From: Bedfordshire UK
But the Panzer 35t ands 38t were probably almost as good as the Matilda, Somua and R-35s ... and Panzer IIIs and IVs were coming online by 1939, and they were as good as the Matildas and French tanks, especially when upgunned ... though the T-34's were superior in concept.
Of course, you do know that the early model T-34's fielded in 1940 had guns whose barrels were bored, shall we say, somewhat askew on an unreliably reliable basis, and had considerable accuracy problems initially.
And, of course, you also know that the T-34 typically went into combat with a spare gearbox strapped to the back deck ... because the average MTBF for the gearbox was around 10 hours of driving time, so crudely made were the running parts of the engine and transmission.
In fact, Brand New T-34's are know to have had a MTBF of no more than 35 hours, all up, before something major took them down. They were, very much, throwaway vehicles ... it's fortunate the Russians were able to produce as many of them as they did because something like 80% were destroyed in combat or as a result of combat throughout the war.
Which is the point I am making, it's not just the paper specifications of each vehicle, it's the overall performance and effectiveness of each nation's armoured units, which counts. In June 1941 most Soviet armoured units had little effective recon assets. It would not have mattered how good, or bad their tanks were, they often didn't know where the Germans were, before they blundered into them.
When the fronts became static the Germans lost some of this advantage, as the opposing positions were at least known.
< Message edited by Rasputitsa -- 1/6/2012 2:56:39 PM >
"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me