Talk:T-34/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about T-34. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 2005-10-08 and 2006-01-27.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:T-34/Archive03. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. —Michael Z. 2006-07-14 02:07 Z

Soviet vs. German war industry

The Germans responded by introducing completely new, very expensive and complex second-generation tanks, greatly slowing the growth of their tank production and thus contributing to their defeat.

This is a pretty broad statement, so it requires very careful wording, but it seems to me to be essentially valid. The roots of the question are broader than merely the existence of the T-34; it's really about the respective philosophical approaches of the Soviets and Germans to military design and industry, and touches on Hitler's obsession with super-weapons, but the T-34 is an excellent symbol for this. Perhaps the topic should be expanded to a short paragraph (it's only touched-upon now), and then mentioned in the article's closing. —Michael Z. 2005-10-8 17:33 Z

german tank design was fragmented before Guderian became involved, the Panther and Tiger were more prone to mechanical problems but the Panzer III and IV had reached the end of the line and needed replacement. The resources released by stopping Panzer III production were diverted to Self-propelled guns rather than tanks. The Soviet and American philosophies were the same standardise and produce your way to victory. GraemeLeggett 18:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems that Mr Leyman either has a very poor understanding of the subject, or is infinitely superior to us all in this respect. Until the moment he can provide convincing evidence of the latter possibility I will replace my statement. ;o) It should not be forgotten that the Germans would have been able to both build and supply many thousands of tanks more in 1944 had the switch not been made to a second generation--MWAK 10:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

"In the face of the glaring superiority of the T-34 and KV, the Wehrmacht began a hasty modernization of its armoured force. . . . This did not completely restore technical parity, and some German officers in 1941 urged tha the Wehrmacht swallow its pride and simply build copies of the T-34. Instead, the Germans developed two costly new tanks, the Tiger heavy tank and the Panther medium tank."

—Zaloga & Grandsen, Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War Two (pp. 162–3 in "The German Response"), 1984. Arms and Armour Press, London. ISBN 0-85368-606-8

"The IS-2 has been compared unfavourably to both the Tiger and later Royal Tiger in terms of armour and firepower, though it should be kept in mind that in terms of weight, size and cost, it was much more comparable to the Panther medium tank than to the much larger and heavier Tiger tank. Indeed, the Germans' decision to adopt so large, heavy and complex a tank as the Panther for their medium tank was one of the factors which limited German tank production to levels far lower than Soviet production, and helped the Soviets to build up a quantitative advantage in tanks during the final year of the war."

—Zaloga & Grandsen (p. 175 in "The IS-2 Heavy Tank")

This is from the book section about the IS-2 and 3 tanks, but "quantitative advantage" certainly refers to the huge T-34 production, and of course the T-34s were even lighter and cheaper than the IS tanks. I'd say this clearly supports and even surpasses the statement in question. —Michael Z. 2005-10-13 13:14 Z

Nomenclature

T-34/76 and T-34/85 or T-34 and T-34-85. From what I've seen the former is the common use, but the Russian website uses the latter. Which is preferred? GraemeLeggett 18:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The Soviets used T-34 and T-34-85. It was the Germans during WWII who classified the enemy's tanks with marks like T-34/76C, and this nomenclature was taken up by western popular literature and military enthusiasts. Serious writing uses both sets of nomenclature, but the Soviet one has precedence. —Michael Z. 2005-10-13 13:06 Z

I ask myself which nomenclature Ian Hogg or Christopher Foss would use and I'd be happy to use that. GraemeLeggett 15:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I tend to read more Steven Zaloga. Cheers. —Michael Z. 2005-10-13 15:22 Z

Okay, after two sets of concerted changes, we now have a mix of Soviet and German terminology in this article: T-34 Model 1942, T-34/85 and T-34-85. Apart from explaining the two naming schemes, we should use either consistently Soviet nomenclature or consistently German. Let's hold a straw poll and settle on one usage.

