超级军网T-34-85与M4A3（76），你选谁？
来源：百度文库 编辑：超级军网 时间：2024/04/28 01:14:45
如果给你一个坦克师参加二战的库尔斯克会战，你会选择那种坦克？如果给你一个坦克师参加二战的库尔斯克会战，你会选择那种坦克？
.......不管生产没有,上IS-3吧.
我选T34
我选T34
我选M4 起码坐的舒服···
85库战的时候好像还没出来吧···
楼主的给的题目不公平～～
应该是同样的价格和后勤保障，装备一个师，你选谁？
应该是同样的价格和后勤保障，装备一个师，你选谁？
当然选M4A3（76）那炮的威力就有优势，舒适性和安全性也远好于T34,T34可以说是“五兄弟之墓”。
m4的炮就算了:L 在东线不是一般的惨
一个师以上必定选34-85。
原帖由 火花四射 于 2008-1-31 13:07 发表
一个师以上必定选34-85。
火花,库而斯克的时候还都是76吧,这种条件下,T34比M4强不少
当然是M4（76）。
因为是同级别坦克比较，所以不存在那种小规模战斗选前者，大规模战斗选后者的情形。
T-34系列并没有群体加成，而M4（76）在哪个方面都不比T-34/85差
T-34系列并没有群体加成，而M4（76）在哪个方面都不比T-34/85差
原帖由 BMCC20033 于 2008-1-31 12:40 发表
当然选M4A3（76）那炮的威力就有优势，舒适性和安全性也远好于T34,T34可以说是“五兄弟之墓”。
Ｔ－３４有这绰号？？？
只知道Ｍ３“李”有“六兄弟的铁棺材”之美誉。
T-34竟然没有炮塔吊篮
库尔斯克会战时85型还没投入实战.
原帖由 我饿了 于 2008-1-31 19:46 发表
T-34竟然没有炮塔吊篮
……
没炮塔吊篮怎么了？又不是只是T-34没有
原帖由 中央集团军群 于 2008-1-31 19:56 发表
库尔斯克会战时85型还没投入实战.
８５投入生产都得４３年底了，首次成规模参战似乎是１９４４年初的科尔松—舍普琴科夫进攻战役。
烧火棍是德老给的外号吧 那m4这东西那高那大一炮就ko了谁愿意为了坐舒服而去死啊
那是二战跟现在不一样矮点中弹机会小啊 小命重要t-34吧
那是二战跟现在不一样矮点中弹机会小啊 小命重要t-34吧
Ｍ４的绰号是“朗森打火机”。。。。。。。
m3李 还有个外号叫什么来着？坦克装甲上有说的据说是赞美的呵呵
苏联人真逗！！！
苏联人真逗！！！
还记得好象西线好象出了个巴克曼之角吧
一辆黑豹k掉了n 辆m4，m4打了n炮打不穿黑豹还是高速逃跑的~~
屁股向后的~~
一辆黑豹k掉了n 辆m4，m4打了n炮打不穿黑豹还是高速逃跑的~~
屁股向后的~~
还是选T34吧。
34。选M4就意味着在西线要和虎-1PK，而似乎西线的M4和东线的T34/85同样遇到虎-1的情况下，T34/85存活的几率大点啦……
老板喜欢特34，打工的喜欢M4
如果是兜风的话当然是M4了，如果对方是独国动物园的大家伙如虎王之流的，坐M4和T34后果都差不多，但好像某毛子坦克兵说M4虽然容易起火，但弹药殉爆的几率要比T34小得多，就是说如果一定会被击毁的情况下，坐M4存活的几率大些。除此之外，还是觉得T34更安全些，至少不象M4那么引人注目。
原帖由 荆棘天堂 于 2008-1-31 18:38 发表
火花,库而斯克的时候还都是76吧,这种条件下,T34比M4强不少
搂主这么出题我就这么选么。管那么多干嘛
看是团队还是单车了，单车M4，团队34
恰恰相反。单车我肯定选34，小命要紧，舒适性一边待着去。
但如果是一个师的话，还是M4好。出勤率就不是一个档次的。34自己趴窝的还比别人击毁的要多，M4起码靠得住。
但如果是一个师的话，还是M4好。出勤率就不是一个档次的。34自己趴窝的还比别人击毁的要多，M4起码靠得住。
不少人比我还白菜，好歹我还知道 共军用的是柴油 所以东线的M4…… ！
本贴HKC很多！
本贴HKC很多！
有个问题.....
