Talk:T-34 variants

req image

Needs pictures. See:

• commons:T-34
• commons:SU-122 assault gun
• commons:SU-85
• commons:SU-100
• commons:T-100 tank destroyer
• commons:SPK-5 crane

—Michael Z. 2006-01-19 05:44 Z

It's a small thing, but the photo labeled "Model 1940" is actually a preproduction vehicle. Recognition features include the small driver's hatch with no splash strips, and the single-piece front armor plate. If you look at the nose there is no seam - a single plate was bent to form both the upper and lower hull plates for the front. This was rightly considered unnecessarily costly and all production tanks have two-piece noses - an upper and lower piece joined at the nose with riveted (model 40 & 41) or welded (Model 42 and later) seams. I don't see a better photo on the commons so we might as well keep this one. DMorpheus (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Naming Convention

It needs to be made clear on this page (and on other T-34 related pages on Wikipedia) which naming convention is being used. As is mentioned in the article, the definition of a 'Mod 1942' depends on whether you are reading articles generated in the west since the war, or information recently released from the ex-USSR. My gut feeling is that Wikipedia would be better off using the original Russian definitions.

Also, some of the post-war names such as "Mod 1969" were never a formal name, and were created by researchers in the west - in many cases these upgrade programs didn't have formal names, they were just a range of procedures carried out over a long period of time to increase the useful life of vehicles in service. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.169.9.2 (talk • contribs) .

We don't actually have a single verifiable source as to the "information recently released from the ex-USSR", and it is not used in any book that I know of, except, possibly Zhieltov's Unknown T-34, and apparently there only in passing. The historic Soviet naming is new information that hasn't been clearly confirmed, and is not used or mentioned in any English-language sources that we know of—it's only in the T-34 article thanks to the benefit of the doubt. Using it as if it were authoritative would be pretty much like original research on our part.

The post-war designations like "Model 1969" are, however, used in the authoritative publications, such as those by Zaloga. I haven't seen information that they were not used in the USSR, but even if that's the case, those are the names used in English literature on the subject, so they are appropriate for this article. Anyway, what would we replace them with? If we can confirm whether they were used in the USSR or not, then this fact would be interesting and belong in this article.

Although I think the naming used is the most appropriate, perhaps it's not clearly laid out for a reader of the article. Perhaps some clarification is in order. —Michael Z. 2006-09-01 18:27 Z

original tanks?

Is there a Model 1939? With the gasoline/petrol engine?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.8.181 (talk • contribs)

It's usually called the Model 1940, but Russian sources sometimes say "T-34 of the year 1939". The main article mentions that "due to a shortage of new V-2 diesel engines, the initial production run from the Gorky factory were equipped with the BT tank's MT-17 gasoline-burning aircraft engine, and inferior transmission and clutch." —Michael Z. 2007-10-22 22:24 Z

T-34/100bis?

Didn't Yugoslavia develop a production T-34/100 postwar? Trekphiler 05:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Speaking in tongues

Can somebody translate & include "tankovoy dimoviy pribor"? Thanx. Trekphiler (talk) 19:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

German "variants'

In my humble opinion it is not appropriate to list numerous very minor German modifications to basic T-34s as if they were actual variants. Moving a headlight or adding a stowage box do not a variant make. If we follow that logic, we'll need to list dozens of more significant Soviet modifications - which would also be absurd. The whole section is a classic of 'undue weight' and I have reverted it. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 20:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you also see fitting German Panzer II/III/IV copulas as minor modifications?

Kurland Tiger is a tank not a SPG. Check the sources.

In my opinion at least the German designations should remain. - SuperTank17 (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, fitting German-style cupolas is a minor mod. Some German T-34s had them, some didn't. No special designation was applied to these. Some Soviet-operated T-34s had German cupolas too. It is possible they were fitted by the Red Army, or they may have been recaptured beutepanzers. If you want to list such minor "variants" we can list a half-dozen more significant changes just for T-34-85s from Zavod No. 112. We can list several major variants of STZ-manufactured T-34 model 41s. There are about 22 wheel types and quite a few track designs. Et cetera. It is pointless to go down that road of trivia.

Your own sources clearly state the 88 mm-armed vehicles you added to the article are hypothetical fantasy-tanks dreamed up postwar. Think about the simple size issue involved in mounting a German KwK 36 in a T-34-85 turret. I've removed these paper panzer "variants".

Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I am removing the paper panzers again. Please consult your own sources, supertank. These are not real vehicles. The source is a modeling website, not a historical reference. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 13:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

All the source says is that they are unconfirmed. Not that they didn't existed. Veterans of the Eastern Front mentioned those vehicles but because of whatever circumstances they were destroyed/scrapped and no photograph was made before that. I included an information that those conversions aren't backed up by any photograph so this should be included. After all this is an encyclopedia which is basically a source about everything and if there's a piece of information that such variant could exist than I think it should be included.

And while the Kurland Tiger would case a problem to create, the T-34/88 which is basically a turretless T-34 with an 88 mm antiaircraft gun put in the place of the turret, was possible to create in field conditions. - SuperTank17 (talk) 13:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Read your own sources, which don't back up your claims. The 88 mm in the T-34-85 turret is a scale model, not a real vehicle. The KwK 36 could not be mounted in a T-34-85 turret. This is the very epitome of an unreliable source. It's speculation.

The 88 flak mounted on the T-34 hull is a fantasy also. Your own source shows an original, wartime photo of an unmodified T-34-85, and then the same photo, photoshopped to show the 88. Again, this is not a reliable source for an encyclopedia. It is a fun hobbyist source, no more. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 14:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Organization?

Shouldn't the original Soviet variants be listed first, before all the foreign variants that were, after all, derivatives of the original Soviet versions? DMorpheus (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's sorted int alphabetical order. So Soviet Union comes before Yugoslavia but after Poland. It was done so in many other Soviet AFV articles and it works perfectly fine there. - SuperTank17 (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Verify Source - Unreliable?

The source http://www.jedsite.info/tanks-tango/tango-numbers-su/t-34_series/t34-series.html is relied upon heavily in this article. I question the reliability of this source since some of the designations listed seem completely original to that site. For example the A-32 suffix designations do not appear in any Russian source I've ever seen. Some of the content of the site is flatly contradicted by published Russian sources (late SU-122 for example). If these can't be backed up by some other source I suggest the edits that rely solely on that source be removed. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there are some errors (as I already said) but a lot of information there is true and JED is known to have information about many different variants of many different AFVs. And as I said it uses photographs to back up most of variants it lists (JED is constantly being updated meaning that sooner or later almost every vraint will have it's photograph) so it's not the case like the one with Kurland Tiger or T-34/88. - SuperTank17 (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

With the site being so error-filled, again, I suggest it not be used as a *sole* source for any entry in this article. As a supplement to other sources, or when we know another source has the same content, fine. But as a sole source it is not reliable. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It's easy to recognize errors, misinformations and mistranslations because they mostly do not make sense like some of their entries on Soviet T-34-85 models. And that's what I try to do. I pick only those that make sense. All the variants that I listed here so far using JED are backed up by photos and/or are very probable. - SuperTank17 (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That site doesn't meet the reliable source threshold by a long, long way. Some of the variants you listed using that source were simply obvious fakes. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

And what are those "obvious fakes" as you called them?

Regards - SuperTank17 (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

1. The Kurland tiger

2. The T-34 with the flak 88, showing the photoshopped photo - this is the most obvious fake.

3. The SU-122 on the SU-100 chassis, while an actual prototype, was never accepted for production.

4. A-32 sub-designators don't appear on ANY russian source I've seen. The same comment applies to several of the "variants" on that site. They are made up.

You may want to review wikipedia's policy on wikipedia:reliable sources. The mateiral backed only by this source will be removed in a few days if you cannot find any other source. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ad. 1 The Kurland tiger didn't come from JED. Sorry but you're mistaken. It came from Beutepanzer and Seconde guerre sites.

Ad. 2 This one also didn't come from JED...

Ad. 3 I didn't list this one since it's a SU-100 variant if anything and this is an article about T-34 variants.

Ad. 3 I didn't list this one as well.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it's your *other* major source that is full of fakes. This one is merely unreliable. As for #3 and #4, I didn't say you listed them. I am merely pointing them out as obviosu probelms with the site's quality. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought we were talking about variants from JED that I listed and which were "obvious fakes"... And as for the Beutepanzer source you can always take a look on the section under this one...

