Talk:T-34/Archive 4

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 2006-08-26 and 2007-03-10.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:T-34/Archive05. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. —Michael Z. 2008-09-30 15:22 z

---

Citation needed for driver's visibility

I'm still not able to find a reference to support the following:

Visibility from the driver's seat was also poor, with some drivers reporting that their optics were so bad they kept their hatch open slightly even in combat. Tactically, this affected the driver's ability to use terrain to their advantage, since they could not see folds in the ground as well, or have as wide a range of vision as in some other tanks.

Can someone find anything in a book evaluating or comparing the T-34 driver's visibility at all? If nothing comes up, I'll remove the paragraph. —Michael Z. 2006-08-14 17:30 Z

World's Best Tank

RE: "It was the world's best tank when the Soviet Union entered the Second World War", is this really a NPOV?

Please read over #NPOV, above. WP:NPOV states that NPOV means articles "must represent all significant views fairly and without bias". Barring the citation of a single verifiable, reliable expert's view contradicting the statement, it does represent a neutral point of view. —Michael Z. 2006-09-19 02:01 Z

This is debateable. This seems to state that it was the single best tank in the world at the time, which is untrue, as the Germans had several tanks in development that would soon reach field status, such as the Tiger. The Tiger was superior to the T-34. By the end of the war, however, it was no longer the world's best.--TelevisedRevolution 03:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Tiger tank didn't exist at the beginning of World War II (and may never have seen the light if not for the existence of the T-34). So the point is not debatable by the merit of that argument.

If you can find a source that calls the Tiger a better tank than the T-34, perhaps we could cite it in this article, although it did have several major shortcomings compared to the T-34. The T-34's technical superiority was surpassed part way through the war, but it did set the trend for everything that followed. And one might argue that an improved T-34-84 which could be produced at six times the rate of a Panther was still better overall, at least from the point of view of winning a war. Zaloga et al (1997:6) writes "although the T-34 was not equal on a one-to-one basis with the best German tanks, its durability, economy and suitability to the Soviet style of war made it a far more effective weapon than any of its German rivals. Its only real rival to the title of 'the best tank of World War 2' would be the American Sherman, for many of the same reasons." —Michael Z. 2006-10-17 06:38 Z

It was in fact the best tank in the war because it was even able to knock down Tigers - Germans used tank formations in form of a triangle and at the top of it was the Tiger.But two T 34 were pushed right towards the Tiger - they were fast and could knock it in the rear or the back where the armour was very thin.Even if one of the tanks was destroyed by the Tiger the other one managed to perform the mission as the turret and reloading were slow.

Here is an extract from one of the references provided by this wiki article: [1] (Retrieved 23 October, 2006)

It is evident from the extract that the claim for the T-34 to have been the best when the Germans invaded Russia (if that's what you mean by "outbreak of war" is somewhat doubtful. But perhaps I am wrong.

"At the end of August, [1942] a conference was held at Factory #112. It was attended by the People's Commissar for Tank Industry V.A.Malyshev, Commander of Tank and Mechanized Troops of the Red Army Ya.N.Fedorenko, and ranking members from the People's Commissariat for Armaments. In his introduction, V.A.Malyshev noted that the victory at the Battle of Kursk cost the Red Army a high price:

"Enemy tanks opened fire on ours at distances of up to 1,500 metres, while our 76 mm tank guns could destroy "Tigers" and "Panthers" at distances of only 500-600 metres. Imagine the enemy has a kilometer and a half in his hands, while we have only half a kilometer. A more powerful gun needs to be put into the T-34 quickly."

"In actual fact, the situation was significantly worse than Malyshev painted it, though attempts to correct the situation had been undertaken at the beginning of 1943"

Gk1956 02:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That would be August 1943, after the Battle of Kursk.

In the invasion of June 1941, there were no Tigers or Panthers, only Panzer II and III tanks armed with 37mm and 50mm antitank guns whose rounds literally bounced off of the T-34's front armour, and Panzer IV with short 75mm guns for antipersonnel fire. The only really effective German antitank weapon was the towed 88mm antiaircraft gun. The T-34's 76.2mm was effective against all of these.

I've changed the intro sentence to read "It was the world's best tank when the Soviet Union entered the Second World War, and although its armour and armament were surpassed by later WWII tanks, it is credited as the war's most effective, efficient and influential design." This gives a bit better idea of the context (Tiger entered service in late 1942, Panther in mid-'43). —Michael Z. 2006-10-23 03:46 Z

Thanks, that answwers the question adequately. On a different note, from a military history POV, how is it explained that the Germans were able to make such rapid and unhindered progress in 1941, if the Soviet armour was so superior to anything the Germans could throw at it? Gk1956 15:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that is mostly answered here and in the Eastern Front article. The Soviets also had something like 20,000-to-3,350 advantage in armoured vehicles. Although only 1,475 were new T-34s and KV-1s, and they were thinly distributed, most of the remainder were T-26 and BT tanks which were a good match for German equipmen. The Soviets were hindered by all of the following, usually to a very severe degree:

• Poor Soviet tank training, especially on new models, and almost complete lack of gunnery and combined-arms training
• Absence of infantry carriers making tank-infantry co-operation difficult, apart from the desperate tank desant tactic
• Two-man turrets, requiring the commander to locate targets, aim, and fire
• Poor mechanical state of older tanks and teething problems with new tanks, absence of tank transporters
• Poor Soviet resupply, especially the lack of replacement parts and recovery vehicles (factory managers had been responsible with their lives to keep up productivity figures: who would bother to make extra parts?)
• Serious lack of radios, generally only installed in company commanders' and sometimes platoon commanders' tanks
• General incompetence of the middle officer ranks, which had lost something like 40,000 during the Great Purge—the losses were slanted towards competent officers who weren't afraid to speak up, and favoured political brown-nosers who didn't understand command or tactics
• Poor Soviet strategy, including deploying on a very narrow front with no reserve
• Poor morale and mass desertion
• Recent organization of the mechanized corps, which had started forming in 1940–41
• Because of the lack of trained officers, the mechanized corps were huge organizations, difficult to coordinate, and to equip and supply up to their nominal strength, despite the huge equipment inventory

Because of several of these factors, Soviet tank units fought in choreographed set-piece fashion, as they had trained. They generally didn't use the ground to their advantage at all, and had great difficulty responding to battlefield situations, or even locating the enemy.