如果是一个师的话.....
请问苏联的T-34一个师有几辆坦克？而美国的M-4一个师有几辆坦克？
如果让我选择的话，我会选坦克数量比较多的师:D
如果是一个师的话.....
请问苏联的T-34一个师有几辆坦克？而美国的M-4一个师有几辆坦克？
如果让我选择的话，我会选坦克数量比较多的师:D
原帖由 BMCC20033 于 2008-1-31 12:40 发表
当然选M4A3（76）那炮的威力就有优势，舒适性和安全性也远好于T34,T34可以说是“五兄弟之墓”。
你难道不知道M4因为使用汽油发动机得到了"朗森打火机"的绰号?按你的逻辑M4也是钢铁棺材
其实M4和T34都是很好的坦克,无限放大某个缺点要不得,结论是有啥用啥
原帖由 hunterc01 于 2008-2-1 02:48 发表
有个问题.....
如果是一个师的话.....
请问苏联的T-34一个师有几辆坦克？而美国的M-4一个师有几辆坦克？
如果让我选择的话，我会选坦克数量比较多的师:D
苏军在42年以后基本以坦克旅为装甲部队的基本单位，1943年编制一个坦克旅装备坦克65辆。
供应给毛国的M4A3 （76）W也是用柴油机的啦。
原帖由 squallgzy 于 2008-2-1 06:43 发表
你难道不知道M4因为使用汽油发动机得到了"朗森打火机"的绰号?按你的逻辑M4也是钢铁棺材
其实M4和T34都是很好的坦克,无限放大某个缺点要不得,结论是有啥用啥
我真的不知道 东线 的M4是 汽油的，请老大说教！
俺个人认为T34比M4好！
当然是T34啦！
以M4那个身高来说，标准的移动靶嘛！
以M4那个身高来说，标准的移动靶嘛！
原帖由 zhemg 于 2008-1-31 12:50 发表
m4的炮就算了:L 在东线不是一般的惨
怎么个惨法？人家就是稍短一些的17磅，敲掉老虎都没问题。
1、M4同样可以使用柴油机，援助苏联的M4A4中有相当部分换装了康明斯柴油机/460马力
同样的发动机在市场上也是可以轻易得到的，战后经由法国转手的M4各型坦克中70%以上换装了康明斯柴油机
2、M4（HVSS）同样使用宽履带。即使是使用窄履带的型号叶么以满足90%的地域使用要求
另外的10%地域基本上属于极度不适应车辆使用的地形，即便是T34也不能再次地域内随意行动
3、从可维护特性和操作特性来说，M4明显优于T34。
4、在说明M4高大的同时，不要忘了说明T34的窄车体，相对于欧洲中西部遍地的小城狭窄街道
M4的通过性能要明显优于宽车体的T34。至于车体的高度和命中弹的关系目前也没有精确的定论，命中与否仍旧取决于射手的训练程度
5、M4的正面防护更好，T34的防护在各方向上相对平均
6、M4的火力要强于T34
同样的发动机在市场上也是可以轻易得到的，战后经由法国转手的M4各型坦克中70%以上换装了康明斯柴油机
2、M4（HVSS）同样使用宽履带。即使是使用窄履带的型号叶么以满足90%的地域使用要求
另外的10%地域基本上属于极度不适应车辆使用的地形，即便是T34也不能再次地域内随意行动
3、从可维护特性和操作特性来说，M4明显优于T34。
4、在说明M4高大的同时，不要忘了说明T34的窄车体，相对于欧洲中西部遍地的小城狭窄街道
M4的通过性能要明显优于宽车体的T34。至于车体的高度和命中弹的关系目前也没有精确的定论，命中与否仍旧取决于射手的训练程度
5、M4的正面防护更好，T34的防护在各方向上相对平均
6、M4的火力要强于T34
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Q...at_aberdeen.htm
"Evaluation of tanks T-34 and KV by workers of the Aberdeen testing grounds of the U.S."
(from the Tanker's forum, posted by Misha Veksler)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Footnote 1 -- reads, "The full name of the document is, "An Evaluation of the T-34 and KV tanks by workers of the Aberdeen Testing Grounds of the U.S., submitted by firms, officers and members of military commissions responsible for testing tanks." The tanks were given to the U.S. by the Soviets at the end of 1942 for familiarization.")