Soviet nomenclature: the Soviets called the main tank models T-34 and T-34-85, qualifying minor models by the production year: T-34 Model 1942, T-34-85 Model 1945; more specific differences are usually indicated by naming the factory of production. Advantages:

the primary source
consistent with other Soviet AFVs, including post-war AFVs
used by Soviet experts, much academic literature
becoming more common since the end of the Cold War

German nomenclature: the Germans called them T-34/76 and T-34/85, denoting minor design variants (not model years) like T-34/76C. They didn't recognize design variations in the T-34/85, which remained in production for years after the war. Advantages:

used in popular and general AFV literature, by enthusiasts

Keep in mind that we are not discussing the title of an article, so that Wikipedia:Naming conventions don't speak to this question, although those principles should be kept in mind. Any objections or suggestions about holding such a vote? —Michael Z. 2005-10-19 15:00 Z

I plead guilty to changing the nomenclature to reflect Soviet usage. I guess I didn't catch every one. Seems to me we should use the correct terms regardless of what the Germans did or what anyone was doing 30 years ago, particularly since the German terms are misleading and, frankly, we know now what is right. -DMorpheus

No problem. I think I may have started it, and there's been a bit of back-and forth. I also prefer the Soviet usage, but it could be argued that the German form is more common in English-language publications. Just wanted to get an idea of the prevailing opinion, but I guess most people would rather be adding to the article than chatting about nomenclature. Cheers. —Michael Z. 2005-10-20 20:00 Z

Firepower

There have been several recent back-and-forth edits in the combat effectiveness section regarding the firepower of the T-34-85 compared to German vehicles armed with the L/48 75mm gun (the Stug-III and Panzer-IV were the original AFVs cited, although this would obviously apply as well to the Stug-IV and Jagdpanzer IV L/48).

I've spent several hours checking the references listed below. I am not an engineer so I may be mis-stating some of this - I welcome comments. The problem of armor penetration is not simple, and it is hard to find tests recording the same method of testing done with these two guns. Often the testing is solely German guns, or Soviet guns, so it is not as easy as you might expect to compare them. Ammunition type is a huge factor, as is slope of plate and hardness of plate. In most test reports, slope of plate at the target is normally 30 degrees, but not always. Without having hardness measures for each vehicle (and these would only be samples) it's tough to account for that. Finally, results from different tests are simply different, for unknown reasons.

Still, by taking the full range of figures supplied by all the sources, the 85mm gun is consistently quoted as outperforming the 75mm weapons on the Stug-III and Panzer-IV, as well as the towed 75mm PAK40. The difference is usually greatest at shorter (less than 1000 meter) range. AFAIK most WW2 tank-vs-tank combat took place at ranges less than 1000 meters. The only exceptions are the 75mm PAK41 taper-bore gun (a very rare weapon) and the L/70 mounted on the Panther. But the original text claimed superior firepower compared to the L/48, not the PAK41 or L/70.

I would be glad to post the figures here except that I don't know how to make a table (sorry). All are published sources including Zaloga and Grandsen (1984), Zaloga and Ness (1998), RAC Tank Museum (1975), John Ellis (1993), Foss (1974), Gander and Chamblerlin (1978), Hogg (1975), Macksey (1988), US Army TM-E 30-451 (1945) and a SHAEF report WO219/2801 done in March 1945.

A better, if more difficult, way to present this information is to include both armor penetration figures and armor thicknesses and slope for the major vehicles. Ideally, a table showing the ranges and aspects at which each vehicle can penetrate the other could be made. That would be the best measure of the comparative firepower of each vehicle.

Pending this, may I suggest that the original content be restored? DMorpheus

Is the Soviet 85mm gun substantially superior, or just a bit? If the two guns are in the same ballpark, then I don't think I would choose to highlight one as having superior firepower. Along with tactical skill and superior tank statistics, it's also worth mentioning again here that the T-34-85 finally had a decently-designed three-man turret, allowing the commander to do his job.

If you want to add the statistics here in list form, I'll gladly make a table of them. —Michael Z. 2005-11-16 18:10 Z

From Zaloga & Grandsen 1984, Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War Two, p. 129, writing about the introduction of the T-34:

"The revolutionary combination of thick, angled armour, heavy firepower and superb mobility placed it in a class above its closest German contemporaries, the Pz Kpfw III and Pz Kpfw IV. . . . While the 88mm anti-aircraft gun could be used as a stopgap in limited circumstances, only the arrival of the PAK 40 75mm anti-tank gun could restore the balance."

