well from pz2 - pz4 to panthers and tigers so yeah id say it was quite improvement.
Well, thats speculation which is un-necessary as we know how the t-34 did.
1 Like
They were drinking beer with bratwurst while designing and making Panthers and Tigers, literally nothing bothered them.
Exactly. T-34 was the perfect balance of efficiency, cost-efficiency, mobility, armor, ease of production and repair which allowed the USSR to contain the German armored advance.
oh yeah, behind urals things were really bad.
fixed
1 Like
Thatās exactly why you were told to look at the map and think what it cost to relocate production in war time.
You can be xenophobic all you want but those T-34s most likely saved your sorry ass from being born a German slave.
Well since you seem to be so fond about the matter, you probably can give answer for it ?
Well actually quite opposite, German tools saved my sorry ass from being born as sorry communist slave.
1 Like
Been telling you all day long - the cost is a whole fucking lot and the fact that any tanks were produced, let alone good ones, was a miracle by the people.
lmao what German tools saved you? Wake up, Adolf, Germany lost.
can you be slightly more spcific how much is the whole fucking lot ?
Oh well, guess we are in stalemate. I suppose the 1:7 ratio is good for soviets. While any other nation would have considered is as absolute failure.
Comrade, perhaps you should read a little more history.
Especiatly while the interwebs are still available for your usage as the divine leader of current USSR have threatened cut ussr off from interwebs.
1 Like
so how much that is in rubles ? Or dollars.
Well sherman has had rather poor reputation as well. Yet it had no where near such casualty rates as soviet stalinium wonder weapons.
Ah the classic nazi card.
Well now you know how we feel when average stanislav is being butthurt because we dont consider the 1:7 ratio as āGood tankā
But doh, lets meet at middle ground.
Either the T-34 isnt exactly as great tank as you claim it to be OR the average soviets that used them were by modern standards considered as being in vegetable stage so even worse than modern average ussr citizen.
Either way can be implemented to the game.
Or ofc theres the 3rd option Germans just being superhumans.
Take your pick stanislav.
1 Like
Great deeds of a nation are not valued in coins.
Obviously. Because a) they were designing them and testing them on a safe continent with burgers and cola in their hands, and b) they faced like two Pz IIIs in North Africa and like five Pz IVs in Normandy. Germany sent its overwhelming force to Russia.
And there on the Eastern Front Shermans fought and died just as well as T-34s.
I mean when you fight hand-to-hand with Adolf, use his gear, paint swastika-but-not-really on your tanks and besiege a city full of civilians together for years, the card is right on top of the deck.
Because you lost every war 
Of course, how would yall know what tank ratios are.
Middle ground (facts) is this: T-34 was a great tank in 1940-41, however with its flaws; it would have potentially become something even more awesome as T-34M if the western part of the country didnāt get invaded to ashes by Germans (and their friends), still it was a very effective vehicle and a brilliant one with T-34/85 upgrade.
Just wrote it all in very easy sentences for you, pekka.
but it was a terrible tank, we are going in around, the t-34 was a rubbish tank compared to every other tank made during the war
It was one of the best tanks made during the war, a heroic weapon of victory, and certainly the best by 1940 standards.
That will always depend to the standard it is been held in comparison. Because for the time it was a good tank. And it got the job done.
You can compare that to the king tigers, that literally got defeated by a 10 Ā° slope, preventing them from rotating their turretās.
And that isnāt to say the KT was useless. But it worked far better as a bunker than a tank.
Yes the T34s suffer heavy casualties in combat. But that has a lot to do with the doctrine used by the red army than the quality of the tank.
Because it doesnāt matter how good a tank is if it isnāt used correctly. And as for bad or inadequate tanks for example the early Panthers tended to suffer heavy casualties before they arrived to the battle field. And as you might agree, a tank that canāt be used isnāt a good tank.
Later Panthers where more reliable but the quality of the steel in Germany degraded so much that it also wasnāt a advantage Soviet tanks.
