|
Steelers708 -> RE: Vehicle reliability (12/17/2014 3:51:11 PM)
|
I get what the figures mean, as in the link you posted, but what I'm wanting to know is what information did you use to arrive at those figures. As I pointed out the Pz IV's and T-34 M1940 both have a reliability of 5(25%) but what information did you study/use to arrive at that figure of 5(25%), I would argue that the PzIVE's of Barbarrosa were far more reliable than the T-34 M1940, they may have suffered breakdowns etc due to the vast distances covered but the T-34 m1940 broke down as it was badly engineered.
I don't usually quote Wikipaedia but for quickness I will on this occasion:
The T-34's wide track and good suspension gave it unparalleled cross-country performance. Early in the tank's life, however, this advantage was greatly reduced by the numerous teething troubles the design displayed: a long road trip could be a lethal exercise for a T-34 tank at the start of the war. When in June 1941, the 8th Mechanised Corps of D.I. Ryabyshev marched towards Dubno, the corps lost half of its vehicles. A.V. Bodnar, who was in combat in 1941-42, recalled:
From the point of view of operating them, the German armoured machines were almost perfect, they broke down less often. For the Germans, covering 200 km was nothing, but with T-34s something would have been lost, something would have broken down. The technological equipment of their machines was better, the combat gear was worse.[64]
The tracks of early models were the most frequently repaired part. A.V. Maryevski later remembered:
The caterpillars used to break apart even without bullet or shell hits. When earth got stuck between the road wheels, the caterpillar, especially during a turn – strained to such an extent that the pins and tracks themselves couldn't hold out.[65]
The USSR donated two combat-used Model 1941 T-34s to the United States for testing purposes in late 1942. The examinations, performed at the Aberdeen Proving Ground, highlighted these early faults, which were in turn acknowledged in a 1942 Soviet report on the results of the testing:[45]
The Christie's suspension was tested long time ago by the Americans, and unconditionally rejected. On our tanks, as a result of the poor steel on the springs, it very quickly [unclear word] and as a result clearance is noticeably reduced. The deficiencies in our tracks from their viewpoint results from the lightness of their construction. They can easily be damaged by small-calibre and mortar rounds. The pins are extremely poorly tempered and made of a poor steel. As a result, they quickly wear and the track often breaks.
Testing at Aberdeen also revealed that engines could grind to a halt from dust and sand ingestion, as the original "Pomon" air filter was almost totally ineffective and had insufficient air-inflow capacity, starving the combustion chambers of oxygen, lowering compression, and thereby restricting the engine from operating at full capacity.[45] The air filter issue was later remedied by the addition of "Cyclone" filters on the Model 1943,[26] and even more efficient "Multi-Cyclone" filters on the T-34-85.[66]
The testing at Aberdeen revealed other problems as well. The turret drive also suffered from poor reliability. The use of poorly machined, low quality steel side friction clutches and the T-34's outdated and poorly manufactured transmission meant frequent mechanical failure occurred and that they "create an inhuman harshness for the driver". A lack of properly installed and shielded radios – if they existed at all – restricted their operational range to under 16 km (9.9 mi).[45]
|
|
|
|
