The high ground clearance and proven Christie
suspension of the T-34 medium tank made it ideal for mobile warfare across the
vast Russian steppes as the Red Army pursued the Germans westwards towards
Berlin in 1944 and 1945.
An aerial view of a T-34 Model 1942, with its cast
two-man turret. The main difference between the Model 1942 and Model 1943 was
the the larger turret of the latter. The hull and chassis remained essentially
the same for all models.
The T-34 medium tank is one of a few weapons that may, quite
literally, be credited with winning World War II. The T-34 reached the
battlefield in large numbers in 1941 and quickly evened the odds for the Red
Army against German tanks.
Perhaps one of the most iconic images of World War II is
that of a Red Army T-34 medium tank, soldiers aboard and on foot nearby,
speeding westward toward the frontier of the Third Reich and the Nazi capital
of Berlin. Indeed, the T-34 medium tank, which first entered production in 1940
and the service of the Red Army in the same year, changed the course of the war
in the East.
Until the T-34 reached the battlefield in large numbers,
German armour, particularly the PzKpfw III and IV, had reigned supreme. The
appearance of the T-34 proved shocking to the German tankers who encountered it
for the first time in November 1941 near the Russian village of Mzensk.
However, the tank itself had been in the design and prototype phases of
development since the mid-1930s. While it was intended to replace the outmoded
T-26 and BT series tanks, the T-34 bore an unmistakable family resemblance. Its
sleek profile with the turret forward and its low silhouette with sloped armour
were true to the design perspective that would rule Soviet production for
decades to come.
While it borrowed from earlier Soviet tank designs, the T-34
broke new ground with speed, mobility, firepower and armour in a lethal
combination. Its V-2-34 V-12 38.8-litre (8.5-gallon) diesel engine generated
375 kilowatts (500hp) and enabled the 26.5-tonne (26-ton) tank to reach a top
speed of 53km/h (33mph). It maintained the Christie suspension of the earlier
BT series, which was already proven superior in cross-country operation over
broken terrain. Armour protection ranged from 15mm (0.59in) on the bottom of
the hull to 60mm (2.4in) on the turret front. The effectiveness of the hull
armour was increased by its slope, reducing penetration and sometimes
deflecting enemy shells.
The four-man crew included a commander, driver, loader and
gunner. Early production T-34s were armed with the 76.2mm (3in) ZIS5 F 34 gun
and the commander was still required to serve the weapon. Radios were in short
supply and only command tanks received them – all other tanks still
communicated with flags. The interior of the T-34 was painfully tight,
restricting the combat efficiency of the crew. The driver, for example, was the
lone occupant of the forward hull compartment and his visibility was quite
restricted in early-production T-34s.
Model 1943 (T-34/76D, E, and F) – This production model was
built from May 1942 to 1944, with a cast or pressed hexagonal turret. It was
nicknamed “Mickey Mouse” by the Germans because of its appearance
with the twin round turret roof hatches open. Official Soviet military
designation was Model 1942. Turrets manufactured in different factories had
minor variations, sometimes called “hard-edge”, “soft-edge”,
and “laminate” turrets, but in military service these details did not
warrant different designations.
Earlier production is sometimes called Model 1942/43, and
was designated T-34/76D by German intelligence. Later production variants had a
new commander’s cupola. This variant was referred to as T-34/76E by the
Germans. Turrets produced at Uralmash in Sverdlovsk (Yekaterinburg) had a
distinctive rounded appearance because they were made in a special forge. Tanks
produced with these turrets there and at Chelyabinsk were called T-34/76F by
the Germans.
By early 1944 the T-34/85 had incorporated several
improvements, such as a more spacious three-man turret, relieving the commander
of responsibility for laying and firing the main weapon. The newly-installed
85mm (3.35in) ZIS-S-53 provided the Soviet tank with greater range against the
heavy German PzKpfw V Panther and PzKpfw VI Tiger, mounting high-velocity 75mm
(2.95in) and 88mm (3.5in) guns. The ZISS-53 gun influenced Soviet tactics,
allowing Red Army tank commanders to rely less on the need to rapidly close
with the Germans in order to get within range for their main guns to fire
effectively. The T-34/85 still lacked a rotating turret basket on which the
gunner and loader could stand during combat, negatively impacting the tank’s
rate of fire.
In total more than 57,000 T-34 medium tanks were produced in
Soviet factories during World War II, which is a remarkable achievement
considering the disruption of heavy industry after the Germans launched
Operation Barbarossa on 22 June 1941, and many facilities were dismantled and
moved to safety east of the Ural Mountains. During the war, over 22,500 T-34/85
tanks were produced and better efficiency cut production time in half and
sharply reduced the overall cost per unit. During the pivotal battle for the
city of Stalingrad on the Volga River, some tanks were said to have rolled
directly off the factory floor and into active combat against the Germans.