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Beutepanzer being a joke

Beutepanzer is a professional site about Allied/Soviet vehicles captured by Germans during WWII. It's basing it self on actual photos from the war and/or pictures from books, magazines etc. and therefore is extremely reliable. - SuperTank17 (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Several of the designations are incorrect. Many of the T-34s labelled as "Model 41s" are actually model 42s from STZ, with obvious STZ features. DMorpheus (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

T-34 Model 41 and T-34 Model 42 are so much alike that it is almost impossible to distinguish them. You have to search for specific features which may not be so obvious. Apart from such errors which can't be avoided when talking about two alike models of T-34, the site is reliable.

Oh and before you jump on me with Kurland Tiger and T-34/88: It does list them in section about unconfirmed (by photographs) and hypothetical conversions.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

To a casual or uninformed observer, it may be true they are hard to distinguish. But we are writing an encyclopedia. Many easily-accessible specialist sources will show how very, very easy it is to tell the Model 41 from the Model 42. When sourcing an encyclopedia we should use the best ones available, not the error-prone ones. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

T-34-100 Operational Testing

We need an english-language or otherwise verifiable source for the claim that the T-34-100 was tested operationally. DMorpheus (talk) 15:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

And we still don't have one. DMorpheus (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me but why do I sense some kind of suspicion here? Are you telling me that just because the source in Polish language it is unreliable? And what about Russian sources? Are they unreliable too because they're in Russian? Sorry to bring it to you but not everything was translated to English and that is not a reason to turn down sources.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. It is simply against wikipedia policy. See WP:RSUE for one explanation, or the link I provided above. No non-Polish speaker can confirm your claim; it contradicts sources from Russia; it is not verified in any other source you've provided. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. You haven't even provided ordinary proof. The burden is on you to provide a reliable source for this entry in the encyclopedia. Otherwise it comes out. DMorpheus (talk) 19:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

See also WP:REDFLAG for this and some of your other claims. DMorpheus (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

So I just need to get a person from Poland to confirm that I'm telling the truth? In that case it's not a problem. - SuperTank17 (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Please read the policy DMorpheus (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I want to ask in what way it contradicts with sources from Russia? Russian Battlefield doesn't say anything about this so it's neutral on the matter. It doesn't confirm or deny it. - SuperTank17 (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Two things: first, as per wikipedia policy, books by recognized subject matter specialists carry more weight than websites. I have quite a few and none mentions the T-34-100 being tested outside the proving grounds. Two, "silence" does not equal neutrality in cases like this. If no reliable source backs your claim, it is unverifiable and must go. Very simple. DMorpheus (talk) 01:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Zaloga and Grandsen on the T-34-100: "A prototype was built, armed with a 100 mm gun as the T-34-100....but with work on the replacement for the T-34 taking place, interest turned in this direction instead" P. 183, Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War Two, ISBN 0-85368-606-8.

Michulec and Zientarzewski: "The T-34-100 tank, which was developed in the second half of 1944, did not make it past the prototype stage....it was abandoned. As a result, only two protypes were produced; one was an improvised tank, the second a more substantial effort....Both prototypes were built during February and March of 1945 and passed the national trials in April of that year." P. 236, T-34 Mythical Weapon, ISBN 0-9781091-0-4

Two good sources, two mentions of the T-34-100, neither backs your claim. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 01:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Third source, Unknown T-34, ISBN 5-94038-013-1, p. 72-73, shows the T-34-100 on the proving grounds at GANIOP (in the USSR) as late as April 1945, with no mention of either prototype going to the front. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 12:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Russian Battlefield

If Russian Battlefield, a Russian site known for accurate and detailed information about WWII era Soviet tanks, is unreliable than what is?

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 13:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Prior to asking that question: where on Russian Battlefield is your claim of operational testing of the T-34-100 supported? I don't see it. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said before it doesn't mention that but it provides a basis for the part about T-34-100 entry. It says which guns were fitted etc. I don't know why you thought it did when I told you clearly that it doesn't say anything on the subject of T-34-100. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Great, we agree there is zero basis for the operational testing claim. We're getting somewhere now. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 20:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit 6-2-17 File:T-34 Subtypes.jpg

• I have twice reverted the addition of this illustration. My reasons are:

1. It is inaccurate, using designations that have no basis in reality, eg. "T-34/L-11 Mod.40"

2. It inaccurately uses an SU-85M picture and labels it an SU-100.

3. It is incomplete, skipping e.g. the SU-85 but including the SU-122 and SU-100; the SU-85 was much more numerous than the SU-122, so this makes no sense.