It also refers to the Panther as the "antidote" for the T-34. Zaloga focusses on the "revolutionary combination" of the three attributes, which made the T-34 such a well-balanced design, in contrast to any other tank of the period. He's looking at the big picture, supported by technical capabilities but not getting too wrapped up in comparing numbers. I think this is generally a good writing strategy. —Michael Z. 2005-11-17 02:01 Z

Model 1942 or 1943

Yikes. Zaloga does write that the "Model 1942" entered production in 1941, and was built concurrently with the "Model 1943" with new turret, starting in early 1942. I always assumed that he used standard Soviet/Russian designations, though. This seems to confuse the whole issue. —Michael Z. 2005-12-1 22:41 Z

Yup, it has become confusing in recent years, and Zaloga would be the first to tell you that his older work has been superceded by his and others' newer work. Until the fall of the USSR opened up ex-Soviet sources, I think it's fair to say that most researchers thought that the Soviet designations went as follows:

Model 40: narrow (one-hatch) turret, L-11 gun, early driver's hatch with three vision blocks

Model 41: as Model 40 but with F-34 gun.

Model 42: narrow turret, F-34 gun, new driver's hatch with twin periscopes, most had the round transmission access hatch.

Model 43: new hexagonal turret, 5-speed transmission, otherwise as Model 42.

Since the better sources have emerged, it looks like the actual Soviet designations were:

Model 40: L-11 gun

Model 41: all narrow-turreted tanks armed with the F-34 gun - doesn't matter what driver's hatch they have. Some may have had the 5-speed transmission.

Model 42: all hexagonal-turreted tanks.

I have seen photos published in the west as early as June 1942 showing a hexagonal-turreted vehicle so there's no question they were being produced fairly early in 1942. I've also yet to see a Stalingrad-produced T-34 of any variant with the initial driver's hatch, which makes me wonder if this feature was less an "early" feature or something confined to a few early factories. I.e., maybe Stalingrad started out with the second-type driver's hatch on their first T-34s.

DMorpheus 15:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

It would be worth mentioning this in the article. Do you know of a good source to cite explaining the different nomenclature? Michael Z. 16:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe 'The Unknown T-34' which is recent (post-USSR) but is not available in English. The best solution might be a series of photos showing the different versions, and perhaps a three-column table showing the old, new, and maybe German designations? Honestly I don't know why anyone bothers with the German designations any more. I have plenty of suitable photos but I don't know anything about the copyright status of them. DMorpheus 17:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

For now, perhaps it's best to continue with the nomenclature that one finds in twenty-five years worth of publications, and mention the official Soviet terminology (which I surmise has essentially been secret internal procedure until now) in a short paragraph about naming.

I would like to add a series of consistent line drawings showing the major identification features, but it will probably be some weeks before I can get that together. The photos sound interesting; where are they from? —Michael Z. 2005-12-2 17:52 Z

"MDSh smoke canisters on the hull rear"

Could someone explain what and "MDSh" stands for? -- nyenyec ☎ 06:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Cyrillic: МДШ, either mors'ka or malaya dymovaya shashka—"sea" or "small smoke [canister?]"—who's Russian is better than mine? —Michael Z. 2005-12-20 07:25 Z

Shashka is not a canister. It is more like granade, but not a grenage. Russian - English dictionary suggest "block". That is may be most close translation. My Russian is native, but English far from perfect. TestPilot 10:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I did some research, the exect and correct translation of "dymovaya shashka" is a "smoke grenade". You can see example of such trunslation on

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:6MujZlaYYl4J:rus-battlefield.com/modules.php%3Fname%3DContent%26pa%3Dshowpage%26pid%3D30+smoke+%D0%B4%D1%8B%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%8F+%D1%88%D0%B0%D1%88%D0%BA%D0%B0&hl=en

http://www.interdacom.ru/~cstrike/what%20is%20cs.htm

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:CQR5zhX-6_oJ:www.igrok.info/cheats/cheat.phtml%3F3862+smoke+%D0%B4%D1%8B%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%8F+%D1%88%D0%B0%D1%88%D0%BA%D0%B0&hl=en

and a lot of other pages. TestPilot 10:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, we should give at least a clue to the readers. :) At least a red link. -- nyenyec ☎ 08:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

These canisters were part of the TDP (tankovoy dimoviy pribor) smoke system, and were replaced by BDSh canisters in the 1960 modernization programme. —Michael Z. 2006-01-19 03:45 Z

comments

a very well-written article, i have a few suggestions which i think might improve it.