While Soviet tactics were refined slowly and many T-34s were lost during mass
charges against German armour and anti-tank weapons, the Red Army could make
good its combat losses with numbers the Germans could never hope to match. The
over-engineered German Tiger and Panther tanks were plagued by mechanical
failures, costly to build and never available in sufficient numbers to sustain
a protracted war effort.
T-34 variants included self-propelled assault guns and flamethrower,
bridging and recovery vehicles. The T-34 continued in production until 1958.
Some upgrades continued into the 1960s and a few T-34s are said to continue in
service today.
The T-34-76 had proven a tremendous challenge to destroy on
the battlefield in 1941. The conventional anti-tank equipment of the Germans
was simply not up to the task. The Soviets deployed a considerable number of
the medium T-34s in five of their twenty-nine mechanized divisions at that
time, along with the heavy KV tanks.
It must be recognized too, that the T-34 in those early days
of the war was a very considerable challenge for its crews, who, when deployed
on a lengthy road march, tended to lose many of their number to mechanical
breakdown, an early problem that plagued the Soviets to a greater extent than
it did the Germans. And the upside of the T-34 was diluted to some extent for
the crews by its internal layout, poor crew comfort and vision devices.
Testing of the T-34 at the Aberdeen, Maryland, proving
ground by the Americans resulted in their unconditional rejection of the
Christie suspension system for tanks. The Russian tank utilized this
coil-spring system, designed by the American engineer Walter Christie, which
enabled considerably longer movement than conventional leaf springs systems and
greater cross-country speed. The Christie system employed large, rubber-rimmed
road wheels which, when less rubber was available due to wartime shortages,
meant a reduced amount of rubber on the wheels. The contact with the tracks at
high speeds set up noisy, unpleasant harmonics for the crews. The harmonics
could also damage the tank by loosening parts. Certain deficiencies in the
tracks resulted from the lightness of their construction. They were subject to
damage by small-calibre weapons and mortar rounds. Basically, the pins used
were made of poor-quality steel and were poorly tempered, causing them to wear
out quickly and the tracks to break. Russian crews often brought spare parts
and tracks with them into combat situations. One Russian tanker recalled: “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 themselves couldn’t hold out.”
Other conclusions from the Aberdeen evaluation were: In
their tank production, the Russians were apparently not very interested in
careful machining or finishing, or the technology of small parts and
components, a negative aspect of what is otherwise a well-designed tank. In
comparison to the then-current American tanks, it was found that the Russian
tank had many good features, good contours in the design, diesel power, good
and reliable armament, thick armour, wide tracks and more. But it was thought
inferior to the American tank in manoeuvring, speed, ease of driving, firing
muzzle velocity, mechanical reliability, and ease of maintenance. The Aberdeen
technicians found many problems with improper radio installations and shielding
in the 1941 T-34. Commenting on the turret design: “The main weakness of the
two-man turret of the T-34 of 1941 is that it is very tight. 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. We recommend replacing it with a hydraulic or a simple manual system.”
The uneven build-quality is called into question when
considering the armour of the T-34, in particular on the plating joins and
welds. The use of too-soft steel and the shallow surface tempering was also
noted by the Aberdeen technical personnel. They noted too, that the various
chinks and cracks resulting from relatively careless build-quality tends to
admit a lot of water when it rains, which can disable the electrical system and
negatively affect the ammunition.
What was operating the T-34 like for the crewmen? The driver
sat either on a hard bench seat or on shell storage containers, an arrangement
that adversely affected his operation of the tank due to the frequently severe
vibration and shocks in combat situations over rough terrain for extended
periods. Other negative aspects included poorly made transmissions that were
prone to mechanical failure and whose operation could be nightmarishly
difficult. The Russians’ use of low-quality, poorly finished steel side
clutches further contributed to the breakdown rate of the tank. But the main
complaint of those who had to take the T-34 into battle was the low-set, very
cramped two-man turret. It could only accommodate the commander and the loader,
thus making the job of the commander far more labour-intensive and distracting
him from his primary role. A further restriction imposed by the design meant
that the turret gun could not be depressed more than three degrees, creating a
shooting problem at close range or on a reverse slope.
Another somewhat dysfunctional arrangement in the T-34 was
that of the ammunition storage for the main gun, making the job of the loader
more difficult and less efficient than it should have been. The turret lacked a
rotating floor that would move as a part of the turret when the turret was
rotated. The small spare ammunition boxes were stowed on the floor under the
turret and covered with a rubber mat. Nine rounds of ammunition were stowed on
the sides of the fighting compartment and when these rounds had been used, the
loader and / or commander had to pull up more ammunition from the floor boxes.
