Talk:T-34

message: 143.167.143.33 (talk) 12:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously? Similar turret, completely new hull (wider, lower) completely new suspension and running gear (given a wider hull, how else?), completely new transmission, similar engine in completely new layout, and you insist this isn't a new design? Your definitions and mine obviously differ somewhat! On the other point, I said 'ironically' because the Panther was designed in response to the T34/76, and the T44 was designed in response to the Panther ("What else would you expect the Red Army to do"? I would expect to do as they were told and take the tank the designers gave them, of course!!). As for the designers, they improved the NEW design of the T44 and came up with the T54, THATS the real reason the T44 didn't last long in production. Further, I include the comment about similarly-shaped turrets to demonstrate the fallacy of some of your arguments trying to justify your opinion the T44 was little more than an improved T34. With Respects, Andy LLoates Jr (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual errors in this article, and one notable omission? 

message: In the lead is claimed: "Its choice of diesel engine power extended its range, and made it more difficult to brew up when it was hit." without source. Diesel was not more difficul to brew up as gasoline. I don't know were that myth coming from. Check that link: Gas Tanks, Fires, and Explosions Kheynom (talk) 04:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please wait for other opinions before making edits. A link is not a proxy for a consensual agreement. A blog is not a WP:RS Kheynom. You know that. Simon Irondome (talk) 04:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: In theory Diesel should be a tad harder to ignite than gasoline but once ignited Diesel burns more fiercely than Gasoline. Fuel fumes/vapors are always more dangerous than pure fuel, regardless of the fuel type. I don't think Diesel significantly (or at all) reduced the risk of fire in a tank, only placement and protection of the tanks help here.--Denniss (talk) 11:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

text:  OK. A valid report is not a RS, jajaja. Taged as dubious, such claim is still unverifiable. Kheynom (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Its marked as a blog. You know what RS says about blogs. Irondome (talk) 15:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seriously? The PIPE makes a claim with no source or whatever, but I need a source to remove that xxxx?? Something is wrong here. Kheynom (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  So stick a cite needed tag. And ask where PIPE got the info. There must be RS for it somewhere, or one that says its crap. Either way, if it can't be backed up it should go imo. Irondome (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I remove it, unitl a source it placed. It can not be that one can add unfounded claims and got away scott free, while others have to grapple with it. That's not how it works and you know it Simon. Kheynom (talk) 15:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is a lot of unfounded claims creeping in. It happens over time Bogdan, you know we can't be here 24/7, and all eds can get sloppy sometimes. I would like to see a book source either confirming or denying it. Google books. There's probably a million books on there. Irondome (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Anyway, thanks for your thoughts on this Simon. Kheynom (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Kheynom's right. If he really thinks this is junk, it should be removed until cited by RS. FWIW, I've seen the claim made, but it appears to be a myth, & it's actually ammo storage that's the bigger cause of the "brew-ups".  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 18:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diesel more difficult to brew up then gasoline? 