In the few places where Soviet units equipped with the new tanks stood up and fought, they did quite well. German tankers were shocked at the performance of the untermensch tanks which unit-level intelligence hadn't known about, and infantry became prone to panic when confronted with the seemingly invulnerable heavy KV tanks. But the strategic problems made it completely impossible for the Soviets to exploit these successes.

As the war progressed, the Soviets improved their showing in almost every one of these areas. —Michael Z. 2006-10-23 19:57 Z

Standing errors

was intended to replace both the BT tank and the T-26 infantry tank in service - wrong. There was another tank to replace T-26 in service, called T-50, in prototype - T-126. Also see the discussions in Head Military Council (Glavnyj Voennyj Sovet) about the types of tanks needed for armored force ("Zimnyaya vojna". Rabota nad oshibkami... ISBN 5-9438-1134-6, pp.85-89, 293-296). The infantry support type tank was thought still be necessary. [√ this summary is OK, details are in the article, and I added a note about the T-50 infantry tank. —Michael Z. 2006-09-26 20:18 Z]

engineer Alexander Morozov's new model V-2 engine - wrong. Morozov had nothing to do with V-2 engine. See Neizvestnyj T-34, p.23. There were another people who gave birth to this engine - Chelpan, Trashutin, Chupahin... [√ updated article —Michael Z. 2006-09-27 02:51 Z]

It also had the convertible drive of the BT tank - wrong. It had convertible drive, but of quite different type. For example, BT had steering wheels, A-20 - not. BT had 8x2 wheel formula, A-20 had 8x6. (see M.Pavlov, I.Pavlov, I.Zheltov Tanki BT, part 3, Armada No 17, p.13). [√ updated article —Michael Z. 2006-09-26 04:38 Z]

and allowed tanks to travel as fast as 100 km/h on roads - wrong. The maximum speed (on wheels) of BT tanks was 86 km/h on road. That was BT-7M. (ibid., p.48) [√ updated article —Michael Z. 2006-09-26 04:38 Z]

The second prototype, designated A-30 but shortly renamed T-32 - wrong. The prototype was designated A-32 from the very begining (Neizvestnyj T-34, p. 13), and never existed as T-32. as soon as it went to production, it got the designation T-34 (factory designation - A-34) (ibid.., p.17). [√ updated article —Michael Z. 2006-09-27 20:34 Z]

The first production tanks were completed in September 1940, completely replacing the production of the T-26, BT, and the multi-turreted T-28 medium tank - wrong. First, T-34 went in production on KhPZ, while T-26 and T-28 were produced on another plants. Second, T-26 was in production till 1941. And third, that was KV who replaced T-28 on Kirov plant, not T-34 (multiple sources). [√ updated article: T-34 replaced other tanks at KhPZ. —Michael Z. 2006-09-26 20:04 Z]

In late 1943 a second major version began production, the T-34-85 - wrong. Production of T-34/85 started in january 1944 (Neizvestnyj T-34, p.60) [√ updated article —Michael Z. 2006-09-27 21:05 Z]

To be continued. Fat yankey 04:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Some quick responses; I'll have to check my sources to address the remainder.

Regarding T-34 replacing infantry tanks and fast tanks: it should be clarified who intended what. Conservative elements in the army, notably Marshall Kulik, still felt that tanks were a fad, and were keen on the old infantry/cavalry distinction. The tank's designer, Koshkin, intended the T-34 as a 'universal tank' to replace both, and there was some support for him, as he was allowed to develop it alongside, and then instead of the A-20 fast tank. The T-50 did enter production at factories which weren't capable of building the larger medium tanks, but my impression is that it wasn't strictly used according to the old infantry tank doctrine, and production of light tanks in general were phased out, largely to be replaced in service by the T-34 and SU-76. Anyway, the total production of 63 of these vehicles doesn't represent a replacement for 12,000 T-26 infantry tanks, nor does it indicate any real commitment to the infantry tank concept.

Regarding convertible drive, this wasn't intended to mean that the A-20 had the identical mechanism, but that it had a convertible drive, like the BT tanks did. Needs clarification.

Zaloga lists the road speed of the BT-2 as 100 km/hr; subsequent models weren't as fast. Do you have contradicting sources?

Regarding T-34-85 introduction, it's quite possible that the production line started at the end of 1943, and the first tank was completed in January 1944—I have to check the sources.

According to Zaloga (1996), T-34-85 production was approved on 1943-12-15 and ordered to begin by February 1944. The "Model 1943" tanks with D-5S gun were produced in February-March, and the ZiS-S-53 started to be mounted in March. They also started to be issued to troops and saw their first action in March 1944.  —Michael Z. 2006-09-27 21:05 Z

Again, thanks for the detailed critique. Don't stop. More to follow.  —Michael Z. 2006-09-22 22:15 Z

I'll create separate discussion section to cover "intention" subject. It's complicated, and needs to be explained thoroughly. Other topics:

The documented maximum road speed (on wheels) for BT-2 was 72 km/h. That's quite an example of Zaloga's "competence". I don't know for sure, but it looks like Zaloga had found his number somewhere in Christie files, and then "deduced" BT-2 speed, given that BT-2 was a copy of one of the Christie tanks. But he never told his audience, that this is his hypothesis, not a fact.

You most likely know, that USSR had so called "planned economy". T-34-85 were included in production plan of January 1944, not before.

Fat yankey 17:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe the T-50 was intended to replace the T-26, but the problems with its unique powerplant restricted production to 60 or so examples. Source is battlefield.ru. DMorpheus 15:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It also turned out to be nearly as expensive as the T-34, but with inferior armament, armour, and off-road mobility. So the T-34 (along with the SU-76, which was cheaply manufactured in light industry) ended up replacing the infantry tank.

Regarding the intent of the T-34: I think it's clear that Koshkin was assigned to build a new fast (cavalry) tank. He put forward a superior design, which he intended to replace both BTs and infantry tanks. He managed to convince enough important people that this may be right, and it turned out to be, so that from 1940–42 the combined production of BTs and infantry tanks went from 2,255 to 48 to 15, while T-34 medium tanks ramped up from 115 to 2,800 to 12,553.

The line in the introduction is a summary of the whole story, and the details are laid out sufficiently clearly in the article. I'll add a mention of the dead-end T-50 project, so nothing will be left out. —Michael Z. 2006-09-26 18:48 Z

Can you cite a source for the BT-2's speed?

