The well
known Soviet T-34 tank has been
called the best tank of WWII in countless history books. I have presented a
very different picture of its capabilities and performance here.
In order to
find more information on various aspects of WWII I always have a look online at
various sites and forums. Sometimes one can find an interesting link or a quote
from a book that reveals new information. Unfortunately most of the time I’m
left shaking my head at the moronic arguments, circular reasoning and lack of
common sense that one often finds online.
However with
a bit of luck some diamonds do turn up in the most unlikely places. In the
comments of a piece at the world of tanks site ‘For the
record’ the commenter ‘ Mo’ (comment
of September 6, 2013 at 1:17 am) linked
to a US study of Soviet equipment that doesn’t seem to paint the Soviet equipment
in such a good light:
It must be an unlucky coincidence that his link lo longer works.
The report ‘Review of Soviet ordnance metallurgy’ is dated 10 April 1953
and can be downloaded from here.
It has interesting details on the quality (or lack thereof) of Soviet
weaponry. I’m particularly interested in the T-34 evaluation so here are some
quotes:
‘The ordnance Corps's first contact
with modern Soviet tank armor was in 1943
when two tanks were provided to this country by the Soviet government
for performance tests at Aberdeen Proving Ground. These tanks were the T-34
medium tank and the KV-1 heavy tank.’
Note: The T-34 sent to the US for testing
belonged to a special batch built in spring 1942 at Nizhny Tagil. Five T-34
were built with one being sent to the USA, one to the UK, two to the front and
the last remaining at the plant.
The plant was
specifically chosen because it had the highest quality of T-34 production, at
that time. All components were built with the outmost attention to quality. As
such the tanks were not indicative of the average production but were of much
higher quality. Source: ‘Tankovy udar.
Sovetskie tanki v boyakh. 1942-1943’
What was the US assessment? Let’s see:
‘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 quality of the armor steels
ranged from poor to excellent. Wide
variations in production technique were indicated; some rolled armor
components were well cross-rolled while others were virtually straightaway
rolled………The bow casting of the T-34 tank was very unsound and would have been rejected under American standards.’
'The design of the welded joints was
characterized by dovetailing such that the edges of the lighter plates were set
into niches machined or flame-cut into the heavier sections so that the
surfaces of the lighter plates were approximately flush with the edges of the
heavier sections…..Although the
fundamental design of the joints appeared excellent, the fit-up, appearance,
and execution of the joint design and welding was generally poor.’
‘Shallow
penetration, poor fusion, severe
undercutting, porosity, and cracking was observed in most of the welds and probably resulted
from improper manipulation of electrodes which might not have had suitable operating characteristics….. These obvious
defects, together with low strength and pour metallurgical structure of
ferritic weld deposits, indicate that the
welded joints would have poor resistance to severe shock.’
Now I know
what you’re thinking. It was 1942 so the quality problems were undeniably due
to the war situation and the relocation of industry to the Urals. Obviously the
US report will mention this:
‘The results obtained from the
metallurgical examination of these early world war ii Soviet tanks have been described
in some detail since they are exactly
the same as have been obtained from all examinations performed since then of Soviet tanks which were recovered in
Germany after the end of world war ii, and on Soviet tanks which were captured
in Korea during 1950-52. The Ordnance Corps has examined several Soviet JS-II which were found in Germany
and several Soviet T-34 tanks from both Germany and Korea.’
Hmm I guessed
wrong…. No worries let’s continue with the quotes:
‘Some of the armor steels have
surprisingly high toughness considering the very high hardness levels but many of the armor steels, even the softer
ones, are very brittle.’
‘The very high hardness encountered in
most Soviet tank armor has caused much unnecessary concern regarding the
relative ballistic performance of the hard Soviet armor and the softer American
armor. Many people associate high hardness with high resistance to penetration.
Although this is true, within limits, in the case of attack of armor by
undermatching projectiles (i.e. caliber of shot is less than the tnickness of
the armor) particularly at low obliquities of attack, it definitely not true
when the armor is attacked by larger caliber shot at higher obliquities of
impact’
You don’t
say…. So maybe the T-34’s 45mm hull armor was not the best choice given the
widespread use of the German KwK 40/Pak 40 75mm gun? (used in Pz IV, Stug and
self-propelled vehicles). Who would have thought?
‘Although
welds in Soviet tanks are inferior in quality and much more brittle than corresponding,
welds in American tanks, this condition has not been a major factor in impairing the battlefield performance
of Soviet armor. Poor joint fits, sloppy appearance, jagged and rough finishes should
not divert attention from the fact that the Soviet tanks are rugged and battleworth
and require many fewer man-hours of labor and precision machine tools,
jigs, and fixtures to construct than American tanks of corresponding offensive
capabilities.’
This is a very
interesting argument. Quantity over quality. But notice that there are no
numbers to back it up. The author simply assumes that poor construction means a
Soviet emphasis on production and not an inability of Soviet industry to
produce quality products.
This is
confirmed in the next sentence:
‘it would be very interesting to
compare, for example, the relative man-hours of labor and investment in machine
tools to construct equivalent numbers of the American 76 mm, Gun Tank T41 and the Soviet T-34/85.’
Yes that
would be interesting but the author hasn’t done it, probably due to lack of
reliable Soviet data…
The study
concludes:
‘It must be borne in
mind that the Soviet ordnance materiel described in this paper was mostly of
world War II manufacture
and represents design concepts which, for the greater part, were established as
early as 1940-1942. It cannot be said with any certainty that these design
concepts are, in all cases, still adhered to by the Soviets.’
‘From
a metallurgical point of view, it would appear that the Soviets have
attained equality with this country in
the matter of technical information but not in technological development or in
skill and training of metals workers such as weldors, foundrymen and machinists.’
There is also
a restatement of the quantity over quality argument, again however with no data
to back it up.
‘In closing,
it should be emphasized that this country could do well to emulate the Soviet
practice of employing finely machined finishes only where needed. The same
applies to high quality, carefully prepared welded joints, castings, and other
metal products. Detailed attention to aesthetic appearances is costly, time
consuming, and, throughout the history of man, is not known to have won a
single war.’
My advice is
to read this study if you’re interested in Soviet WWII equipment.