And either way, tank vs tank duels werenāt that commune not even the way to go.
A few things contributed to the T-34ās heavy casualties, doctrine being one of them, the scale of the combat being one of them, but the predominant theory espoused by Historians is that quality control for the production of the T-34 was god awful, leading to tanks of mediocre quality construction at best, or tanks that would literally drive themselves to pieces at worse.
About the Panther, the reliability was never properly addressed, with the later models still suffering from engine issues and transmission failures regularly, in addition to the deteriorating quality of the armour over time. Also, I would argue that the King Tiger is a better roadblock than a bunker, because it is so complex that removing it safely would inconvenience the Allies for so much longer than it could if it shot at them 
1 Like
amazing every thing you just said is propaganda
the design was āokā at best but the design was more or less used as a guideline and less then %10 of t-34 made in 1940 to 1945 were made to this design , the other %90 were failures
Well, you can slab a pricetag to majority of done work. But apparently no one told untermensch about it.
Wasnt that the case with you as well stanislav? Id say behind urals it was rather peaceful and murrica fed you with burgers & cola.
Quite sure it wont change the ratio.
Didnt the average stanislavs like the sherman? Gave them actually a chance to fight and possibility to survive.
But dear stanislav, didnt you literally allie with germany & invade poland with them hand in hand ?
Quite sure the said swastika was in use long before nazi party.
Well by those standards arent you nazi as well stanislav?
True, finns indeed lost the war, how ever they met theyr goal and kept the independency and ussr gained just enough of land to bury theyr dead.
Glorious pyrrhic victory.
Well its quite simple math. Could say elementary grade math.
Perhaps your ratios were 1:7 due to skipped elementary school 
Oh well, no wonder ussr economy literally collapsed.
āHow is our tanks doing comrade?ā
Well we lose 7 of our tanks to 1 enemy tank.
" Absolutely great tank make more"
1 Like
What exactly?
Everything is facts.
Source?
The beauty of the T-34 platform is that over the course of its production the designers and plants doubled its performance characteristics while simultaneously cutting the production cost in half.
Mmm yes keep playing that āno naziā card
I wonder who painted swastikas on their tanks.
If you have any idea of the damage done to USSR by the German invasion, the hunger and the catastrophe, you wouldnāt make such nonesence comparisons.
You can ratio your ratio in your ratio all you want but the fact is that the absolute majority of force was sent to destroy Russia.
Considered a good tank but not without its flaws like the tall silhouette and poor grip.
Nice try. Expected, but still nice.
As part of the Paris Peace Treaty , Finland was classified as an ally of Nazi Germany, bearing its responsibility for the war. The treaty imposed heavy war reparations on Finland and stipulated the lease of the Porkkala area near the Finnish capital Helsinki as a military base for fifty years. 
USSR never fought alongside Germany, while Finland not only fought alongside them but later betrayed them lol
Interestingly enough, the Red Army didnāt starve out Helsinki for 872 days in a planned manner.
Nice goalpost moving.
Now letās imagine the USSRās goal was to get a buffer zone which would later save Lelingrad from immediate falling (which they achieved) and Finlandās goal was not to lose land, not to pay reparations and not to acknowledge it started the war? (which is of course is not true but shows how desperately the finns wanted to sign anything)
It slaps Pz III? Yes.
It spaps Pz IV? Yes.
It slaps air superiority Stukas and PAK teams with 2 years of combat experience? No, but no new tank would now.
You honestly think one of the most common names is tilting in any way?
propaganda told by the russians to help justify the constant failures about the tank aswell as boost moral while the IS and KV tanks did all the work
this is called innovation and EVERY tank has had this
its called cutting corners
ahh yes the source card
What exactly?
Tell me how Panthers and Tigers cut their production cost in half?
Itās called flexibility and optimization in war time.
You claimed the 90% number, not me. So, source?
major general Josef Kotinās, report at tank factory 183
citied that less then %7 had no defects
shortcuts cost lives
we are not talking about either here
propaganda