"was the tank with the best balance of firepower, mobility, and protection in existence" and "easily the finest tank design in the world" should perhaps be quoted rather than stated as factual.
"up-gunned" is a term new to me. can it be replaced with something like "upgraded"?
died "reputedly of pneumonia" should be "reportedly ..."

Doldrums 12:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

"Upgunned" is a pretty standard term that means improving the armament. Regarding the 'best balance' and 'easily the finest' statements, I have to agree with you that they could be better presented as widely-held judgments of a lot of armor authors. You are, I think, correclty implying that terms like "best" or "finest" are judgments rather than facts. I am sure a suitable quote from Zaloga, Glantz or Macksey could be found; although Glantz is not a weapons specialist, he is the top of the heap as a Red Army historian and relies on Zaloga for technical content in his recent books.

"Reportedly" ;) its tough to know how *anyone* died in Stalin's days !DMorpheus 18:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

An academic quote would be good, and possibly also one of the quotes of German generals I've seen somewhere. We can also support it with some tangible figures, like speed and armour RHAe comparisons to other tanks.
Up-gunned is common in AFV books, but jargonesque. We can improve it.
One Zaloga source I have says "reputedly", as if there were some suspicion, but another just reports his illness and death. We should tone it down unless we can find something more tangible. —Michael Z. 2005-12-20 19:54 Z

Best tank Quotes

Does anyone have any good quotes about the T-34's superlative qualities? I found the following at wikiquote:Tank. —Michael Z. 2005-12-20 20:04 Z

"The finest tank in the world" — Field-Marshal Paul Ludwig Ewald von Kleist [reference?]

I am pretty sure this was cited in Douglas Orgill's book "T34 Russian Armor" in the Ballatine series of the 1970s (and that is not a typo in the title) Originally it comes from Liddel Hart's book "The Other Side of the Hill" a postwar collection of interviews with German officers.DMorpheus 23:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Other quotes:

"..until...1942...none of the German panzers was equal to the T-34 or KV-1."

Jonathan House (frequent collaborator with COL David Glantz) in "Combined Arms Warfare in the Twentieth Century", p. 128 ISBN 0-7006-1098-7

"... when production started in 1940, they [the T-34 and KV-1] were unquestionably the best armored tanks in the world." "...both tanks the (sic) better armed than any contemporary tank."

(referring to the German Pzkw-III and IV models in service in 1941) "They were inferior to the new Soviet tanks in armor, firepower, and mobility."

"The revolutionary configuration of the T-34 tank established it as the technological pace-setter of World War II tank design." "Germany soon responded to the challenge of matching the T-34 and this technological arms race between Germany and the Soviet Union set the pace for worldwide tank development throughout World War II."

All from page 3, Steve Zaloga, Jim Kinnear, Andrey Aksenov and Aleksandr Koshchavtsev, "Soviet Tanks in Combat 1941-45: The T-28, T-34, T-34-85, and T-44 Medium Tanks" ISBN 962-361-615-5

"The T-34-85 was superior to the most common German tank, the Pzkw-IV ausf J in armor and firepower, though it was still not evenly matched against the Panther."

Page 5, Zaloga

"Although the T-34 was not equal on a one-on-one basis with the best German tanks, its durability, economy and suitability to the Soviet style of war made it a far more effective weapon than any of its German rivals. Its only real rival to the title of "best tank of WW2" would be the American Sherman, for many of the same reasons."

Page 6, Zaloga, here comparing the T-34 to the Panther and Tiger.

"...there is little disputing the fact that the T-34 was the best tank in its class at the start of its production, and the impression that it made was to influence greatly subsequent tank development throughout the world."

John Milson, "Russian tanks 1900-1970" ISBN 0-88365-052-5

"Beyond a shadow of a doubt the most startling fighting vehicle revelation of the Second World War was the Russian T-34/76.."

Kenneth Macksey, "Tank: A History of the Armoured Fighting Vehicle" ISBN 345-02166-5-395

"We had nothing comparable" common von Mellinthin quote from "Panzer Battles"

DMorpheus 23:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, a great choice of quotations. I will add these to wikiquote:T-34, if you don't mind. —Michael Z. 2005-12-21 02:24 Z

Please pick whichever ones you think best. I was hoping to find more German quotes but I don't have a lot of German-focused sources.

