T-34 Tank
Ah yes, the T-34 battle tank. One of my all time favorites, and the victor from the Battle of the Kursk. It brought along with it a new era of tanks, and a whole new definition of tanks. It also was the sign of Soviet engineering supremacy that made the German tanks somewhat unreliable (mostly against the older Panzer tanks). It is a marvelous vehicle, a great machine, and is now here for you to read about. Please, enjoy. As for this vehicle, i would rate it as a 4 star vehicle, considering it's power, it's era, and it's usefulness.
But hey, I guess these tanks weren't enough for heavy anti-tank roles. I mean, compared to the German tanks back then, and facing them off 1-on-1 with a Tiger tank, I can see them being scrap metal. Sure they were simple and easy to manufacture, and sure they were still good enough for their great production number, but at a 1-on-1 fight, i guess the Tiger would beat it any day. Don't you agree? The German tanks were a complex, superb machine that could outperform any other nation's tanks if it was to fight 1-on-1. But that's not war is it? It takes numbers too. So I guess that's how the Germans lost the battle of the Kursk. Plus, I would say that it was because of the old Panzer IV and Panzer III tanks that were not too good. I've read that they needed lots of maintenance in the field, espcecially during or after winter. That must have been a great setback for the Germans. And of course, there were probably not enough heavy tanks produced in time to help reinforce the German tank divisions out there.
As for the Soviet war machines, I could say it must have been like seeing a lot of ants crawling up a small sand hill. It probably must have been a spectacular sight to see the whole Soviet division come out of the horizon and start charging their way towards the Germans and ultimately Germany itself.
But here is what I would have really wanted to see. Soviet tanks versus the U.S. tanks. Now that's something worth discussing about.
But then again, the U.S. tanks and the British tanks were still inefficient towards German Tanks compared to the T-34. I mean, the slope armor technology must have been really good to have been able to make a cheap tank so hardy and strong.
And then there is also the thing about speed. I see in those history t.v. shows with footage of these world war 2 tanks running, and I find that the T-34 seems to be running really really fast. It seemed to be very maneuverable, and had enough firepower to do some great damage. I believe it was a 76.2 mm gun it had? That falls short of maybe the German Tiger Tank, but that's still alot of fire power, plus it was much faster than the Tiger, I'm sure. Besides, the German Tanks like the Tiger were in total produced only around like what, 1000 or more? While the T-34's were produced like 1000 every month. Now that's advantage in numbers. But the great thing about this tank was that it wasn't all quantity was it? There were also some quality in each of these tanks, so it probably made this tank an army of sturdy and hardy tanks.
But design wise, I think this tank is quite not pretty at all. It's gun is like an artillery tank that is mounted and covered up, the body itself looks cheap, and I sometimes hear that the inside of the tank is very simple and cheap looking. All in all, i would give the appearance rating of this tank a 2.5 stars. It looks fine, but not that fine at all. I think it is just bearable in appearance. However, that made no difference at all in the battle of the Kursk didn't it? It's performance was far superior than the appearance of the tank.
But I hear that the egyptian army was recently using the modified or upgraded version of the T-34 tanks? If that is true, a tank that was built 50 years or more ago still being used today, now that is proof that it was the best tank in it's time. A tank that was far superior in use and have proven in the battlefield against tank on tank battle to be superior than other tanks. Now That is the best tank in the world in it's time. The best tank of all time. Of course if you would face it with the new German Leopard Tank, The British Challenger(was it? Or was it Chieftain? I remember it starts with a C), or the American Abrams Tank, I'm sure it won't last long.
But hey, I guess these tanks weren't enough for heavy anti-tank roles. I mean, compared to the German tanks back then, and facing them off 1-on-1 with a Tiger tank, I can see them being scrap metal. Sure they were simple and easy to manufacture, and sure they were still good enough for their great production number, but at a 1-on-1 fight, i guess the Tiger would beat it any day. Don't you agree? The German tanks were a complex, superb machine that could outperform any other nation's tanks if it was to fight 1-on-1. But that's not war is it? It takes numbers too. So I guess that's how the Germans lost the battle of the Kursk. Plus, I would say that it was because of the old Panzer IV and Panzer III tanks that were not too good. I've read that they needed lots of maintenance in the field, espcecially during or after winter. That must have been a great setback for the Germans. And of course, there were probably not enough heavy tanks produced in time to help reinforce the German tank divisions out there.
As for the Soviet war machines, I could say it must have been like seeing a lot of ants crawling up a small sand hill. It probably must have been a spectacular sight to see the whole Soviet division come out of the horizon and start charging their way towards the Germans and ultimately Germany itself.
But here is what I would have really wanted to see. Soviet tanks versus the U.S. tanks. Now that's something worth discussing about.
But then again, the U.S. tanks and the British tanks were still inefficient towards German Tanks compared to the T-34. I mean, the slope armor technology must have been really good to have been able to make a cheap tank so hardy and strong.
And then there is also the thing about speed. I see in those history t.v. shows with footage of these world war 2 tanks running, and I find that the T-34 seems to be running really really fast. It seemed to be very maneuverable, and had enough firepower to do some great damage. I believe it was a 76.2 mm gun it had? That falls short of maybe the German Tiger Tank, but that's still alot of fire power, plus it was much faster than the Tiger, I'm sure. Besides, the German Tanks like the Tiger were in total produced only around like what, 1000 or more? While the T-34's were produced like 1000 every month. Now that's advantage in numbers. But the great thing about this tank was that it wasn't all quantity was it? There were also some quality in each of these tanks, so it probably made this tank an army of sturdy and hardy tanks.
But design wise, I think this tank is quite not pretty at all. It's gun is like an artillery tank that is mounted and covered up, the body itself looks cheap, and I sometimes hear that the inside of the tank is very simple and cheap looking. All in all, i would give the appearance rating of this tank a 2.5 stars. It looks fine, but not that fine at all. I think it is just bearable in appearance. However, that made no difference at all in the battle of the Kursk didn't it? It's performance was far superior than the appearance of the tank.
But I hear that the egyptian army was recently using the modified or upgraded version of the T-34 tanks? If that is true, a tank that was built 50 years or more ago still being used today, now that is proof that it was the best tank in it's time. A tank that was far superior in use and have proven in the battlefield against tank on tank battle to be superior than other tanks. Now That is the best tank in the world in it's time. The best tank of all time. Of course if you would face it with the new German Leopard Tank, The British Challenger(was it? Or was it Chieftain? I remember it starts with a C), or the American Abrams Tank, I'm sure it won't last long.
No comments:
Post a Comment