Regarding the planned economy, that's pretty vague. The factories would have to first design the production process, then retool their lines for the new tank's production, then start building new-model tanks before a tank could roll off the line. Do you think they managed to do all of this and actually build a production tank in under a month? Or wouldn't a responsible factory manager, who valued his own skin, start this process in advance, if circumstances allowed, so as to bring the first tanks off the line as soon as possible after they were authorized? Anyway, we're splitting hairs here—I'll just reword the text of the article. —Michael Z. 2006-09-26 04:12 Z

The first production tanks were completed in September 1940, completely replacing the production of the T-26, BT, and the multi-turreted T-28 medium tank—my memory is vague, but I think that may have meant that it replaced production of those tanks or components at the KhPZ. Didn't production at the STZ start later? —Michael Z. 2006-09-26 05:19 Z

Leningrad Kirov Factory No.185 made the original L-11 gun - there is a lot of confusion here. Actually, there were TWO Kirov factory in Leningrad. One was THE Kirov Factory, former Putilov works. This one had no number. The other one was former Experimental Design Department of design bureau of No 174 Factory, which became independent Experimental Mechanical Factory No 185 in 1933. It also had been named after Kirov. No 185 factory made a lot of russian experimental tanks, e.g. T-29 or T-100. In russian they spell differently - the former "Kirovskij zavod", the latter "zavod imeni Kirova". The Kirov factory WITHOUT the number made L-11 gun. [√ updated article —Michael Z. 2006-09-26 04:50 Z]

and later at Krasnoye Sormovo Factory No. 112 in Gorki - inconsistency. Before the war, there were only two designated plants for T-34 production - KhPZ and STZ. After the war started, others jojned. Sormovo was among those, which joined later, while in the text it mentioned side by side with STZ and KhPZ. [√ updated article —Michael Z. 2006-09-26 06:40 Z]

Due to a shortage of new V-2 engines, many tanks in the initial 1940 production run were equipped with the BT tank's inferior MT-17 aircraft engine - wrong. This happened in 1941, when supply of V-2 dropped because of evacuation of No75 plant (Neizvestnyj T-34, pp.40-42) [√ updated article —Michael Z. 2006-09-26 06:40 Z]

The L-11 gun did not live up to expectations, so the Grabin design bureau at Gorki Factory No. 92 designed a superior F-34 76.2mm gun. No bureaucrat would approve production, so Gorki and KhPZ started producing the gun anyway; official permission only came from Stalin's State Defence Committee after troops in the field sent back praise for the gun's performance - lol! Grabin tells a lot of fairy tales in his memoires, but this particular fairy tale was told about ANOTHER gun - 76.2 mm divisional field gun ZIS-3 (see Grabin, Oruzhie pobedy, pp.500-542). F-34 was properly accepted by "bureaucrats", and starting April 1941 all T-34 went out of the factory with F-34 gun (Neizvestnyj T-34, pp.29-30).

In 1942, a new turret design derived from the abandoned T-34M project started to be built - wrong. The new turret, though somewhat similar in shape to T-34M turret, had quite different design. T-34M had three-man turret, with commander's cupola and 1600 mm turret ring (like T-35-85 later), while 1942-turret, "gajka" ("a nut", nicknamed because looked like hexagonal nut), was two man turret with 1450 mm turret ring and initially witout cupola.Fat yankey 17:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't the Putilov/Kirovskiy works also called Factory no. 100? Only after evacuation.

From my reading, I think KhPZ started production in September 1940, STZ in early 1941, and Krasnoye Sormovo just after the war started, in July 1941. These comprise the initial production of tanks, before the evacuation was ordered, so they are mentioned here. Two paragraphs later, all the changes due to the evacuation and loss of STZ are recounted. I see from reading battlefield.ru, that it was Krasnoye Sormovo's initial production that used the MT-17 petrol engine.

Was the form of the hexagonal turret based on the T-34M's design, or developed independently. They both came from the same design bureau, so there must have been some relationship, right—improved armour layout, space efficiency, or production design? Needs clarification.

Yikes—that represents a lot of revisions. Since many of them contradict the more easily-verifiable Zaloga and other English-language works currently available, please be very careful to verify and cite very specifically facts from the Russian-language sources. Do you consider battlefield.ru to be reliable about details?

I've updated the article to address a couple of the remarks so far (checked-off, above). Please review my edits. —Michael Z. 2006-09-26 06:40 Z

According to Zaloga (1994:8), the adaptation of the F-32 to the T-34 tank started in spring 1940 and resulted in the F-34 gun by the end of 1940. The F-34 started to be built alongside the L-11 in January 1941 even though no one would approve it, and began to appear on tanks in February. He writes that the T-34 model 1941 was not officially approved until the summer of 1941—after the outbreak of the war.

Battlefield.ru writes that the L-11 was cancelled in 1939 [1940], the F-34 was tested on tanks in October 1939 [1940] and November 1940, and as a result was recommended for service.[2] [Those dates must be typos, intended to mean 1940, because they disagree with another, Russian-only page at battlefield.ru.[3]] My poor reading of the Russian-language page seems to indicate that the F-34 was only approved for the T-34 tank in July 1941 (this agrees with Zaloga), but that contrary to Grabin, the gun's earlier production had been officially allowed.

Would you check if any of these dates match what's written in Neizvestnyj T-34? —Michael Z. 2006-09-27 21:39 Z

It was the most-produced tank of the war, and the second most-produced tank of all time, after its successor, the T-54/55 series. Not quite! According to The Illustrated History of Tanks by Andy Lightbody and Joe Poyer, Publications International, Ltd., Lincolnwood, Illinois, there were a total of approximately 40,000 T-34s built during and after World War II, while there were a total of 49,230 American M-4 Sherman tanks built, all during World War II. Lyle F. Padilla, Major, Armor, US Army Reserve (Retired), lpadilla@voicenet.com 207.103.47.144 04:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Model naming

This has been discussed before at talk:T-34/Archive02#Model 1942 or 1943. Apparently official Soviet names from WWII don't correspond exactly to the prevailing model names like T-34 Model 1942, but we have yet to see a reference confirming. Zaloga writes:

It should be noted that the Red Army never had a consistent policy for designating the many sub-variants of the T-34 tank. Some Russian histories refer to the original version as the T-34 Model 1939, rather than the T-34 Model 1940 as used here, or T-34 model 1942 for the variant called T-34 Model 1943 here.