Here are a few more:

"The T-34 was the single most effective tank design of the Second World War. It was produced in larger numbers than any other tank and few subsequent tank designs escaped its revolutionary influences. When it originally entered combat in the summer of 1941, it was markedly superior to any tank in the German arsenal." (Zaloga 1983:4)

..and...

"While some analysts have compared the T-34 unfavorably to the Panther, especially in terms of armor, it should be kept in mind that, by Soviet standards, the Panther was a heavy tank in the same weight class as the IS-2 (about 45 tons). The decision by OKH to adopt so heavy and costly vehicle as the Panther as the Wehrmacht's main battle tank was a major factor in allowing the Soviet armored force to maintain a substantial numerical superiority in the closing two years of the war." (Zaloga 1983:37)

Both from Zaloga and Gradsen, "T-34 In Action", ISBN 0-89747-112-1

DMorpheus 02:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Found another. —Michael Z. 2005-12-21 03:27 Z

"The combat début of the T-34 in the summer of 1941 revealed it to be unquestionably the finest tank design of its time. The revolutionary combination of thick, angled armour, heavy firepower and superb mobility placed it in a class above its closest German contemporaries, the Pz Kpfw III and Pz Kpfw IV." —Zaloga (1984:129)

Some minor corrections

1. Hexagonal turret of the T-34 (Wiki refers it to Model 1943) was developed in 1942! First T-34 with hexagonal turret appeared in Red Army in August-September 1942.

2. Correct designation for the flamethrower T-34 was TO-34 (not OT-34).

Source: http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=81&Itemid=50&lang=en

You're correct on the hexagonal turret designation - if you look at the talk page above you will see we are working on a new way to present this info. By the way, the hexagonal turret version was seen in combat as early as June 1942. DMorpheus 12:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Right about the turret, but conventional nomenclature calls it the Model 1943, I guess because the designation "Model 1942" was already used by the version with many manufacturing improvements. It's recently come to light that Soviet official designation for that model was "Model 1942", and this is noted in the article, although we are still sticking to the conventional "Soviet-style" naming for now, since most publications use that.

According to Zaloga & Grandsen (1984:194), OT-34 is the T-34–based flame-thrower, TO-34 the T-34-85–based version. —Michael Z. 2005-12-21 18:13 Z

The article currently may imply that pistol ports were seen for the first time in the hexagonal-turret variants. The sentence is ambiguous so I may be mis-reading it. All 76mm turrets had at least one pistol port and some, including single-hatch types, had as many as three. DMorpheus 16:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Peer review

I've announced it elsewhere, but forgot to mention on this page that I've submitted this article for peer review, with the hope of polishing it up for a nomination for Featured Article. Please see the comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/T-34/archive1. —Michael Z. 2005-12-22 06:19 Z

Quotations

Well, I got creative and added quotations at the start of some sections. Please be patient, and comment here instead of removing them immediately, so others have a chance to see them and comment too.

Citations are lacking for the Stalin quote (commonly cited) and the anonymous tanker (can't find anything except wikiquote [1]). It would also be nice to add another quote to the start of the "Combat history" section. The quotes seem appropriate for their respective sections, but could be shuffled around a bit. —Michael Z. 2005-12-23 06:43 Z

Production Numbers

The article has been much improved. An exception form, I fear, the new stated production numbers. What exactly is the source for those?--MWAK 19:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I've added a couple of citations, but I don't know off-hand where the post-war figures for USSR, Poland and Czechoslovakia come from. I'll see if I can find the references. —Michael Z. 2005-12-23 22:11 Z

I know where those figures come from. They come from me :o). But see Talk:Soviet armored fighting vehicle production during World War II for the figures I doubted.--MWAK 15:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Footnotes

Since some sources are cited more than once, the Wikipedia:Footnotes templates won't work. I've used Harvard-style footnotes, which are perfectly acceptable under Wikipedia:Cite sources, and in some ways preferable (more commonly used in academia, more readable). —Michael Z. 2005-12-24 16:37 Z

I think that footnotes are more user friendly then Harvard style, but any inline citation style is better then none, the rest is just a matter of style. Still, any footnote problem can be solved with using slighty differet ref/note templates, leading to the page-adjusted version or sth like that.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm trying. Wikipedia:Footnotes led me to {{ref}}. Template talk:ref has a link to {{ref_harvard}}, which points back to the completely puzzling documentation at ref. I've posted a note at Template_talk:Ref_harvard asking for help, but unless there's some great revelation to be had, I think I like the references the way they are now. —Michael Z. 2005-12-27 08:18 Z

