In all fairness, the T-34 was unreliable, not as quick as on paper, and had subpar optics and situational awareness until the T-34-85.
The problem is western propagandists keep looking at the tank as it exists in a vacuum, and not how it fits in Soviet doctrine, where the ease of mass production coupled with it having above average armour, decent mobility, and a good HE shell made it excellent within that context.
It was such a successful design it directly inspired the modern MBT through the T-44 and T-54/55, because while it was unexceptional in any particular role, it could do all of them good enough
Compared to German tanks with their overloaded transmissions and interleaved road wheels the T-34 is a Toyota Hilux. I should clarify unreliable by modern perceptions of reliability. Even in the cases where the T-34 was hastily churned out under pressure where consistency suffered, e.g. Stalingrad, the ease of repair and abundant spare parts made it far better than Nazi wunderwaffe big cats.
You see the same thing going on in Ukraine, where western media makes fun of the T series tanks and saying that their Abrams and Leopards and Challengers are so much better. Turns out, that doesn't mean shit when the primary purpose of an MBT is (still) to lob HE at clumps of infantry, and their 70 ton behemoths can't cross bridges or go through mud, and get disabled by drones just like any other tank.
Meanwhile you can say the T-72B and subsequent modernizations are worse in raw specs, but they fulfill their job as mobile fire support for mechanized infantry just fine.
Yep, most countries during WW2 that had enough industry to produce tanks figured out a fairly decent medium tank that you could churn out quickly and cheaply was better than a handful of really expensive good on paper heavy tanks except the Nazis. The Sherman and Cromwell for example. Meanwhile the one chance Germany had of making an actually practical tank after the panzer IV was the panther, but Hitler was such an incompetent micromanager he insisted on giving it enough armour to rival heavy tanks, nullifying the mobility benefits of a medium, making the transmission constantly break, and causing the price and production time to increase.
In all fairness, the T-34 was unreliable, not as quick as on paper, and had subpar optics and situational awareness until the T-34-85.
The problem is western propagandists keep looking at the tank as it exists in a vacuum, and not how it fits in Soviet doctrine, where the ease of mass production coupled with it having above average armour, decent mobility, and a good HE shell made it excellent within that context.
It was such a successful design it directly inspired the modern MBT through the T-44 and T-54/55, because while it was unexceptional in any particular role, it could do all of them good enough
The T-34 was no less reliable than the average tank at the time. In fact, I'd argue that compared to the overengineered German tanks, it was a beast.
Compared to German tanks with their overloaded transmissions and interleaved road wheels the T-34 is a Toyota Hilux. I should clarify unreliable by modern perceptions of reliability. Even in the cases where the T-34 was hastily churned out under pressure where consistency suffered, e.g. Stalingrad, the ease of repair and abundant spare parts made it far better than Nazi wunderwaffe big cats.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Ahhh, the pragmatic and effective doctrine of good enough
You see the same thing going on in Ukraine, where western media makes fun of the T series tanks and saying that their Abrams and Leopards and Challengers are so much better. Turns out, that doesn't mean shit when the primary purpose of an MBT is (still) to lob HE at clumps of infantry, and their 70 ton behemoths can't cross bridges or go through mud, and get disabled by drones just like any other tank.
Meanwhile you can say the T-72B and subsequent modernizations are worse in raw specs, but they fulfill their job as mobile fire support for mechanized infantry just fine.
So you're saying it was the
of tanks.
Yep, most countries during WW2 that had enough industry to produce tanks figured out a fairly decent medium tank that you could churn out quickly and cheaply was better than a handful of really expensive good on paper heavy tanks except the Nazis. The Sherman and Cromwell for example. Meanwhile the one chance Germany had of making an actually practical tank after the panzer IV was the panther, but Hitler was such an incompetent micromanager he insisted on giving it enough armour to rival heavy tanks, nullifying the mobility benefits of a medium, making the transmission constantly break, and causing the price and production time to increase.