The condition of the tanks
The medium tank T-34, after driving 343 km, became disabled and could not be fixed. The reason: owing to the extremely poor air cleaner on the diesel, a large quantity of dirt got into the engine and a breakdown occurred, as a result of which the pistons and cylinders were damaged to such a degree that they were impossible to fix. The tank was withdrawn from tests and was to be shelled by the KV and its "Z/ 3" (?) -- by the cannon of the M-10 tank. After this it would be sent to Aberdeen, where it would be analyzed and kept as an exhibit.
The heavy tank KV is still functional. Tests are continuing, although it has many mechanical defects.
The silhouette/configuration of the tanks
Everyone, without exception, approves of the shape of the hull of our tanks. The T-34's is particularly good. All are of the opinion that the shape of the T-34's hull is better than that of any American tank. The KV's is worse than on any current American tank.
Armor
A chemical analysis of the armour showed that on both tanks the armour plating has a shallow surface tempering, whereas the main mass of the armoured plating is made of soft steel.
In this regard, the Americans consider that, by changing the technology used to temper the armoured plating, it would be possible to significantly reduce its thickness while preserving its protective capacities. As a result the weight of the tank could be decreased by 8-10%, with all the resulting benefits (an increase in speed, reduction in ground pressure, etc.)
Hull
The main deficiency is the permeability to water of the lower hull during water crossings, as well as the upper hull during rain. In heavy rain lots of water flows through chinks/ cracks, which leads to the disabling of the electrical equipment and even the ammunition.
The Americans liked how the ammunition is stowed.
Turret
Its main weakness is that it is very tight. The Americans could not understand how our tankers could fit inside during winter, when they wear sheepskin jackets. The electrical mechanism for turning the turret is very bad. The motor is weak, heavily overloaded and sparks horribly, as a result of which the device regulating the speed of the rotation burns out, and the teeth of the cogwheels break into pieces. They recommend redoing it as a hydraulic or simply manual system.
KV-1 heavy tank at Bovington Museum (England) (photo by [...])
Armament
The gun of the T-34 is very good. It is simple, dependable and easy to service. Its weakness is that the initial speed of the shell is significantly less than that of the American "Z/ 3" (3200 feet versus 5700 feet per second).
Aiming/Back-sight
The general opinion: the best in the world. Incomparable with any existing (well-known here) tanks or any under development.
Track
The Americans very much like the idea of steel tracks. But they believe that until they receive the results of the comparative performance of steel vs. rubber tracks on American tanks in Tunis and other active fronts, there is no basis for changing from the American solution of rubber bushings and pads.
The deficiencies in our tracks from their viewpoint results from the lightness of their construction. They can easily be damaged by small calibre shells and mortar bombs. The pins are extremely poorly tempered and made of poor steel. As a result they quickly wear and the track often breaks. The idea of having loose track pins that are held in place by a cam welded to the side of the hull, at first was greatly liked by the Americans. But when in use under certain operating conditions, the pins would become bent which often resulted in the track rupturing. The Americans consider that if the armour is reduced in thickness the resultant weight saving can be used to make the tracks heavier and more reliable.
Suspension
On the T-34, it is poor. Suspension of the Christie type was tested long 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. On the KV the suspension is very good.
Motor
The diesel is good and light. The idea of using diesel engines on tanks is shared in full by American specialists and military personnel. Unfortunately, diesel engines produced in U.S. factories are used by the navy and therefore the army is deprived of the possibility of installing diesels in its tanks.
The deficiency of our diesels is the criminally poor air cleaners on the T-34. The Americans consider that only a saboteur could have constructed such a device. They also don't understand why in our manuals it is called oil-bath. Their tests in a laboratory showed that:
- the air cleaner doesn't clean at all the air which is drawn into the motor;
- its capacity does not allow for the flow of the necessary quantity of air, even when the motor is idling. As a result, the motor does not achieve its full capacity. Dirt getting into the cylinders leads them to quickly wear out, compression drops, and the engine loses even more power. In addition, the filter was manufactured, from a mechanical point of view, extremely primitively: in places the spot-welding of the electric welding has burned through the metal, leading to leakage of oil etc. On the KV the filter is better manufactured, but it does not secure the flow in sufficient quantity of normal cleaned air. On both motors the starters are poor, being weak and of unreliable construction.