message: I just changed the lead to clean up some recent edits but also to address a couple of creeping scope issues.
In short, I'm trying to keep the article as focused on the T-34 as possible.  Multiple times over its life there have crept in various amounts of info on the Red Army's fighting abilities and Soviet production capabilities, which have in turn been enmeshed in descriptions of the tank so that all three become confusingly entangled.  For example, I'd like to keep out details of how many were destroyed in the context of how effective a tank it was.  Factual statements of production and losses make perfect sense, but attempting to judge the merits of the tank based on its combat performance cannot be done without drawing in the poor doctrine, lousy training, low morale, poor logistics, inexperience at high levels of command etc etc of the force that fielded it.  A well-designed tank remains well-designed even if employed by idiots.  I've restated the loss details to reflect this approach, merely stating that many were built and many were destroyed by the Germans, without attempting to draw any wider conclusions.  The later sections do a good job of addressing concrete shortcomings with specific details that explain how the Germans were able to destroy so many, but of course that level of detail doesn't belong in a lead.
Similarly, I've separated the fact that the tank was constantly modified as the war went on to make it cheaper/easier to build from the fact that the Soviets fielded far more tanks than the Germans.  You simply cannot make this kind of conclusion without mixing apples and oranges: Soviet industry was vastly more efficient than German industry in terms of mass production, and then there are the separate issues of lend-lease and the western bombing campaign against German industry, all of which further muddy the waters.  In this light, it would be best to avoid much in the way of implication that the design of the T-34 itself was responsible for the fact that the Soviets had more of them than the Germans had other tanks without direct cites to back it up, as it should be obvious that this is but one unquantifiable factor in the much larger story of comparative Soviet/Nazi production.
Palindromedairy (talk) 11:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you in principle, a lot of that is OT for the T-34. I'm concerned the simplification creates a misleading impression the tank itself is at fault. It may not be for this page to deal with issues of Red Army doctrine or Sov & German production, but it needs to be dealt with somewhere.  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, but I feel the article itself, in the appropriate subsections, already does a fine job of tackling those issues.  For example, the Operation Barbarossa section talks about the German discomfort in facing it, the powerful effect it had, and then details why and how so many were destroyed anyways.  The T-34/85 section covers the comparing design philosophies of the Germans and Russians as they wrestled over the upgrade question. Palindromedairy (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. (I confess, I haven't read the whole page in awhile, so I'm not confident enough to disagree strongly. :) )  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead Editing 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on T-34. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://litl-bro.livejournal.com/1700.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050219094927/http://www.wsowp.poznan.pl/muzeum/pages/eksponat12.htm to http://www.wsowp.poznan.pl/muzeum/pages/eksponat12.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Our article currently says:
: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. This was achieved by underpaying & overworking all the factory workers. Through this time, the workers were treated as little more than slaves.[37] At the same time, its production time was cut in half by the end of 1942, [...]
Not that I doubt that workers were treated badly, but if production time and complexity of assembly were also reduced, it is a bit strange to ascribe the reduction in cost to "underpaying & overworking" - that would suggest that these issues developed from 1941 to 1943 and were the only, or at least dominant, factor in that cost reduction. I would also be a bit reluctant on using a cold-war era military publisher for such a claim. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economics? 

message: Per this old revision, the article was written in British English. --John (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  ENGVAR 

message: Peter Samsonov author of Designing the T-34: Genesis of the Revolutionary Soviet Tank, claims there are a number of innaccuries in this article.  He talks specifically about 3 in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhPgw6X8ubE 
I don't think that would be enough for me to make changes in the article, I don't own and haven't read his book, I'm not sure if a Youtube video would be considered a reliable source, and there are citations for the claims in the article, so I figured I'd just put this in the talk page rather than editing the article itself based on the video.
twfowler (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it's best to wait until people have a copy of the book in hand.  The video states that the book uses direct primary sourcing, so it sounds as though it would be reliable.  At the same time, Amazon does not have it listed for release until 4 March 2020, and a review of the book by a reputable source would be nice as well (though not formally necessary), which would take even more time. Palindromedairy (talk) 06:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we have a review https://reviews.ipmsusa.org/review/designing-t-34-genesis-revolutionary-soviet-tank .There should also be one from Midwest Book Review but I can't find it.©Geni (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have the book. On the topic of who came up with the A-32 design and its name, at page 23 is says that the A-20 (tracked) (later renamed to A-32 according to page 25) was not developed by Bureau #24 (Koshkin) on their own accord, as the NKOP explicitly ordered the development of a tracked tank on August 21, 1938. Page 67 discusses the L-11, F-32 and F-34 guns. MaxRavenclaw (talk) 09:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peter Samsonov's claims of inaccuracies in this article 

message: :I'm making this a talk thing because I know someone is just going to revert my changes if I go ahead and edit it.
While the 76.2 mm gun on the T-34 was no howitzer, it was also by no means a "high velocity tank gun"... it was more of a medium-velocity dual-use gun like the similarly-calibered 75 mm US and British guns. The two different 75 mm guns on the Panzer IV and Panther, as well as the two different US three inch guns and the British 17 pounder of similar caliber to the 3 inch gun on the T-34 all fired shells at FAR higher velocities. This quote needs fixing.2601:245:C101:9C70:A59E:5B97:996E:21D2 (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to define 'high velocity' and what sources suggest that this actually is. The PaK 40 muzzle velocity gives 2500-2700 FPS, and the 88mm data gives 2690 FPS. The early T-34 F-34 tank gun gives 2200 FPS. the later ZiS-S-53 gives 2598 FPS. The M4 75mm gun M2-M6 had 2031 FPS performance, while the Ordnance QF 75 mm had a 2000 FPS muzzle velocity. It would seem that even the earliest Soviet armament was the best of the Allied tank guns, which were in majority use till at least mid 1944. I suspect it's current definition is around 2500 FPS but from cursory google searches this definition seems to be for handgun ammunition and wound ballistics. I would suggest that for 1940 a large calibre round such as a 75-76.2mm at 2200 FPS was high velocity. Simon Adler (talk) 04:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think 2500 FPS makes sense, as the two 75 mm guns and the T-34's 76 mm guns are more "medium velocity", while guns like the 17 pounder, the gun on the Panther, and the US 76 mm tank guns are "high velocity". As for the 75s on the Panzer IV, the earlier ones are basically howitzers and thus low-velocity, while the ones on later models are more of medium-high hybrid.2601:245:C101:9C70:1819:F007:3DA5:435E (talk) 04:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