—Steven Zaloga (1994) T-34 Medium Tank 1941–45, p 19

Since this is the only thing written on the subject I've been able to find, I'll update the article to reflect this. If anyone finds any more specific information, please post here. —Michael Z. 2006-09-29 03:02 Z

The Finnish name for T-34 is sotka, which translates in Finnish into "common goldeneye" (Bucephala clangula). Its other Finnish name is "telkkä" (telkkä is western, sotka eastern name). There are various other waterfowls whose name end as "-sotka" (lapasotka, punasotka, tukkasotka etc), but those belong in genus Aythya, not Bucephala).

T-43 tank

I've expanded a recent stub about the T-43 tank prototype—please copy-edit and have a look at the talk page. I've also incorporated it here, in the T-34#Evolutionary development section. —Michael Z. 2006-10-06 05:25 Z

Tank as a symbol

How about putting this picture in the "Tank as a symbol" Section " "Rudy" wooden Mock-up tank made by unknown enthusiasts of the Czterej pancerni i pies series from Rawicz" Photo from Młody Technik (Young Technician) nr 4/1970. Somebody must have had too much spare time (and wood). Mieciu K 21:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you pasted the wrong link above. —Michael Z. 2006-10-10 15:15 Z

My fault, this link should be correct. Mieciu K 16:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Use of quotations

I just gotta say... I don't know who put the quotes in there at the start of every new topic, but they are an EXCELLENT addition. Really keeps ones attention, and adds insight to what people were thinking at the time. Pity this can't be put into more articles.

Again, awesome work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ghostalker (talk • contribs) .

Recent anonymous edits

Anonymous editor 12.72.119.116 (talk · contribs) made a series of edits, without edit summaries, which included some changes and deletions which seem to go against the consensus achieved in past edits and long discussions. I'm going to revert this for now, and then discuss some of the specifics here in detail. I think some of these changes should be incorporated. —Michael Z. 2006-10-12 00:47 Z

Edits, comments, and proposed action [please feel free to comment by adding bullet points]:

1. [4]
   1. the latter [BT tank] derived from the M1931 tank designed by J. Walter Christie
      • True, but this somewhat specific for inclusion in the intro (the T-26 was also based on a copy of the Vickers 6-Ton). I think the article should just mention that these are both foreign-derived designs. —Michael Z. 2006-10-12 00:54 Z
   2. It [A-20 prototype] adopted the sloping front armor hull design originally derived from Christie's M1931 tank
      • Actually, it was based more directly on extensive research at the KhPZ with the BT-IS and BT-SW-2 prototypes. It's probably worth mentioning some more details about the origins of the T-34's drivetrain, armour layout, superior "shell-proof" protection, and dual-purpose large-calibre gun. —Michael Z. 2006-10-12 00:54 Z
   3. The T-34 incorporated a sloped hull design for both front and side armor plates, improving its resistance to penetration by armor-piercing shells
   4. added: In particular, the T-34's sloping front and side armor reduced the effectiveness of German armor-piercing shells; smaller German antitank projectiles simply deflected or bounced off the T-34's armor plating.
   5. dropped without explanation: The emphasis in the Red Army in 1942–43 was on rebuilding the losses of 1941 and improving tactical proficiency. T-34 production increased rapidly, but the design was 'frozen'—generally, only improvements that sped production were adopted. Soviet designers were well aware of the need to correct certain deficiencies in the design, but these improvements would have cost production time and could not be adopted.
   6. By the last years of the war, the Red Army's armored forces had significantly improved operational capability, and this, combined with superiority in numbers, helped reduce losses
      • This rewrite loses one key fact directly supported by the cited reference, that Soviet tactics remained inferior. —Michael Z. 2006-10-12 00:54 Z
   7. T-34/85 tanks
      • the naming of the T-34-85 has been extensively discussed (and explained in the article—please don't remove that section); please consult the archives for the details, or discuss below. —Michael Z. 2006-10-12 00:54 Z
2. [5]
   1. Added "Overview" section heading
      • Not a bad idea, the introduction was a bit longish. —Michael Z. 2006-10-12 00:54 Z
   2. even though the majority of experienced factory workers were drafted into the army and replaced by less experienced workers
      • This edit drops specific demographic figures directly supported by the cited source. They give a clear picture of the desperation measures taken and should be retained. —Michael Z. 2006-10-12 00:54 Z
   3. After the war, the T-34 went out of large-scale production in the USSR by 1946—This edit drops the production figure of 2,701 tanks built in 1946.
   4. underwent a modernization program
      • This article is written in British English: modernisation was correct. —Michael Z. 2006-10-12 00:54 Z
3. [6]
   1. T-34#Model naming section dropped without comment
   2. Production tanks were fitted with a commander's cupola—drops a reference to the fact that the cupola was added part way through the Model 1943 production run
   3. The T-34 is often used as a symbol for the effectiveness of the Soviet counterattack against the Germans.—removed without explanation.
      • Can we explain more specifically or provide an example supporting this statement? —Michael Z. 2006-10-12 00:54 Z
4. [7]
   1. More renaming and minor copy
5. [8]
   1. more renaming
6. [9]
   1. Adds that the MT-17 gasoline engine, used as a stopgap on some T-34s, was based on the Liberty
7. [10]
   1. and some were left unpainted
      • The oft-repeated but unsupported story goes that some Stalingrad T-34s were sent into battle unpainted after the factory was surrounded: this should be mentioned, but not in a discussion of general construction standards. —Michael Z. 2006-10-12 00:54 Z
8. [11]
   1. Minor copy

Please comment on my comments. —Michael Z. 2006-10-12 00:47 Z

I've added some material from these edits:

1. overview section heading; foreign origin of previous designs; sloped armour
2. Establishing and maintaining production - unpainted tanks from STZ

 —Michael Z. 2006-10-12 01:35 Z

Protest T-34 in Budapest, Hungary

The 23rd October T-34 incident in Budapest has already gained legendary fame in Hungary, like the partiotic highwaymen of the mid-19th century. Webforums are full of topics like "uncle tank is our hero" or "uncle tank rulez".

One local news portal even made a fun flash game about it, see (click "Indi'ta's" in the lower right corner to start and you hit tables and cars while avoiding police tear gas and water cannons): http://index.hu/img/assets/politika/belfold/turul/t34.swf

195.70.32.136 16:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Western inferiority complex?