4. It is misleading, including one variant that was never produced and one that was produced in tiny numbers (the 57-mm armed T-34) but omitting other, much more important variants. This is undue weight. It includes the T-34-85 mounting the Zis-S-53 gun but not the T-34-85 mounting the D-5T gun. it shows a very rare STZ-produced T-34 as the illustration for the Model 41, when it differed significantly from the more common Model 41s produced in Kharkov.

5. The prominent exhausts are missing from all the vehicles.

In short, the article is better omitting this illustration than including it. DMorpheus2 (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• • Thank you for taking your time to elaborate.

1. The designations are modifed in the chosen accordance due to some of the variants being too similar to the point users may become confused eg. T-34 Models (Mod.) 1941 and 1942 have the exact same chasis, gun and caliber (F-34, 76mm) but only differ from each other by year of production.

2. I'll correct this. --NotLessOrEqual (talk) 02:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC) 3. There exists a wide abundance of variants and sub-types of the T-34 and I feared it may end up taking the entirety of the page if they were all placed at once. Alternatively, each variant can be divided and have their own files, but it appears the other images already present are already sufficient and dont seem require replacing (unless second opinion in regards to them can be given).

4. There are many variants which also come from the exact same make, gun caliber and date of production but only hold minor differences, not enough to be considered unique into placing them all at once onto the image (unless that is not considered a problem here), whilst only select unique or important variants are chosen. The D-5T variant was dropped as it only had a shorter production run before being quickly replaced by the more numerous and near-similar version mounting the ZiS-S-53 gun. On external appearance it also appears to similar to each other, mounting the exact same caliber. Same cannot be said for the more unique 57mm version armed with ZiS-6, which had a slightly longer production run than between the 85mm D-5T vs Zis-S-53 until it too was cancelled. The STZ and 1941 models are too operationally and aesthetically similar to each other to the point it is insignificant, unlike the 1942 variant which is easily distinguishable by a different turret even though it uses the same chassis, armor thickness and weaponry. Both the STZ and 1941 mount the same gun and caliber, with differences being one with slightly heavier armor and cosmetics, generally speaking. Majority of the aesthetics and weaponry differences between the two models are near negligible.

The original image only listed a minimum amount of variants (not taking into account the existence of the Tank-Destroyer variants), including the prototype, much like the T-34-100 which itself never entered combat at only remained in the prototype staged before actual production of the model(s). Ill make corrections to this, standby.

• • Corrections made, D-5T and SU-100 variant added. text corrections. Requires inspection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotLessOrEqual (talk • contribs) 05:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Please leave this file out, it is still incorrect (the SU-85M picture is used twice, once to wrongly represent an SU-100) and undue weight. Adds nothing to the article. I would rather see us use photos of the most significant variants rather than this arbitrary and incorrect single illustration. DMorpheus2 (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

• • • SU-85M and SU-100 utilize exact same chassis design but differ in gun length and thickness which is clearly visible upon closer inspection of the file; It is correct. Point of the file was to add a selection of T-34 variants lined for easier comparison for audiences on each variant's and their differences, thus assisting by adding weight to the article. Existing images on the article provide detail on what each looks, but are not as informative as an accurate comparison which can add weight to the article rather than to simply display and portray. All other existing details including designations are correct, I do not see anything arbitrary nor incorrect. Please reconsider. 124.188.139.158 (talk) 03:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

The illustration of the SU-100 is still an SU-85M. The obvious recognition feature is the flat-fronted mantlet, which is an SU-85(M) feature. The SU-100 mantlet has a much smaller, almost invisible at this scale, flat area. It's just a repeat of the SU-85M.

The T-34-57 is an unimportant, very minor model with only a few dozen produced. It should not appear unless dozens of other more significant variants are added.

The prominent exhausts are missing from all vehicles.

The T-34-85 from Factory 112 has a much smaller turret base/neck than the one from Factory 183. This is an error.

In short, this illustration is still full of errors and imbalance. I can't think of any reason to include it and there are lots of reasons not to. I have spent a LOT of time debugging it. It's a waste of effort. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)