text: Can we start citing sources for these comparisons? Because simply asserting your viewpoint carries no leverage with it. Binksternet (talk) 04:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Binksternet Hi Binks, long time no speak. I am using WP sources here from already existing articles, which all appear stable. I wanted to generate a quick discussion which seems to be in progress. I reverted myself so as not to start a dumb edit war and our IP colleague is participating. Sources for what 'high velocity' actually means are quite elusive in the context of this discussion. I can give a source for the handgun figure if required. I will add the sources for the WP article - generated figures. Thanks Simon Adler (talk) 04:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Its 76.2 mm (3 in) high-velocity tank gun..." 

message: I don't know what's a good source for this, but the T-34 is still being used currently in the Yemeni Civil War, isn't it?  That would make the Yemeni Civil War the most recent conflict to still use them. Fephisto (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yemen Civil War 

message: Does this count as use in a conflict? https://en.defence-ua.com/news/russians_already_use_t_34_though_not_the_way_expected_video-3540.html // Liftarn (talk) Liftarn (talk) 09:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely not, that's ridiculous. I removed the mention. ansh.666 23:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  What about this? https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-soviet-memorial-tank/25412840.html // Liftarn (talk) 08:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an IS-3, not a T-34. --Katangais (talk) 01:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, my bad. I was thinking of this. http://ftr.wot-news.com/2015/02/10/separatists-press-another-monument-into-service/ and https://archive.kyivpost.com/article/content/war-against-ukraine/donetsk-separatists-seizes-museum-tanks-guns-354991.html // Liftarn (talk) 10:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

text: No it's not being used in the conflict I think. It was just the Lysychansk T-34 monument's tank that was brought down. Can be identified with the red star and the number "227". http://wikimapia.org/22191580/T-34-85-tank-on-a-plinth#/photo/3663997 AyazKader (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russia-Ukraine war of 2022 

message: I've recently come to believe that the notion T-34s went into battle with a spare transmission is a myth. The first time I seriously began questioning it was when I read the Errata for Pulham and Kerrs' T-34 Shock. It brings some good point: "Reinterpretation of evidence: We refer to the well-photographed T-34 (L-11 Gun) abandoned in Lvov/Lviv, western Ukrainian SSR, of which two photographs can be found on page 107. However, we are inclined to agree that a more plausible reason for carrying the transmission on the back of the tank was the evacuation of a valuable spare part as concluded by Christian Mulsow in ‘The First T-34 Birth of a Legend : T-34 Model 1940’ (Erlangen: Tankograd, 2019), p. 121, because it was, indeed, a complicated job to replace the transmission." I've looked and there don't seem to be any other pictures of T-34s carrying transmissions anywhere. I suspect this will be a pain to recognise as a myth, though, since there's a ton of literature that repeated it, but hopefully we can get ahead of the curve on this page. Thoughts? MaxRavenclaw (talk) 08:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, given nobody seems to care or object, I'll edit the part about 'spare' transmissions. MaxRavenclaw (talk) 14:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spare transmission 

message: An edit I made removing content from this article was reverted so I'm going to "repropose" my edit. The edit was the removal of the final 4 sentences of the General Reliablity section due to it being sourced from a CIA document. In general you can't just quote a CIA document directly as these are primary sources that have to be handled with care. To directly quote from it without the use of any secondary source in this case has most likely led to the source being misused. Originalcola (talk) 04:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to take the lack of response as implicit support for my edit due to a lack of response after 2 weeks. Originalcola (talk) 04:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

text: The reason my edit was reverted initially was due to a lack of cause given so this explanation is probably sufficient. Originalcola (talk) 04:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Reliability Quote 

message: Not touching on anything that may or may not occur with current the conflict in Ukraine, shouldn't Russia still be considered a ceremonial operator of the T-34? Given that the mobile column of the Moscow victory day parade contains the tank. 2601:600:C701:2E70:3020:23F1:DC24:AAA2 (talk) 06:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: "Operator" means use as a regular piece of weaponry by the Armed Forces. Use in ceremonies alone does not mean that a country "operates" the tank since tanks used in such circumstances do not have to be combat-ready or -able. Regards SoWhy 08:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russia as a T-34 operator 