Transmission
Without doubt, poor. An interesting thing happened. Those working on the transmission of the KV were struck that it was very much like those transmissions on which they had worked 12-15 years ago. The firm was questioned. The firm sent the blueprints of their transmission type A-23. To everyone's surprise, the blueprints of our transmission turned out to be a copy of those sent (?). The Americans were surprised, not that we were copying their design, but that we were copying a design that they had rejected 15-20 years ago. The Americans consider that, from the point of view of the designer, installing such a transmission in the tank would create an inhuman harshness for the driver (hard to work). On the T-34 the transmission is also very poor. When it was being operated, the cogs completely fell to pieces (on all the cogwheels). A chemical analysis of the cogs on the cogwheels showed that their thermal treatment is very poor and does not in any way meet American standards for such mechanisms.
Rolling friction clutches
Without doubt, poor. In America, they rejected the installation of friction clutches, even on tractors (never mind tanks), several years ago. In addition to the fallaciousness of the very principle, our friction clutches are extremely carelessly machined from low-quality steel, which quickly causes wear and tear, accelerates the penetration of dirt into the drum and in no way ensures reliable functioning.
General comments
From the American point of view, our tanks are slow. Both our tanks can climb an incline better than any American tank. The welding of the armour plating is extremely crude and careless. The radio sets in laboratory tests turned out to be not bad. However, because of poor shielding and poor protection, after installation in the tanks the sets did not manage to establish normal communications at distances greater than 10 miles. The compactness of the radio sets and their intelligent placement in the tanks was pleasing. The machining of equipment components and parts was, with few exceptions, very poor. In particular the Americans were troubled by the disgraceful design and extremely poor work on the drive/ gear/ transmission links/ blocks (?) on the T-34. After much torment they made new ones and replaced ours. All the tanks' mechanisms demand very frequent adjustments/ fine-tuning.
Conclusions, suggestions
1. On both tanks, quickly replace the air cleaners with models with greater capacity capable of actually cleaning the air.
2. The technology for tempering the armour plating should be changed. This would increase the protectiveness of the armour, either by using an equivalent thickness or, by reducing the thickness, lowering the weight and, accordingly, the use of metal.
3. Make the tracks thicker.
4. Replace the existing transmission of outdated design with the American "Final Drive," which would significantly increase the tanks' manoeuvrability.
5. Abandon the use of friction clutches.
6. Simplify the construction of small components, increase their reliability and decrease to the maximum extent possible the need to constantly make adjustments.
7. Comparing American and Russian tanks, it is clear that driving Russian tanks is much harder. A virtuosity is demanded of Russian drivers in changing gear on the move, special experience in using friction clutches, great experience as a mechanic, and the ability to keep tanks in working condition (adjustments and repairs of components, which are constantly becoming disabled). This greatly complicates the training of tankers and drivers.
8. Judging by samples, Russians when producing tanks pay little attention to careful machining or the finishing and technology of small parts and components, which leads to the loss of the advantage what would otherwise accrue from what on the whole are well designed tanks.
9. Despite the advantages of the use of diesel, the good contours of the tanks, thick armour, good and reliable armaments, the successful design of the tracks etc., Russian tanks are significantly inferior to American tanks in their simplicity of driving, manoeuvrability, the strength of firing [reference to speed of shell], speed, the reliability of mechanical construction and the ease of keeping them running.
Signed -- The head of the 2nd Department of the Main Intelligence Department of the Red Army, General Major of Tank Armies, Khlopo... (end missing: Khlopov?)
"Evaluation of tanks T-34 and KV by workers of the Aberdeen testing grounds of the U.S."
(from the Tanker's forum, posted by Misha Veksler)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Footnote 1 -- reads, "The full name of the document is, "An Evaluation of the T-34 and KV tanks by workers of the Aberdeen Testing Grounds of the U.S., submitted by firms, officers and members of military commissions responsible for testing tanks." The tanks were given to the U.S. by the Soviets at the end of 1942 for familiarization.")
The condition of the tanks
The medium tank T-34, after driving 343 km, became disabled and could not be fixed. The reason: owing to the extremely poor air cleaner on the diesel, a large quantity of dirt got into the engine and a breakdown occurred, as a result of which the pistons and cylinders were damaged to such a degree that they were impossible to fix. The tank was withdrawn from tests and was to be shelled by the KV and its "Z/ 3" (?) -- by the cannon of the M-10 tank. After this it would be sent to Aberdeen, where it would be analyzed and kept as an exhibit.
The heavy tank KV is still functional. Tests are continuing, although it has many mechanical defects.