Every now and then we read that the Soviets had "inferior tactics", "poor ergonomics", "never really catch up with German designs" and other pseudo-scholarly bla-bla-bla. Any ideas as to why those superior and valliant German gentlemen were lying flat on their faces, with their sore ...sses tightly packed and handed over to them?

curious reader—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.51.183.183 (talk • contribs) .

I fail to see how long eloquences of Russian crews' inferiority contribute to article about weapon.

Mostly because the Germans were fighting on multiple fronts, the Russian one being particularly hazardous due to its climate and Russia's sheer size. Also because the Soviets had numbers and certainly not bad quality tanks. The Germans were better trained, and that's a fact.

some guy—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.60.99.253 (talk • contribs) .

The specifics matter a great deal, as does the big picture when you put it all together—some of this conventional wisdom is mythical. For example, if you read this article, you'll see that it was the Germans who had to first catch up to the Soviets in tank design. And partly because the new designs were too big and complex, they never stood a snowflake's chance in Cairo of catching up in tank production. Meanwhile, the Soviets steadily improved in tactics and training. Another false myth is that the Germans had less resources—in fact they had more than the Soviets, and started the war by depriving the Soviets of much of theirs in the first few months.

Of course, there were hundreds of other important factors. —Michael Z. 2006-11-23 05:13 Z

The Reichswehr and the Sovjet army had developed tanks together. Wandalstouring 11:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

That's another one of often-repeated but not adequately supported legends. Soviets were heavily involved in joint development of armour usage's methods with German Army pre-Nazi. Guderian, for example, studied and worked in Russia for number of years. But traces of joint development of tanks are almost non-existent. T-26 is almost CC of British Vickers 6-ton, BT series is based on Christie designs, T-28 can be considered knock-off of British development school too, tankettes were heavily based on Carden Loyd. I don't see significant influence of German school. German armour pre-Panther also doesn't look like knock-offs of Russian designs.

Significant factor: the most heavily populated and industrialized, and most agriculturally productive regions of the Soviet Union were also squarely in the path of the German invasion and most had been captured by October 1941; most of the remainder were captured by October 1942. Soviet efforts to remove entire factories and skilled labor forces to more secure eastern locations were phenomenal. - ClemsonTiger 15:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The Germans had thought about lots of things for their tanks, making them quite complicated machinery, however, repair and maintainance service were not adequate on the Eastern front. The Russian versions did work, but the requirement for this was to have a less elaborate design. Wandalstouring 11:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

T-26 Replacement

This is relevant to note #1, detaling the replacement of the T-26 as the T-50. This would be correct, but it should be considered that the T-26 was also replaced by more than 4,000 T-60s, 8,000 T-70s and T-70Ms and around 80 T-80s. JonCatalan 20:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorta true, but not in theory. The T-50 was supposed to be the only replacement in the T-26's infantry tank role, while the T-60 was intended for reconnaissance and liaison (later replaced by the T-70 and T-80), and the T-34 was planned to replace the BT tanks, but its designers made it fit for a wider role. The T-50 didn't materialize until the T-34 had clearly replaced the T-26 in practice, and shortly the infantry tank idea was out the window anyway. T-60/70/80 were more properly replacements for the T-37/T-38/T-40.

Perhaps this can be made clearer in the article, but I think it may belong in a note rather than in the main text. —Michael Z. 2007-02-03 06:02 Z

Unit conversion

I've added a comment about the recent addition of unit conversions at User talk:MJCdetroit#Unit conversion in T-34. —Michael Z. 2007-02-03 05:51 Z

Tank

Hi guys, and congrats on getting this to FA status! Notwithstanding the fact that there are only 24 hours in the day, could I ask some of the contributors to this article to help in improving the tank article as well? I had been chipping away at its problems (mainly lack of inline citations) but wasn't fast enough to avert the loss of FA status. So help would be appreciated. Cheers, 00:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Flow

Good article, but I was distracted by the "variants" section, which breaks the flow of the story with long lists and a table. Could we get those moved into a separate section at the end of the article? Zocky | picture popups 02:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

evacuation of soviet industry to ural?

there's a link about "evacuation of tank factories" that leads to a redirect which doesn't contain any information about the relevant evacuation. I'm just reading this article as it was featured, and don't have extra time to track down the correct page, but someone should probably update the link. --18.85.46.22 04:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Objection to FA

This is ridiculous. No inline citation, especially the "Importance" section looks like complete original research to me. Was FA done by sockpuppetting or internal bias within a WikiProject? (Wikimachine 04:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC))

The article has dozens and dozens of harvard-style inline citations. Raul654 04:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

We're not that original :o).--MWAK 08:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I do have to agree that the FAC appears to have been most cursory and there are dozens if not hundreds of uncited facts. I have noticed that the standards expected of an article for FA status appear to vary wildly from one to the next, and as a esult its output is most uneven. I shall be raising my concerns at the FAC page - PocklingtonDan 09:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The FA standards do not require a specific citation for every fact (nor does any Wikipedia policy require such). Christopher Parham (talk) 10:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That's right, thank god we make sure an article's punctuation is correct but not that its facts are correct - PocklingtonDan 16:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually the article was darned good until it made it to the front page. DMorpheus 17:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it's a great article; although it may be lacking somewhat in citations, putting a citation after every sentence is downright disruptive (this is the first featured article I've actually edited before it was an FA...and they even kept my sentence in the opening paragraph!) and besides, it's been a while since a military FA. Besides citation, I see no reasonable grounds for objection. Antimatter---talk--- 18:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I just went through the whole thing. The number of fact tags is silly. I could reference most of them off the top of my head but doing so will make the article unreadable. DMorpheus 19:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if the person putting all those cite tags on even bothered to check if one citation covered several previous sentences - looks like pointy tagging. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawn FAR archived here to clear template for new FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Whether it be policy or consensus, the recent trend among FAs is that most factual statements are referenced. Nonetheless, I'm deleting the "importance" section under WP:OR unless refs are provided. (Wikimachine 22:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC))

First tank to use Diesel engine

This claim is of course quite incorrect, see e.g. FCM 36.--MWAK 08:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Also see 7TP - substantiate that claim, please --Jinxs 08:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Since production of the 7TP tank was started in 1935 it seems to hold the title of the first mass produced diesel powered tank. But we can still add information thet the T-34 was one of the first tanks powered by a diesel engine. Mieciu K 10:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

After the British Matilda tank as well. GraemeLeggett 11:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