message: Your addition to the infobox has now been reverted by three separate users (four, if we include the same edit to T-64), making it quite clear that consensus is against your change. As you are making the change, it is your responsibility to use the talk page to get consensus for your edits, not the other way around. Loafiewa (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox dispute 

message: I may not be a professional in this, but German generals praising the tank, when literally 50% of all T-34s did not make through WW2, were all deployed in the eastern front.
This feels like those German generals were trying to say "We didn't fail strategically and tactically, they had superior tanks, like the T-34!". 
This probably should be mentioned in the article. 93.105.177.2 (talk) 20:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  German Reaction to the T34 

message: I feel like it should be mentioned that the steel for the T-34 was annealed at 600 degrees celsius, which led to the steel being hard, but incredibly brittle. It is seen that the tank "cracks" in most photos. 95.160.158.208 (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Annealing of steel at extreme temperatures. 

message: The purported results of the examination of the T-34 by American engineers at the the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in 1943 is heavily cited in the current article - at least 6 direct citations by my count.
The trouble is that this source doesn't meeting any reasonable standards of relevance, accuracy, consistency, or reliability. It's also 
Let's take this step by step:
1. Relevance - the sample size for this apparent analysis is a grand total of two tanks. Is this really the best available source to discuss the pros and cons of one of the most prolific tanks in history? Especially given the wide variability in production methods and approaches in the early models, weighing this source to this extent is questionable. Even if it had no other faults - and oh boy, does it have faults.
2. "Accuracy"
Optics - according to the source, the American engineers felt that the Model 1941 T-34 had the best optics of any tank fielded or in development. 
Quote: "Optic - The general opinion: the best construction in the world. Incomparable with any existing tanks or any under development."
That sentence alone should cause anyone with actually knowledge of tanks throw the whole thing into the bin and light it on fire. For Pete's sake, the very wiki article itself points out several times that the optics of the T-34 were of mediocre quality at best. 
Air filters - apparently, the Americans (in 1943) felt that the "Pomon" filters used in the Model 1941 T-34 didn't do anything. They recommended this terrible deficiency be fixed - and General Khlopov took this recommendation seriously enough to put it into his alleged report. The current article implies that this even had some practical impact - as the air filters were replaced with newly designed ones on the Model 1943.
The trouble is that the Model 1943 T-34 with the upgraded "Cyclone" filters started production in May of 1942 - roughly a year prior the American "evaluation." Now, perhaps the American engineers were not aware of this - they can't be blamed, they were evaluating the tanks in front of them. But why in the world did the very non-American General Khlopov feel it was necessary to put this down as a recommendation in his "report?" Not just any recommendation - this thing that had been done a year prior needed to be done "quickly!"
3. Consistency
Was the armor of the T-34 Model 1941 too soft or too hard? Because General Khlopov's report of the Aberdeen findings is very clear that the armor is too soft, and that's bad. 
However, the Review of Soviet Ordnance Metallurgy document also cited by the wiki article, and also referring to the very tanks at Aberdeen definitively calls out the armor as being extremely hard relative to American approaches.
Quote: "The armor components of the T-34 tank, with the exception of the bow casting which was unheat-treated, were heat-treated to very high hardnesses (430-500 Brinell), probably in an attempt to secure maximum resistance to penetration by certain classes of armor-piercing projectiles even at the expense of structural integrity under ballistic attack. The armor components of the KV-1 heavy tank were heat-treated to hardnesses more nearly approaching American practice (280-320 Brinell)"
While on the topic of consistency, I'll note with interest that the unambiguously glowing characterization of the T-34's optics as "the best in the world" did not seem interesting enough to include in the current wiki article. If the source is good - why only pull in the information that negatively reflects on the machine?
4. Reliability - we're not looking at the report of the engineers from Aberdeen. We're not looking at an official summary of that report. We're looking - allegedly - at the translation of a transcription of report of the General Khlopov on the in-progress trials. Despite some determined searching in Russian and English sources -  I have not been able to find a trace of the original document from Khlopov - only this transcriptions, copied endlessly from blog-post to blog-post.
Summary - this source is not fit to cite on this page. I recommend any associated paragraphs and statements be reviewed and either removed or supported with solid information. Theotherotherone (talk) 05:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aberdeen Proving Grounds source doesn't meet any reasonable standards