that the pins and tracks themselves couldn't hold out.[72]
The USSR donated two combat-used Model 1941 T-34s to the United States for testing purposes in late 1942. The examinations, performed at the Aberdeen Proving Ground, highlighted these early faults, which were in turn acknowledged in a 1942 Soviet report on the results of the testing:
The Christie's suspension was tested long time ago by the Americans, and unconditionally rejected. On our tanks, as a result of the poor steel on the springs, it very quickly [unclear word] and as a result clearance is noticeably reduced. The deficiencies in our tracks from their viewpoint results from the lightness of their construction. They can easily be damaged by small-calibre and mortar rounds. The pins are extremely poorly tempered and made of poor steel. As a result, they quickly wear and the track often breaks.[46]
Testing at Aberdeen also revealed that engines could grind to a halt from dust and sand ingestion, as the original "Pomon" air filter was almost totally ineffective and had insufficient air-inflow capacity, starving the combustion chambers of oxygen, lowering compression, and thereby restricting the engine from operating at full capacity.[46] The air filter issue was later remedied by the addition of "Cyclone" filters on the Model 1943,[28] and even more efficient "Multi-Cyclone" filters on the T-34-85.[38]
The testing at Aberdeen revealed other problems as well. The turret drive also suffered from poor reliability. The use of poorly machined, low quality steel side friction clutches and the T-34's outdated and poorly manufactured transmission meant frequent mechanical failure occurred and that they "create an inhuman harshness for the driver". A lack of properly installed and shielded radios – if they existed at all – restricted their operational range to under 16 km (9.9 mi).[46]
Judging by samples, Russians when producing tanks pay little attention to careful machining or the finishing and technology of small parts and components, which leads to the loss of the advantage what would otherwise accrue from what on the whole are well designed tanks. Despite the advantages of the use of diesel, the good contours of the tanks, thick armor, good and reliable armaments, the successful design of the tracks etc., Russian tanks are significantly inferior to American tanks in their simplicity of driving, manoeuvrability, the strength of firing (reference to muzzle velocity), speed, the reliability of mechanical construction and the ease of keeping them running.[46]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

[9.15.1] Mod Pack with XVM by QuickyBaby

[9.15.1] Mod Pack with XVM by QuickyBaby Download Presenting your attention the popular modPack from YouTube channel “QuickyBabyTV”! This ModPack included only the most useful and important modes. video of this modpack:
new world of tanks HD wallpapers 2016