And there's the Type 95 Ha-Go, also from 1935 :o). But the claim has been removed.--MWAK 12:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I was in the process of undoing vandalism when some one else did an edit. I sem to have created an edit to a different version to the one I intended. Why does it do that? I had the offending edits in the window and was reverting back to a more appropriate version minus the vandalism. Ozdaren 11:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

quantity vs quality

I believe that quote is from Lenin and not Stalin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Plosconti (talk • contribs) 14:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

It has been credited to both, more frequently to Stalin, but I haven't yet found a really authoritative citation. DMorpheus 17:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Image

I might be missing something completely, but doesn't the tank shown in the main image (Image:T-34 kal76,2mm RB.jpg) have T39 written on it...? Time3000 16:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Tanks, even in museums, do not nomally carry their designation painted on the turret. The numbers are tactical numbers, used as radio call signs in combat. I can't quite make it out myself, but it is probably 739. Polish units did not usually use letters in their tac signs. They usually used three or four-digit numbers. DMorpheus 17:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It's on the front page, why isn't it at least semi-protected?

? -- nyenyec ☎ 18:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

See WP:NOPRO. —xyzzy_n 18:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

WTF with "citation needed?

What the heck with his "citation needed" peppered all over the text by UBeR (talk · contribs)? Of course, each and every half-sentence in each and every wikipedia article may be tagged with this label. Unless there is a reasonable doubt in the fact mentioned, I suggest to remove these overly-liberal tags, since the user didn't bother to vent his concerns in the talk page. The article is based on serious sources, not some teenager's essay. `'mikka 21:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think he's trying to make a point. Trebor 22:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

What? oh... Wait... he is trying to infer that we are unreliable. ffm ^yes? 22:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't add the citation needed tags myself but I actually agree with them, there are hundreds of uncited assertions in this article which one might reasonably doubt without being shown a cite - PocklingtonDan 08:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

As there are in most wikipedia articles. I don't think its going too far to describe the ridiculous fact-tagging as approaching vandalism, in that it tends to cast doubt on the veracity of the article. Most of the tagged statements are documented in the sources already listed on the page. If we were to add the requested citiations the article would become unreadable. If we were to apply this standard to all wiki articles we'd get nothing else done, and ALL the articles would be unreadable.

Just to lighten up a bit, can you imagine fact-tagging some of the Wehrmacht-philiac statements in, say, the Tiger II article? DMorpheus 13:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

A few comments:

1. I believe a featured article must be put to higher standards than a regular article, and this includes inline citations.
2. I have yet to see a WP article that was made unreadable because of too many inline citations. When this becomes common, it's easy to fix with a stylesheet update and/or a user preference setting.
3. It's rather unfortunate that there are currently so many "citation needed" labels in a featured article, even when some of them are justified.

-- nyenyec ☎ 15:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, for those of you have not yet done so, please read WP:V and WP:NOR. That is all. ~ UBeR 23:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Finnish nickname origins

I have a couple of sources telling a story of how the T-34 got it's nickname "Sotka" in Finland, neither of which claim the tank was named after the bird. Both mention a tank crew member named Suominen seeing the T-34 for the first time, and remarking that the long gun barrel reminded him of the long smokestack on the tugboat he worked on on Lake Ladoga before the war. The tugboat was named Sotka, and that's how the name got transferred to the tank. The books in question are "Viimeiseen mieheen" by Reino Lehväslaiho and "Itä-Karjalan valtaus 1941" by Ari Rautala. Rautala's book mentions Lauri Heino as the original source of this story.

Continued K of FA status

Yeah. So, this article is really good in how it covers a wide range of topics. But, it's lacking references & there are some POV & weasel wording. A lot of it sound like original research (i.e. this is shown by the diary of Alfred Jodl, who seems to have been taken by surprise at the appearance of the T-34 in Riga. The editor used the comments in the diary to shape his own thesis about how the tank demoralized the Germans. Rather, contributors to this article should find a scholarly article that specifically states that the Russian comeback and the successful appearance of the T-34 demoralized the German soldiers significantly. (Wikimachine 22:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC))

Grammar & English Mistakes

• when the Soviet Union entered the Second World War This sentence is illogical b/c T-34 did not become the best tank the moment Soviet Union entered the WWII. Fix suggestion: It is widely regarded to have been the world's best tank during the years of the World War II.

Your suggestion almost works. How about "It is widely regarded to have been the world's best tank during the early years of World War II." ?

Yeah. (Wikimachine 22:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC))

• although its armour and armament were surpassed by later tanks of the era, Too many passive sentences, as if the writers wanted to sound fancy. A comma is missing in the front. Fix suggestion: , although later tanks of the era surpassed the T-34 in armor and armament,

If they were "later" then the use of the term "era" is confusing.

Well, modern era. (Wikimachine 22:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC))

• Actually, delete the entire "although its armour and armement..." until the end of the sentence. It's STO (statement of the obvious). "world's best" is enough to summarize the entire set of the positive comments.
• Too many naked "it". Try to avoid using 3rd person pronouns unless absolutely necessary. Use phrases such as "T-34" "the tank" "the Soviet vehicle", etc. instead.
• Too many "was" & passive verbs. Always try to use active tense verbs.
• It was the most-produced tank of the war, and the second most-produced tank of all time, Fix suggestion: "In production volume, the T-34 ranks first among the World War II tanks, and remains second in the modern history.

Too many "thes" don't you think?

You got me there. (Wikimachine 22:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC))

• The design and construction of the tank were continuously refined during the war to improve effectiveness and decrease costs, allowing steadily greater numbers of tanks to be fielded. This could be another STO. Of course a machine's product design is always molded for the better. Of course any weapon would see any net increase in the number of active service during a war. The article should clarify on how better design led to increase in number & to what degree. "Steadily" is too vague & sounds like STO.

Not really true. For a counter-example look no further than some of the things the Germans did.

I read the rest of the article, and I see what you mean. (Wikimachine 22:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC))

• with a more powerful 85 mm gun more powerful than xxx mm gun?

STO, don't you think? The earlier 76.2mm gun is mentioned many times.

Yeah, but b/c the article's so large, you really can't expect the readers to do all that comparison by themselves. (Wikimachine 22:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC))

• and accounted for the majority of Soviet tank production. Shouldn't it be "was accounted"?

No, I don't see how that is an improvement.