The silhouette/configuration of the tanks
Everyone, without exception, approves of the shape of the hull of our tanks. The T-34's is particularly good. All are of the opinion that the shape of the T-34's hull is better than that of any American tank. The KV's is worse than on any current American tank.
Armor
A chemical analysis of the armour showed that on both tanks the armour plating has a shallow surface tempering, whereas the main mass of the armoured plating is made of soft steel.
In this regard, the Americans consider that, by changing the technology used to temper the armoured plating, it would be possible to significantly reduce its thickness while preserving its protective capacities. As a result the weight of the tank could be decreased by 8-10%, with all the resulting benefits (an increase in speed, reduction in ground pressure, etc.)
Hull
The main deficiency is the permeability to water of the lower hull during water crossings, as well as the upper hull during rain. In heavy rain lots of water flows through chinks/ cracks, which leads to the disabling of the electrical equipment and even the ammunition.
The Americans liked how the ammunition is stowed.
Turret
Its main weakness is that it is very tight. The Americans could not understand how our tankers could fit inside during winter, when they wear sheepskin jackets. The electrical mechanism for turning the turret is very bad. The motor is weak, heavily overloaded and sparks horribly, as a result of which the device regulating the speed of the rotation burns out, and the teeth of the cogwheels break into pieces. They recommend redoing it as a hydraulic or simply manual system.
KV-1 heavy tank at Bovington Museum (England) (photo by [...])
Armament
The gun of the T-34 is very good. It is simple, dependable and easy to service. Its weakness is that the initial speed of the shell is significantly less than that of the American "Z/ 3" (3200 feet versus 5700 feet per second).
Aiming/Back-sight
The general opinion: the best in the world. Incomparable with any existing (well-known here) tanks or any under development.
Track
The Americans very much like the idea of steel tracks. But they believe that until they receive the results of the comparative performance of steel vs. rubber tracks on American tanks in Tunis and other active fronts, there is no basis for changing from the American solution of rubber bushings and pads.
The deficiencies in our tracks from their viewpoint results from the lightness of their construction. They can easily be damaged by small calibre shells and mortar bombs. The pins are extremely poorly tempered and made of poor steel. As a result they quickly wear and the track often breaks. The idea of having loose track pins that are held in place by a cam welded to the side of the hull, at first was greatly liked by the Americans. But when in use under certain operating conditions, the pins would become bent which often resulted in the track rupturing. The Americans consider that if the armour is reduced in thickness the resultant weight saving can be used to make the tracks heavier and more reliable.
Suspension
On the T-34, it is poor. Suspension of the Christie type was tested long 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. On the KV the suspension is very good.
Motor
The diesel is good and light. The idea of using diesel engines on tanks is shared in full by American specialists and military personnel. Unfortunately, diesel engines produced in U.S. factories are used by the navy and therefore the army is deprived of the possibility of installing diesels in its tanks.
The deficiency of our diesels is the criminally poor air cleaners on the T-34. The Americans consider that only a saboteur could have constructed such a device. They also don't understand why in our manuals it is called oil-bath. Their tests in a laboratory showed that:
- the air cleaner doesn't clean at all the air which is drawn into the motor;
- its capacity does not allow for the flow of the necessary quantity of air, even when the motor is idling. As a result, the motor does not achieve its full capacity. Dirt getting into the cylinders leads them to quickly wear out, compression drops, and the engine loses even more power. In addition, the filter was manufactured, from a mechanical point of view, extremely primitively: in places the spot-welding of the electric welding has burned through the metal, leading to leakage of oil etc. On the KV the filter is better manufactured, but it does not secure the flow in sufficient quantity of normal cleaned air. On both motors the starters are poor, being weak and of unreliable construction.
Transmission
Without doubt, poor. An interesting thing happened. Those working on the transmission of the KV were struck that it was very much like those transmissions on which they had worked 12-15 years ago. The firm was questioned. The firm sent the blueprints of their transmission type A-23. To everyone's surprise, the blueprints of our transmission turned out to be a copy of those sent (?). The Americans were surprised, not that we were copying their design, but that we were copying a design that they had rejected 15-20 years ago. The Americans consider that, from the point of view of the designer, installing such a transmission in the tank would create an inhuman harshness for the driver (hard to work). On the T-34 the transmission is also very poor. When it was being operated, the cogs completely fell to pieces (on all the cogwheels). A chemical analysis of the cogs on the cogwheels showed that their thermal treatment is very poor and does not in any way meet American standards for such mechanisms.