The floor was then left littered with open boxes and rubber matting, impairing
the crew performance.
For the tank commander of the T-34, his vision of the field
and his situational awareness was disadvantaged by the forward-opening hatch
and the lack of a turret cupola, requiring him to view the field of battle
through a small vision slit and a traversable periscope. This method was
inferior to the German tank method where the commander fought in a heads-up
position with his seat raised, giving him a full field of view, something not
possible in the T-34. Russian crews took a dim view of the turret design with
its heavy hatch that was difficult to open and, should it jam, would trap the
crew inside. Their objections to this situation led to the manufacturer
changing to a two-hatch turret in August 1942. In the matter of gun-sighting
and ranging, the system of the T-34 was comparatively crude in relation to that
of the Germans, which was particularly disadvantageous to the Russian crews
when operating at longer ranges. One German commented on the combination of
T-34 fighting characteristics, including the two-man turret, poor vision
devices and weak optics: “T-34s operated in a disorganized 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 the 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.” German tankers generally felt that T-34 crews were slower in locating
and engaging their targets, while Panzers normally were able to shoot about
three rounds for every round fired by the T-34.
Another impression of the early T-34s in a battlefield
environment was that of the difficulties involved in arranging for repairs due
to a crippling shortage of recovery vehicles and repair equipment. The impact
of the Soviet tank on the enemy forces initially was one of poor Russian
leadership, tactics, and crew training, which many attributed to the effects of
Stalin’s purges of his officer corps in the 1930s, together with heavy losses
by the Red Army in 1941 that took the lives of some of their best armoured
personnel.
In the combat arena, by 1942 the T-34-76 was the Soviet main
battle tank in the field. The key German tanks to that point were the Panzer
III and the Panzer IV. By mid-year, the improving German tank armament had
evolved to the extent of making the T-34 vulnerable to it and T-34 losses in
that year were substantial, much worse than in the previous year. Of a total of
15,100 armoured fighting vehicles in the Red Army front line, 6,600 T-34s were
lost to combat or mechanical problems. But through the difficult winter of
1941-42, the wide-tracked T-34 proved superior to the German tanks in being
able to manoeuvre over deep mud and snow without bogging down; conditions in
which the German tanks frequently were halted.
Into 1943, armoured battlefield momentum was with the
Soviets. Soviet AFV losses were higher than ever, including those of 14,700
T-34s, but so was their tank production. And strategically, the Germans were
mainly on the defensive and in retreat. Throughout 1943 and well into 1944, for
the most part the T-34 with its 76mm gun was outclassed by the guns of both the
Tiger and Panther, and even with the upgrade of the 85mm gun, the T-34-85 was
really not the equal of those two German tanks, though the Soviet 85mm gun
could penetrate the armour of both German tanks at distances up to 550 yards; the
Tiger and Panther could still destroy the T-34-85 at 1,600 yards or more.
In the beginning of Barbarossa, the T-34 made up only about
four percent of the Soviet armoured forces, but at war’s end it made up at
least fifty-five percent. With the gradual progression of the Eastern Front
campaign, the original design advantages the T-34 held over the German tanks
were gradually overcome and the Russian tank became an ever-easier target for
the German tankers. Still, over the course of the war, and the greatly
increasing manufacture of the T-34 (even with the increasing weight resulting
from the many improvements made to it), its top speed held up, while both its
turret frontal armour thickness and its main gun armour penetration nearly
doubled.
While it cannot reasonably be claimed that the T-34 was the
equal of the Panther or Tiger tanks of the Germans, its design simplicity, wide
tracks, low silhouette, innovative armour layout, its ease and quantity of
production— despite its faults and heavy losses—made it a strategic war winner.
In all, 55,550 T-34s were produced during the war years. Of the 96,500
fully-tracked armoured fighting vehicles produced during the war by the
Soviets, 44,900 T-34s were lost to combat and other causes.
Specification
Dimensions
Length: 6.68m (21ft 11in)
Width: 3.0m (9ft 10in)
Height: 2.45m (8ft)
Weight 26.5 tonnes (26 tons)
Engine 1 × V-2-34 V-12 38.8-litre (8.5-gallon) diesel engine
delivering 375kW (500hp)
Speed 53km/h (33mph)
Armament
Main: 1 × 76.2mm (3in) ZIS5 F 34 gun
Secondary: 2 × 7.62mm (0.3in) DT machine guns
Armour 15–60mm (0.59in–2.24in)
Range 400km (250 miles)
Crew 4