"had replaced... and accounted for the majority..." In this instance, "had" applies to both "replaced" and "accounted". But, "had accounted for" is, I think (correct me if I'm wrong), incorrect . "was accounted for" should be it. (Wikimachine 22:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC))

• It was influential in the development of the late-20th-century concept of the main battle tank. Another be verb. "The T-34 made significant influence in the later development history of the main battle tank" might be better.

Your suggested change makes no sense.

Grammatically incorrect? Or unnecessary & abusive of the efforts put into the article? My English teacher told me that, in an essay (or any formal English writing), using passive voice & be verbs is bad - that is, always sound affirmative & clear w/ active voice verbs. This is like a situation where any improvement is good & it doesn't hurt you to make those improvements. (Wikimachine 22:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC))

Some of the grammar changes you are suggesting are worse than what is already in the article. I agree it could use some editing but let's make it better, not worse. DMorpheus 22:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. (Wikimachine 22:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC))

• Revolutionary design's 2nd sentence: I don't know how to phrase it, but the "light tank" business has to be weaved out because the T-26 is described as the light tank 1st, BT tanks described as cavalry tanks, and then BT tanks are described as light tanks as well. There must be some way to attribute "light tank"ness to both BT & T-26 simultaneously. Also, the number in the 1st sentence, "T-26 tanks and the BT series" kind of don't make sense. Like, comparing tanks to a series of tanks... Thanks. (Wikimachine 23:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC))
• Germany's fast advances forced the monumental evacuation of tank factories to the Ural mountains. Fast advances in what? If the sentence was in middle of a paragraph, it could be understandable, but this is a new paragraph. Being specific as much as possible is always good.
• In 1937, engineer Mikhail Koshkin was assigned by the Red Army to lead a new team to design a replacement for the BT tanks, at the Kharkiv Komintern Locomotive Plant (KhPZ) in Kharkiv. I'm thinking POV here maybe because Red Army is not really an appropriate name for the Russian military. Also, active rather than passive. "The Russian military assigned Mikhail Koshkin to lead a new team to design a replacement..." would be much better.
• The prototype tank, designated A-20, Add "as" between "designated" and "A-20".
• The prototype tank, designated A-20, was specified with 20 millimetres (0.8 in) of armour, a 45 mm (1.8 in) gun, and the new model V-2 engine, using less-flammable diesel fuel. It also had an 8×6-wheel convertible drive "was specified" is poor grammar. Rather, merge the two sentences with the verb "had" and making the description about the 8x6-wheel convertible drive as a direct object for the verb "had".
• This feature had greatly saved on maintenance and repair of the unreliable tank track of the early 1930s Greatly saved what? Let's be specific.
• The A-20 also incorporated previous research (BT-IS and BT-SW-2 projects) into sloped armour It doesn't make sense. Incorporated research into armour? Should the revision be The A-20 also incorporated the sloped armor from the previous BT-IS and BT-SW-2 research projects. (Wikimachine 00:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC))
• The second prototype Koshkin named A-32, after its 32 millimetres (1.3 in) of frontal armour. This is a sentence fragment.
• It also had a 76.2 mm (3 in) gun, and the same model V-2 diesel engine Suggestion: "The prototype had a 76.2 mm or 3 " gun, and the same V-2 diesel engine as its predecessor.
• Both were tested in field trials at Kubinka in 1939, and the heavier A-32 proved to be as mobile as the A-20. Suggestion: "Both underwent field trials at Kubinka in 1939; the A-32 proved to be mobile as much as the A-20 despite its larger mass.
• A still heavier version of the A-32 with 45 millimetres (1.8 in) of front armour and wider tracks was approved for production as the T-34. "45 millimetres of front armor and wider tracks" is wrong grammar. "was approved" ... again, too many passive verbs. (Wikimachine 23:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC))

Statistics on Citation

Shouldn't the citation be the usual <ref name=""></ref>. Let me add, sections without any citation should be deleted under WP:OR. Currently, "variants", & "other T-34-based AFVs", "T-34-based support vehicles" have absolutely no refs. (Wikimachine 02:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)) By the way, I'm really weary of people giving excuses such as "FA doesn't require that everything be cited". Of course not, but all factual statements should be cited. No excuse acceptable. (Wikimachine 22:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC))

# of References

• Revolutionary Design: 6
• Establishing and maintaining production: 8
• Evolutionary development: 4
• Cost-effectiveness: 1
• Numbers: 1
• Model naming: 2
• Tank models: 1
• Variants: 0
• Other T-34-based AFVs: 0
• T-34-based support vehicles: 0
• Table of tank models: 1
• Combat history: 5
• After World War II: 1
• Other countries: 1
• Combat effectiveness: 4
• Tank as a symbol: 4
• Importance: 3
• Surviving vehicles: 2

# of Factual Statements

• Revolutionary Design: 48
• Establishing and maintaining production: 36
• Evolutionary development: 23
• Cost-effectiveness: 5
• Numbers: 11
• Model naming: 11
• Tank models: 23
• Variants: 8
• Other T-34-based AFVs: 5
• T-34-based support vehicles: 8
• Table of tank models: 1
• Combat history: 55
• After World War II: 15
• Other countries: 3
• Combat effectiveness: 49
• Tank as a symbol: 10
• Importance: 13
• Surviving vehicles: 11

NOTE: Tables were counted as 1.

(Wikimachine 22:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC))

Citations needed over load

I don't know what or when it became ok to put so many in articles that they are either difficult to read or impossible to read. This is yet another one were someone's determination to footnote an article to death or demand that it be done has ruined the combat section (the F-86 Saber is likewise damaged). How about just noting the section instead of every sentence. If you are so frantic to contribute how about this novel idea... GET A BOOK OR TWO OUT AND CONTRIBUTE SOMETHING USEFUL and footnote it... I hear there are things called bookstores and they are loaded with decent books. For that matter there are articles in Wiki you can use. My point here is don't ruin an acticle by taking the cheap and lazy way out and demanding footnotes you are not willing to add to every sentence... sheesh!!! Tirronan 20:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree (see above). IMHO it is a thinly-disguised effort at pushing a POV. DMorpheus 22:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Are these directed at me? I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say POV but I never entered into a controversial edit. Also, that I identify problems & want them corrected is not a reason why I should correct them. The article simply should not be a FA. As for me, it's none of your business that I don't add any footnotes because I have my time concentrated in other interests right now & I admit that I'm not an expert at tanks. (Wikimachine 00:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC))