Combat service

Perret (1987:18) says "...it has seen action in Korea, Egypt, Syria, Vietnam, Cyprus, Angola and Somalia". Egypt, Syria and Cyprus should be added to the bottom of T-34#Combat history, but I don't know the specific conflicts or sides T-34s were served with. Can someone add more specific details? —Michael Z. 2005-12-29 19:57 Z

Perret is wrong as often as he is right. Having said that, in Korea we've already covered the Democractic People's Republic of Korea forces in the 1950-53 conflict. Egypt employed T-34-85s in 1956 and 1967. Syria used a few in 1967 and 1973. Vietnam has been covered already in the article. Cyprus - never heard of this. As far as I knew both the Turkish and Greek forces on Cyprus used US and/or NATO style equipment. This is not my area of expertise but the photos I've seen, and the fact that both countries are long-time NATO members, would suggest this.

In Angola, both Cuban and MPLA forces used the T-34. I think we've left out the People's Republic of China, which is a major oversight. Cuba employed a few T-34-85s in repulsing the Bay of Pigs invasion. There are probably other African users we are leaving out. DMorpheus 02:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Perret is indeed often wrong, but the Cypriot army (after 1974 often described as the "National Guard" due to Turkish sensitivities), not part of NATO, operated a few (Jane's gave the number as "about ten") ex-Yugoslav T-34's. African users included Mali, Sudan, Mozambique, Algeria and Libya.--MWAK 09:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Importance

Given that this section is almost a summary of the whole article, why not change it to Conclusion?--Sennaista 03:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Peer review to-do list

This article's peer review has been archived at Wikipedia:Peer review/T-34/archive1. The article has improved based on suggestions there and here, but there are a few items still outstanding. We should review these, and decide what to do about them. After that, perhaps this article can be submitted to FA. —Michael Z. 2006-01-12 17:57 Z

Subsections in the "Combat history" section—are these needed?
Title of the "Importance" section: something more monumental like "Legacy", and something reflecting its status as a summary, like "Conclusion", have both been suggested. Perhaps the section needs a copy-edit or minor rewrite.
Images: do they all support the text?
Red links: the remaining ones are all links to factories and guns. Perhaps the former can point to a list of tank factories in Soviet armored fighting vehicle production during World War II. I'll see what I can do.
Quotations: it has been suggested that the quotations be moved to wikiquote, but I think they all support the text. Final comments?
I like them how they are. I admit it's an unusual style but this is an article about a uniquely important piece of equipment. DMorpheus 00:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
"Medium tank": I'll add a paragraph about the way the T-34 contributed to the main battle tank concept, and how other tank classes essentially became obsolescent.
Should the detailed list of models and variants be left as is, changed to a table, or separate article?
Probably cleaner if separate article. Just my two cents. DMorpheus 00:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I've added even more—I'll summarize the highlights and move it to a separate article. —Michael Z. 2006-01-19 05:14 Z
List of countries which employed the T-34. DMorpheus or MWAK, would either of you be able to finish this?
Got it. —Michael Z. 2006-01-13 23:31 Z
Citations still needed (see below)

Citations

The following are still labelled as needing citations:

"While these factories were relocating at record speed, the industrial complex surrounding the Stalingrad Tractor Factory produced forty percent of all T-34s before being cut off by the Battle of Stalingrad, in autumn 1942. The last tanks finished at the STZ rolled directly into the battleground surrounding the factory."

I think I can find a source stating the factory continued production while being encircled. Anything better? —Michael Z. 2006-01-12 17:57 Z

"The appearance of the T-34 in the summer of 1941 was a psychological shock to the Germans, whose ideology had taught them that the Soviets were 'sub-human' and presumably incapable of such technical excellence; this is shown by Alfred Jodl's diary, who seems to have been taken by surprise at the appearance of the T-34 in Riga (The first confirmed use of the T-34 seems to be at Battle of Smolensk (1941) some time later)."