Rolling friction clutches
Without doubt, poor. In America, they rejected the installation of friction clutches, even on tractors (never mind tanks), several years ago. In addition to the fallaciousness of the very principle, our friction clutches are extremely carelessly machined from low-quality steel, which quickly causes wear and tear, accelerates the penetration of dirt into the drum and in no way ensures reliable functioning.
General comments
From the American point of view, our tanks are slow. Both our tanks can climb an incline better than any American tank. The welding of the armour plating is extremely crude and careless. The radio sets in laboratory tests turned out to be not bad. However, because of poor shielding and poor protection, after installation in the tanks the sets did not manage to establish normal communications at distances greater than 10 miles. The compactness of the radio sets and their intelligent placement in the tanks was pleasing. The machining of equipment components and parts was, with few exceptions, very poor. In particular the Americans were troubled by the disgraceful design and extremely poor work on the drive/ gear/ transmission links/ blocks (?) on the T-34. After much torment they made new ones and replaced ours. All the tanks' mechanisms demand very frequent adjustments/ fine-tuning.
Conclusions, suggestions
1. On both tanks, quickly replace the air cleaners with models with greater capacity capable of actually cleaning the air.
2. The technology for tempering the armour plating should be changed. This would increase the protectiveness of the armour, either by using an equivalent thickness or, by reducing the thickness, lowering the weight and, accordingly, the use of metal.
3. Make the tracks thicker.
4. Replace the existing transmission of outdated design with the American "Final Drive," which would significantly increase the tanks' manoeuvrability.
5. Abandon the use of friction clutches.
6. Simplify the construction of small components, increase their reliability and decrease to the maximum extent possible the need to constantly make adjustments.
7. Comparing American and Russian tanks, it is clear that driving Russian tanks is much harder. A virtuosity is demanded of Russian drivers in changing gear on the move, special experience in using friction clutches, great experience as a mechanic, and the ability to keep tanks in working condition (adjustments and repairs of components, which are constantly becoming disabled). This greatly complicates the training of tankers and drivers.
