What was better? The T-34 or the P-51?

[Deleted]

Talking about the ww2 vehicles.

[Shadowferal]

Maybe you should break it down...assuming you don't want posts that say "wtf are you talking about?"

[Azadina]

Which is better fruit, apples or potatoes?





Yeah, that's the joke of it

[Whoops]

You're comparing a soviet tank to an American plane?

[sarahtasher]

Comparing apple to apple, maybe ?

The more adequate and boring answer would be that despite being widely considered as pathetic, the Sherman, proportionnally, was destroyed around six or seven times less than the T-34.

Both tanks were excellent vehicles, built for mass production and mass use : having a solid transmission and a reliable engine might sounds less cool than a big gun or heavy armour, but a Panther or Tiger immobilized for repairs is not very useful. Contrary to public perception, the workhourse of the Nazi armoured arm for most of the war (one that worked), the Panzer IV, while reliable, was not an especially powerful machine-it struggled immensely against French tanks, for instance. But in a lessoon that should have taken at heart by German engineers, vastly more powerful Char B1-Bis were completely helpess when attacked out of fuel or with a burst transmission....

[Shadowferal]

Well, I do like apples more than potatoes, but admit that both are nourishing and desirable in my diet.

[zealo]

This is like comparing an apple to an orange, that said, there are reasons as to why the T-34 was in as widespread use as it was.

[unbound]

Watching Korean flicks I see (2015 version of The Long Way Home). Not very realistic portrayal...the airplane pilot was an idiot to engage the tank head on...realistically, he'd hit it from the sides or back.

In regards to the film, I wasn't sure if it was trying to be serious or was a comedy to be honest...

[Nerdgasm]

Watching Korean flicks I see (2015 version of The Long Way Home)

Clearly the T-34 is superior. No plane is a match against a single manned T-34 that can rotate its turret so fast that it can slap the plane's butt.

Your disbelief about the movie is disturbing.

[sarahtasher]

Even comparing stuff that is comparable, for instance a Wildcat and a Zero (both from the same generation, both carrier aircraft) can be pointless.

As, unless the engineers are completely incompetent, performance is usually a choice between some features. The A6M globally outperformed the Wildcat. But the sacrifice of all pilot protection did not made much sense for a country that had maybe 700 qualified carrier fighter pilots

[Puupi]

Tank vs an airplane. Are you high? Or just trollbaiting as usual?

[ranzino]

Tank vs an airplane. Are you high? Or just trollbaiting as usual?

A-10 Warthog vs. modern tank would be also a nice pair. tank loses ? But was done in WW2 also.

[sarahtasher]

The real strength of the T-34 was the fact that the Soviets produced like 80 billion of them. The design was good, but more often than not the actual craftsmanship was awful and they fell apart, broke down, and were often crewed by personnel who had little to no experience.

While unreliable by modern standard, the T-34 was very solid compared to most late war German designs.

[Independent voter]

P51 had rockets. I think they were anti armor.

[ranzino]

P51 had rockets. I think they were anti armor.

Hmm, plane in the final stand in "Saving Privat Ryan" was P-51 ? Either way: tank vs. plane was known in such times. tank usually failing utterly

[unbound]

Clearly the T-34 is superior. No plane is a match against a single manned T-34 that can rotate its turret so fast that it can slap the plane's butt.

Your disbelief about the movie is disturbing.

lol If it was that easy to hit planes with a machine gun, no one would dare fly planes against naval ships.

As for the T-34 itself, one of the known weaknesses is that it was especially vulnerable to high explosives due to the poor quality of the armor (it was designed to be resilient against armor piercing rounds which resulted is spalling when struck by high explosives). By the end of WW II, the T-34 was regularly destroyed by German troops. The T-34's primary advantage is that it was a pretty okay tank that could be produced cheaply at high volumes.

As for the movie, did you think the chase between the tank and the plane on the ground was a documentary? /eyeroll

[ranzino]

.....

As for the movie, did you think the chase between the tank and the plane on the ground was a documentary? /eyeroll

You think Hans-Ulrich Rudel did not destroy more than 500 soviet tanks then ? They demolished themselves, no planes like a Junkers Ju-87 with twin 37 mm cannons in the vincinity ?

[Eldar45]

T-34s are terrible machines. I do not understand how it gets its reputation for being an incredible tank, they were not designed to last more than one or two battles before they either break down or get destroyed. The welding was shoddy, the drive mechanics was hilariously bad (they sometimes had to use a sledgehammer to change gears). It's front armor was weaker than a Sherman's (Granted it had that armor all the way around). Its only good design feature was that it was cheap to make and easily replaceable. By comparison the M4 Sherman had better front armor (Comparable in effectiveness to that of a Tiger), a better main gun (Until the T-34-85 came into play, but the M4A3 (76) variant had an arguably better gun than the T-34-85) and was almost as easy to manufacture and replace.

Comparatively the P-51 was a quite good aircraft that took over the skies of Europe for a while until the ME-262 came onto the field, but it could still fight those to some degree. I have more interest in tanks than aircraft but what I know is that the increased range of the P-51 gave the allies a huge advantage in long range bombing missions because previous fighters could not make the journey.

[I Push Buttons]

I think the P-51 contributed more since it allowed for allied bombing deep within Germany to cripple their wartime production.

The USSR's strategy of overwhelming German forces with massive assaults only really worked because Germany was continually unable to resupply/reinforce their forces... Every material loss was more or less permanent. And even then their tactics resulted in a vastly disproportionate number of casualties... It was completely unsustainable. Now imagine what it would have been like if Germany were able to continue pumping out new tanks and planes for the duration of their Eastern Offensive... The USSR only had so many people to throw into the meat grinder.

[sarahtasher]

Being able to be produced in huge number cheaply and efficiently is quite an advantage-10 shoddily made T-34s are infinitely better than a single Tiger whose transmission explode when looked at.

Also, god know that I don't like especially modern Russia, but the Red Army did not used blunt mass assault as much as salty german generals imply in their memoirs-Red Army staff work was markedly better than German one after 1942, with operations like Bagration completely misleading/deceiving the opposition

Red Army tactics remained pathetic.