The "sub-human" comment can be toned down. Anyone have a reference for Jodl's diary, or a source attesting to the first confirmed use? —Michael Z. 2006-01-12 17:57 Z

Zaloga, Kinear, Aksenov and Koshchavtsev, Soviet Tanks in Combat 1941-45, ISBN 962-361-615-5, page 10, a knocked out T-34 Model 41 in a photo dated June 25 1941. Same sources, pages 9 and 10, show several T-34s in the fighting around Lvov as early as June 30 1941. The T-34 was in action in the first week of the war. Any doubt about that is probably an accident of historiography - over-reliance, for many years, on German sources. DMorpheus 00:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The 'sub-human' term may be toned down but there ought to be some point made to the effect that the Nazi ideology was racist to the core, and that this contributed to German hubris. The shock of the T-34 and KV was truly significant in a way that, for example, the Allied shock at the Tiger I was not. DMorpheus 00:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Seen, but this article is not the place to make points about the pervasiveness of Nazi political education. The way this is stated implies too much about the state of mind of the average Wehrmacht soldier. How about "The appearance of the T-34 in the summer of 1941 was a psychological shock to German soldiers, who had been prepared to face an inferior Soviet enemy; ..."?

Done. —Michael Z. 2006-01-14 23:32 Z

Zaloga's T-34/76 Medium Tank 1941-1945 of 1994 states at page 11: The Germans began encountering T-34 tanks from the first day of the campaign, making this explicit at page 12 and 13 by giving examples of fights near Alitus and Lvov involving the T-34 on 22 June.--MWAK 16:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

"The T-34 was among most important weapon systems in the Red Army in the Second World War."

I'll restate this as a superlative more directly reflecting some of the quotations in the article. —Michael Z. 2006-01-12 17:57 Z

I think it's an easily-supported statement and so obvious it hardly needs evidence marshalled on its behalf. The dominant weapons systems in WW2 (on the ground) were tanks and artillery pieces. By production numbers alone the T-34 blows away any other Red Army vehicle. The SU-76 is the second-most-produced AFV and it's a very distant second--- in the neighborhood of 10,000 vehicles. It's also been stated in many cources, some of which we've already cited, that the T-34 virtually singlehandedly put the tank race into high gear and shifted the focus of tank design to the eastern front for much of the war. DMorpheus 00:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

"You need five of your tanks to destroy a single German one, but you always have six —anonymous German tank soldier"

Found this one on wikiquote, but nowhere else. Anyone have a citation, or even an uncited reference? —Michael Z. 2006-01-14 06:14 Z

That statement would have been made by the brother of the guy who was in the same year complaining about all those Shermans? ;o)--MWAK 16:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

A long time ago, I included the information of the first German citings of the T-34. Unfortunately, I don't have the title of the book. It could be "Stumbling Colossus" as I read that at the time I found that out-but I doubt that is the correct source. The reference to Smolesk was an adaptaion of what was on this cite. However, it might not also have been at Riga, and it is possible that this was not the T-34. Information from "Stumbling Colossus" isn't particularly forgiving to Soviet Planning, so it wouldn't be there. The information, and quote, specifically I remember as being "NEW RUSSIAN HEAVY TANK!" from Jodl's journal. However, the T-34 isn't really a heavy tank, especially compared to later Russian tanks. Thus for a citation of this comment, I suppose it would be acceptable to look into Jodl's journals but if this comment was made (and I have no doubt it was) it still is debatable (though not very) that it meant T-34. Jmw0000 10:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Best tank

An editor recently changed "was clearly the best tank in the world at the start of the Second World War" to "was the most technically advanced tank in the world in the early years of the Second World War". I changed this back to "clearly the best", because the latter text has some incorrect implications, and ignores part of the story.

This single statement summarizes what is covered at length in the article: that in 1941 the T-34 had the best overall design, the best-balanced and most effective mix of firepower, mobility, and protection (indeed it had just about the best of each), was designed for effective mass production. It clearly did not have the most advanced technology; it had an appropriate level of technology for its intended mode of manufacturing and employment.

The way this is stated in the intro is pretty important. It has to briefly sum up the article's conclusion on this point, and accurately reflect it. Please feel free to weigh in on the exact wording. —Michael Z. 2006-01-16 18:17 Z

"clearly the best tank" sounded too general to me, and such wording may even be in conflict with WP:APT. I do not think that my version is entirely blameless in this respect, but I honestly tried to make the description more specific. Same considerations, as well as WP:AWW, may apply to the statement that T-34 "is often credited as the most effective and influential tank of the entire war".--Pecher 19:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't being critical, Pecher. Just wanted to point out that this intro has already been through a few back-and-forths, and has recently become stable.