8. Judging by samples, Russians when producing tanks pay little attention to careful machining or the finishing and technology of small parts and components, which leads to the loss of the advantage what would otherwise accrue from what on the whole are well designed tanks.
9. Despite the advantages of the use of diesel, the good contours of the tanks, thick armour, good and reliable armaments, the successful design of the tracks etc., Russian tanks are significantly inferior to American tanks in their simplicity of driving, manoeuvrability, the strength of firing [reference to speed of shell], speed, the reliability of mechanical construction and the ease of keeping them running.
Signed -- The head of the 2nd Department of the Main Intelligence Department of the Red Army, General Major of Tank Armies, Khlopo... (end missing: Khlopov?)
英文评价报告非常具体，技术性很强，因此看起来可信度比较高。但是里面有几个相当有趣的观点，以前没有见过的，希望能予以讨论和澄清：
1，该文明确指出T34和KV1的装甲都是两层的，表层是比较薄的表面淬火的钢（硬度高的？），而主体部分则是“软钢”。美国人认为通过采用更好的冶炼（淬火）技术，可以在保持防御强度的情况下大幅度缩减其厚度，甚至带来整车重量降低8-10%。 这个观点相当令人惊讶，因为T34的装甲厚度一直是其引以为豪的重点。是否有熟悉这方面的高手能够对此进行考证？
2，美国人似乎把T34的悬挂、变速箱和离合器系统评价得一钱不值，多次强调T34所采用的技术方案是在美国多年前被摒弃的。认为其非常非常不易操作，甚至于导致最终结论认为T34的机动性能非常不好。这个观点是否有些言过于实？
3，美国人居然认为T34的履带太“薄”了？并且认为其非常不可靠，甚至再次提出减少的装甲重量用来增加履带的厚度和可靠性。这个真是一个相当新颖奇怪的观点。有关于T34履带在实战中可靠性的问题的其他报告吗？
4，文中提到美国人非常赞赏柴油机的使用，但是因为“所有柴油机“都被海军占用了，因此没法分给坦克用。这个解释似乎有点莫名其妙，海军用的柴油机和坦克用的不是一回事吧？海军能用这么小的柴油机吗？？我个人以为主要原因是美国有非常大量的汽油机生产技术和设施吧？因为其汽车工业基础。
5，关于T34炮塔旋转系统的问题，记得虎和虎王都有这方面的问题，似乎没有听说过T34有类似的情况？文中的描述非常惊诧，说是驱动电机严重过载，甚至打出火花，齿轮也有崩溃的情况。甚至建议换成手动的都更好……前所未闻的观点，希望考证……
、使用表面硬化装甲来提高防护能力并且进一步的减轻重量是个工业国的普遍原则，但是对于俄国在战争中实际上放弃了广泛使用表面硬化装甲的机会，在迫切需要提高防护能力的地方往往是用在基甲上使用附加的较高硬度装甲的方法（这样可以简化加工提高产量）。至于t34的装甲厚度，对于在大战中后期的常用装甲车辆来说是相当脆弱的
2、这个是苏联设计的传统弱点。直到70年代初的中东战场上的t62坦克，这些动力传动上的弱点仍旧存在，至于说到传动系的技术水平，可以说从t34开始直到t62，除了在加工精度上略有提高以外，整个传动箱可以说是没有任何的变化
3、确实，以西方标准来说，t34的行动部分过于脆弱。以至于41年的东西恐惧症中对付t34的两个弱点中的一个就是射击履带
4、在战争中后期美国人已经可以生产出足够有效和可靠的车用柴油机，但是由于统一后勤的缘故，在美国军队中没有使用柴油推进车辆，所有安装柴油机的坦克都运到了俄国
但是战争一结束，就有大量的剩余物资被更换了柴油机并在地区热点上继续服役
1，该文明确指出T34和KV1的装甲都是两层的，表层是比较薄的表面淬火的钢（硬度高的？），而主体部分则是“软钢”。美国人认为通过采用更好的冶炼（淬火）技术，可以在保持防御强度的情况下大幅度缩减其厚度，甚至带来整车重量降低8-10%。 这个观点相当令人惊讶，因为T34的装甲厚度一直是其引以为豪的重点。是否有熟悉这方面的高手能够对此进行考证？
2，美国人似乎把T34的悬挂、变速箱和离合器系统评价得一钱不值，多次强调T34所采用的技术方案是在美国多年前被摒弃的。认为其非常非常不易操作，甚至于导致最终结论认为T34的机动性能非常不好。这个观点是否有些言过于实？
3，美国人居然认为T34的履带太“薄”了？并且认为其非常不可靠，甚至再次提出减少的装甲重量用来增加履带的厚度和可靠性。这个真是一个相当新颖奇怪的观点。有关于T34履带在实战中可靠性的问题的其他报告吗？
