T34-85

It seems like i do not hear much about this tank, but maybe it, frequently, gets lumped in with the T34.
It was "Better" than the T34 wasn't it.?
My understanding is that it was a bit bigger, added one more (much needed) crew member and i am assuming that the 85mm round was an improvement also.?

Was the 34-85 quite a bit better tank the the standard 34 and how did it compare to something like a Panther or Pershing.?
Thank You

 

Tank Clash – The German Panther vs. the Soviet T-34-85 - MilitaryHistoryNow.com

 

That was a VERY Thorough read
Pretty much answered any question i had.
Thank You

 

The lack of a turret basket was not the disadvantage the author is making it out to be. The T-34's turret crew of course had seats attached to the turret ring, and with ammo stowed in the hull floor, a turret basket would be a hindrance. The US Army learned this went it from stowing ammo in the sponsons to stowing it in the floor in late Shermans and in the M24, M26, etc. The turret basket floor was initially reduced in size and eventually dispensed with altogether, leaving the fighting compartment layout akin to T-34's. Indeed, in Study No.53 "Tank Gunnery," by the General Board, USFET, which was derived from interviews of "344 enlisted men and 58 officers, of which 75 percent were company grade":

"a. Few interviewees favored a 'half floor' in the turret such as in medium tank M4A3 (76mm gun). When traversing the turret, empty cartridge cases, ammunition bin covers, and miscellaneous equipment which often falls to the floor, easily becomes jammed between the half floor and the top of the ammunition compartment. Also, the loader must guard against his feet becoming entangled with the half floor when quick deflection changes are made.

"b. Approximately 30% of the interviewees desired a moving full floor. Those opposed to the full floor felt it complicated ammunition stowage under the floor and made it more difficult for personnel in the driving compartment to escape through the fighting compartment.

"c. Approximately 60% preferred no floor, such as in light tank M24. However, it was felt that tanks so designed should include:
(1) A foot rest for the gunner
(2) Folding platform for the tank commander. It should revolve with the turret and be adjustable in height.
(3) A seat for the loader which would revolve with the turret."

 

And this is a REALLY thorough one: 'ENGINEERING ANALYSIS OF THE RUSSIAN T34/85 TANK' 463 pages
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP81-01044R000100070001-4.pdf

 

Wow.............a 450 page analysis of the T-34...in English.

If i am reading it correctly, it was generated By or For the pentagon in 1951.?
Would that have been a cold war thing.?

Or was the T-34 still being studied as part of possible USA tank design.?

 

Although this document is issued by the CIA, it was originally an air force document and as the introduction explains was based on one tank being captured in Korea, in late 1950. It is a technical / engineering document and there are several references to earlier technical reports - one of which clearly involved a T34-85 being examined, the report is dated November 1943. Would the USSR enabled such an inspection?

Quite a few items were missing when received, such as both tracks and the hull machine gun. Even some US-made 'Lend lease' items were fitted.

Such technical intelligence (TechInt) reports continue to be assembled, though few appear to become public for a very long time. The "sheds" at Shrivenham have some items that were not sold to the UK, may be bartered. Israeli victories over Egypt led to a significant trade in tanks, artillery and more. It worked in reverse too - to the USSR.

 

They did, but it was "only" a T-34/76:
Tank Archives: Aberdeen: T-34 and KV-1 Test
In 1942–1943 a T-34 was comprehensively tested by American military experts on Aberdeen Proving Ground in Aberdeen, MD. Some Soviet officers were present there as well. They collected and recorded the Americans’ statements and conclusions about the tank. In August 1943 an official report summarizing the Americans’ evaluation was sent to Moscow.

Here the report:
https://de.scribd.com/document/241820378/Preliminary-Report-No-20-Russian-T-34

Did I ever mention that I have a soft spot for these tractors on steroids?

 

From what I can tell, the late war durability of the T-34/85 was as good as the Sherman and Cromwell, while the IS-2 was at least as good as the Churchill. This is actually very impressive given how formidable these tanks were.

Soviet tanks seem to have been somewhat lacking in "soft" factors, but in terms of all-round balanced design I'm leaning very much towards thinking they were the best tanks of the war.

 

Agree; good information tempered by the impression that the authors also went into the book with an axe to grind.

 

I took a quick peek online and the M26 Pershing did fine against the T34 in Korea. Apparently the M4A3E8 was surprisingly OK against the T34 as well. I wonder how much of that was due to differences in levels of crew training. Did the T34/85 ever come up against the Centurion in Korea?

With regards to the T34...well, it's a bit like the Sherman. It had its flaws, but it was still a war-winning weapon. If it hadn't been good in the most important departments, it wouldn't have forced the Germans to design a whole new generation of tanks to deal with it. And like the Sherman, it ran like a top. You could drop it and kick it and screw it under water and it would still work. Maybe I'm imagining this, but was there not a video some years ago of somebody hauling an old T34/85 out of a bog in eastern Europe and then starting it right up?

 

TTH,

This may be the recovered T34/85: WW2-Era T-34 Tank With German Markings Pulled From Bog After 60 years (Watch)

The article states:

The Finns have a running T34/76:


and a T34/85:


This one was found in a barn and started up:

 

The T-34/85 didn't come up against the Centurion, although it was thought (but not confirmed) that Centurions were engaged by SU-76's on a couple of occasions. This may be of interest:

 

MacDonald et al gave some thought to those survey results in "The Employment of Armor in Korea, vol.I:"

 

In the field for the proletariat since 80 years....not bad for a supposedly overrated pile of scrap metal:

According to International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), nine countries still have World War 2 Russian T-34 tanks in their inventories: Cuba, Yemen, Republic of the Congo, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Namibia, North Korea, Vietnam (believed to still have 45 in working order), and Laos (from where 30 units were sent back to Russia in January 2019 for historical parading purpose).

Russian World War 2 T-34 tanks still fighting in Yemen war | Defense News March 2021 Global Security army industry | Defense Security global news industry army year 2021 | Archive News year


Yemen 2018

Syria 2018

 

There's an account of a napalm dropping test on a sample T-34/85 (and some unfortunate animals) in the report I took that excerpt from, if you want to see it.

 

Copied the text from Post 388 on another thread by Orwell 1984:

Link: Coming Soon to a Bookshelf Near You

 

Were the animals IN the T 34 ?