Regarding peacock terms: "best tank" is expanded in the second paragraph: "At its introduction, it was the tank with the best balance of firepower, mobility, and protection in existence," Additionally, it was outstandingly successful in its suitability for mass production, its ability to replace nearly all tanks of other types, and its undeniable influence on the development of the German Panther and the main battle tank concept after WWII, which facts are all supported in the article (although they take a bit more writing to develop). The "best tank" designation is also supported by a number of the quotations at the beginnings of the article's sections.

Regarding weasel words: we wanted to avoid putting citations into the intro. I think everything is restated with appropriate supporting references throughout the article. Again, browse the quotations, which include German generals and military theorists.

Maybe it can be toned down a bit or reworded, but these are all supportable statements, and the subject's importance should be mentioned at the beginning. I'll give some thought to making it sound less over-enthusiastic. —Michael Z. 2006-01-17 00:09 Z

No need to, I'd say: in 1940 what other candidates were there for the title? The best tanks in production with other nations, such as the SOMUA S 35, the Panzerkampfwagen III, the Matilda II and the M2 Medium were clearly inferior designs. And the reason for this is simply that they were first generation designs, whereas the Soviets were a full development cycle ahead and with the T-34 already introduced their second generation.--MWAK 08:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

First sentence is wordy

First sentence is wordy. Current version is:

The T-34 is a Soviet medium tank, which was clearly the best tank in the world in the early years of the Second World War, and is often credited as the most effective and influential tank of the entire war.

How about:

The T-34 Soviet medium tank was clearly the best early-period Second World War tank and is often credited as the most effective and influential tank of the entire war.

Wendell 06:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Still repeats the word tank too much. How about one sentence to define it and set it in context, another to explain its significance: —Michael Z. 2006-01-18 09:56 Z

The T-34 is a Soviet medium tank produced from 1940–58. It was the world's best tank when the Soviet Union entered the Second World War, and is credited as the war's most effective and influential design.

Much improved. I will update article. Wendell 17:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

New article: "T-34 variants"

I've created T-34 variants—please have a look, fix, and add (especially pictures). In the meantime, I'll be paring down this article's section to a brief summary. —Michael Z. 2006-01-19 05:42 Z

Radios

Recently added: "Only company commanders' tanks could be afforded to be fitted with radios." Was this because of the cost, or other reasons: lack of perceived need, requirement for training, tactical doctrine, or more than one reason? —Michael Z. 2006-01-27 00:30 Z

I suspect the reason was simply a shortage of radios. As early as 1933, on the T-28, the Soviets recognized the need for a radio in every tank. All T-35s and T-28s had radio, and many T-26s and BTs. The "1940 generation" of tanks - KV, T-34 and T-50 - were all designed to have radios in every tank. So they certainly saw the need and it was consistent with their doctrine.

It is also true, but frequently forgotten, that most French tanks lacked radios, and even most US tanks could only receive (not transmit) before 1943. By 1943 pretty much all T-34s had radios. I have read, but cannot confirm, that most pre-war German tanks could only receive, not transmit. So probably the only Army that universally had two-way radio at the outbreak of the war was the British.

Frankly I think this oft-repeated radio story is an example of an anti-Soviet POV, since the problem was not unique to the Red Army. DMorpheus 03:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the idea does coexist with a certain stereotype popular in America; I remember hearing that the Soviets still didn't have radios in every tank during the Cold War, and practised company tactical drills using hand flags for control. —Michael Z. 2006-01-27 04:40 Z

Right on. I recall learning the same thing, despite obvious evidence to the contrary. The flip side of this is, I recall an older Signal Corps officer educating me about how good their signals security could be because the Red Army still knew how to use messengers. I actually had someone try to convince me that the vision blocks in Soviet tanks were deliberately designed to give a narrow field of vision because the Communists didn't want their crewmen looking around !

A similar bias is evident when people post about gasoline engines in Shermans, as if it was the only gas-powered AFV of the war, or when they cite the non-Soviet creativity behind soviet weapons, as if no other Army ever copied any foreign equipment they encountered. It's absurd. DMorpheus 14:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)