4，文中提到美国人非常赞赏柴油机的使用，但是因为“所有柴油机“都被海军占用了，因此没法分给坦克用。这个解释似乎有点莫名其妙，海军用的柴油机和坦克用的不是一回事吧？海军能用这么小的柴油机吗？？我个人以为主要原因是美国有非常大量的汽油机生产技术和设施吧？因为其汽车工业基础。
5，关于T34炮塔旋转系统的问题，记得虎和虎王都有这方面的问题，似乎没有听说过T34有类似的情况？文中的描述非常惊诧，说是驱动电机严重过载，甚至打出火花，齿轮也有崩溃的情况。甚至建议换成手动的都更好……前所未闻的观点，希望考证……
、使用表面硬化装甲来提高防护能力并且进一步的减轻重量是个工业国的普遍原则，但是对于俄国在战争中实际上放弃了广泛使用表面硬化装甲的机会，在迫切需要提高防护能力的地方往往是用在基甲上使用附加的较高硬度装甲的方法（这样可以简化加工提高产量）。至于t34的装甲厚度，对于在大战中后期的常用装甲车辆来说是相当脆弱的
2、这个是苏联设计的传统弱点。直到70年代初的中东战场上的t62坦克，这些动力传动上的弱点仍旧存在，至于说到传动系的技术水平，可以说从t34开始直到t62，除了在加工精度上略有提高以外，整个传动箱可以说是没有任何的变化
3、确实，以西方标准来说，t34的行动部分过于脆弱。以至于41年的东西恐惧症中对付t34的两个弱点中的一个就是射击履带
4、在战争中后期美国人已经可以生产出足够有效和可靠的车用柴油机，但是由于统一后勤的缘故，在美国军队中没有使用柴油推进车辆，所有安装柴油机的坦克都运到了俄国
但是战争一结束，就有大量的剩余物资被更换了柴油机并在地区热点上继续服役
性补充上更详细的资料：
著名的firefly 所用的火炮是英国制造的 17pdr ，该炮口径76mm，55倍身管，该炮的特点是药室大、镗压高，并且是第一个大量实用的发射脱壳穿甲弹的火炮，发射的APDS弹炮口初速高达3950ft/sec。其穿甲能力就纸面数据，与鼎鼎大名的 Kwk 43/ Pak 43 L71 都不相上下。俄国的85mm根本不在这个数量级上。
firefly是英国人在收到的M4A1~M4A4的基础上改造的，数量为600辆左右。
大部分的76mm M4，如前面已经介绍过的，约15000辆左右，装备的是美国造的 M1A1/M1A1C/M1A2火炮，52倍口径。该炮的性能虽然不如17pdr，也是相当不错的，发射HVAP时，穿甲能力相当于德国豹上的Kwk 42 L70，显著的高于T34上的85mm ZIS S-53 1944 L/54.6。
关于防护能力的问题，装甲的质量和有效度上，M4绝对优于T34，这个没有什么争议了。关于外形问题，请不要偷换概念！早期的T34/76确实相当低矮并且有一个形状很好的炮塔，但是T34/85有一个著名的“大脑袋”，其炮塔尺寸要比M4大，而且也根本没有什么好的”外形“！不懂的自己回去找照片来看看！两车的高度差是8英尺5英寸对9英尺，M4确实要高那么”一点点“，但是这种”尺寸“差距转换到防护能力上的效果到底有多少？
另外，M4的弹药是有水套保护的，基本上不会殉爆，这一点甚至在苏联的M4坦克手的回忆里面有着重提到，这对保护车组成员有至关重要的作用，更可以引申到”车组成员素质“方面去，也是对T34极为不利的。
长期以来不少人认为德国的火炮和坦克是最好的，苏联的也不错，美英除了飞机外都不值得一提，这种误解是很荒唐的。坦克是系统项目，和战略方针又有很大关系，不便乱评。在火炮极其弹药的制造技术上，美英在二战期间是绝对的领先者，这不光得益于资源的丰富，其冶金工业技术也是世界领先的，化学火药方面似乎也有一定的优势。德国的钢铁和机械制造业虽然工艺精良，但是缺少有色金属。而苏联人在整个火炮技术的各个方面，看不到什么明显得优势领域。
著名的firefly 所用的火炮是英国制造的 17pdr ，该炮口径76mm，55倍身管，该炮的特点是药室大、镗压高，并且是第一个大量实用的发射脱壳穿甲弹的火炮，发射的APDS弹炮口初速高达3950ft/sec。其穿甲能力就纸面数据，与鼎鼎大名的 Kwk 43/ Pak 43 L71 都不相上下。俄国的85mm根本不在这个数量级上。
firefly是英国人在收到的M4A1~M4A4的基础上改造的，数量为600辆左右。
大部分的76mm M4，如前面已经介绍过的，约15000辆左右，装备的是美国造的 M1A1/M1A1C/M1A2火炮，52倍口径。该炮的性能虽然不如17pdr，也是相当不错的，发射HVAP时，穿甲能力相当于德国豹上的Kwk 42 L70，显著的高于T34上的85mm ZIS S-53 1944 L/54.6。
关于防护能力的问题，装甲的质量和有效度上，M4绝对优于T34，这个没有什么争议了。关于外形问题，请不要偷换概念！早期的T34/76确实相当低矮并且有一个形状很好的炮塔，但是T34/85有一个著名的“大脑袋”，其炮塔尺寸要比M4大，而且也根本没有什么好的”外形“！不懂的自己回去找照片来看看！两车的高度差是8英尺5英寸对9英尺，M4确实要高那么”一点点“，但是这种”尺寸“差距转换到防护能力上的效果到底有多少？
另外，M4的弹药是有水套保护的，基本上不会殉爆，这一点甚至在苏联的M4坦克手的回忆里面有着重提到，这对保护车组成员有至关重要的作用，更可以引申到”车组成员素质“方面去，也是对T34极为不利的。
长期以来不少人认为德国的火炮和坦克是最好的，苏联的也不错，美英除了飞机外都不值得一提，这种误解是很荒唐的。坦克是系统项目，和战略方针又有很大关系，不便乱评。在火炮极其弹药的制造技术上，美英在二战期间是绝对的领先者，这不光得益于资源的丰富，其冶金工业技术也是世界领先的，化学火药方面似乎也有一定的优势。德国的钢铁和机械制造业虽然工艺精良，但是缺少有色金属。而苏联人在整个火炮技术的各个方面，看不到什么明显得优势领域。