Also, a recent trend among FA has been that all factual statements are cited as to increase verifiability. Putting 1 or 2 references at end of each section is much worse in terms of verifiability because nobody knows which are sourced and which are not; therefore, vandalisms and POV edits can easily sink in & mess up the article. (Wikimachine 00:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC))

I haven't directed my comments towards anyone in particular. However I don't mind stating that running into a article and citing every sentence with {{Fact}} and then running off is pure junk editing and if you can only contribute that to an edit its close to vandalism. I don't have a POV stance and that wasn't my comment. Its just irritating as all hell when you can't read and article because of in every sentence. Its stupid its irritating and it shouldn't be done. As a matter of fact if that was you that did it here in the combat section and you don't know much about tanks and WWII perhaps you shouldn't be editing it at all. I'd sugest using your talents to making things better not junking up articles to the point they can not be enjoyed. There was a perfectly good article on the German Panther Tank that you might have read before sticking in a thoughtless here on wiki. I am not saying don't edit just edit wisely or not at all. Now that is my opinion, the problem I have here is you took and FA and junked it up and by your own admission that is a fact Tirronan 00:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't add{{fact}}, and I think having one once in a while is pretty nice. No, I'm not an expert in the article, but that doesn't mean I can't criticize. I saw this article on the front page & I was completely terrified by how terrible the conditions of the article was. This is more about precedence then editing the article within your area of expertise. I think that if I let one article slip in as FA like this, then there could be many more w/ simply stupid justifications. (Wikimachine 01:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC))

My appologies without reservation Wikimachine. I was like you horrified when I started pulling up war articles where fact was placed in virtually every sentence to the extent that the article's readbility was badly affected. No one owns a article here. I'd just note where it should be better referrenced or footnoted but no article should have to be footnoted per sentence and this one is better referenced than 90% of the articles out there. There are mistakes I caught one where the it stated that the German Panther was copied from the T-34 something that shouldn't be in there at all. However asking someone to cite sources that sloping armor is better than verticle armor or that sloping armor will deflect shot better than verticle armor is just showing ignorance on the subject. This article is absolutely stupid with {{Fact}} where any knowledge on the subject and the general referrences should be more than sufficent. If I am citing that Ziethens 1 Corp <Prussian> is at such a place at such a time and attacked with Steinmetz's 1st Brigade at Papollote I would referrence it, I might footnote it if it was contraversial but in an article this long the standard demanded might have a footnote section longer than the article. Those that consider ourselves versed on the subjects do keep tabs on them. I appologise if I got too heated its just that several articles have been ruined for all intents by someone that figured out how to use cut and paste with {{Fact}} and that gets me rather upset. The fact that now hours of my time have been spent fixing some of it while whoever did this is eating dinner and enjoying themselves after having spent 5 minutes doing it is more than irritating. Tirronan 02:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

added a couple of repetative footnotes to shut a moron up. You don't seem sorry at all... (Wikimachine 01:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC))

Previous FAR

I attempted to post the article for FAR, but found that only 15 days ago there was a FAR. I'm not sure if FAR's over yet, although a user pushed for it. I think it' still going on, but I'd like to see you guys reply on the matter first. The previous FAR was a joke. One user suggested FAR & all the rest opposed it. Why? Systemic bias. I'd like to invite several other WikiProjects to participate in the FAR. (Wikimachine 00:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC))

Explanation of my edits

Just in case some people revert my edits that have taken up precious amount of my time,

• I make mandate on the contributors to this article to adopt the reference-per-factual statement citation population.

• WP:OR: "world's best tank", "influential for the design of the main battle tank"... They're all WP:OR, and there's no way why this article should be an FA.
• Vandalism: it's really hard to keep this article clean of vandalism if you don't have a citation to verify with. Plus, you don't even know if the previous statement is true or not, and therefore a vandalous edit might look like a legitimate correction.
• Confusing to cite: There are two types of citation going on in this article. Adopt the standard <ref name=""></ref> system.

• Also, the {{fact}}'s that are in the introduction.... yes they are valid. That introduction does not need {{fact}} is void here because there are info's in the introduction that are either not referenced in the rest of the article or do not appear again.

(Wikimachine 23:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC))

sigh this is getting to be a bit much and I am going to get the military taskforce involved at this point. Tirronan 04:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, this is silly. DMorpheus 12:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikimachine, I am posting this in the hopes that you will begin to understand the position you are putting us in. Now, according to you, we have to start citation of footnotes in an introduction. As I understand it you are putting yourself up to madate your standards on the contributers of this article? I myself have added some 40 footnotes to placate you and others. (this wasn't my article even or my area of expertise) Nevermind that the article was fairly well bottom heavy with footnotes to begin with. Now even that isn't enough but that you must madate further changes. Contributers must promtly jump to your suggestions for edits? Either start contributing real work to the article (i.e. researching books and web sources) and footnote it or leave it be. No one likes a bully, and a bully that won't work while demanding it of others is a bit much. Anymore of this behavior and I will be referring you to the powers that be. Enough is enough Tirronan 17:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Construction of the other as silly and bully brings light to hypocrisy in inherent in your case. Yes, according to you, I make a mandate further improvements for the article & in result make other contributors some sort of servant to me? (Sounds like it) Look at the situation. My correction suggestions & complaints were posted... what? A month ago! And only thing that happened was Dmorpheus attacking my suggestions! For an article as terrible as this, eager want for more suggestion & help might be understandable, but, lol, some people feel so proud of this article that they don't think any further improvements are necessary. If I knew how to get the ref you used, I might even try getting the books & sourcing them page-per-page. But, YOU guys brought up the source, it would be very efficient & logical if YOU guys correct the ref. I have no idea how the page numbers divide & etc. All these behaviors I observe I'll include in future FAR (if this article does not fulfill the demands that I've put for this article to be a FA). (Wikimachine 19:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC))

You wrote: My correction suggestions & complaints were posted... what? A month ago! And only thing that happened was Dmorpheus attacking my suggestions! "Attacked" is a pejorative and the wrong word to use. Re-read the talk section above please. You come to this article, acknowledge you know little about the subject, and begin making edits anyway. Some of them were simply incorrect, as I have noted above. Some were grammatically incorrect, although you made it a point to correct others' grammar. Some were indeed improvements or could have led to improvements. But it is a bit silly for you to make judgments about what is OR in this article when you have said you're not a specialist, and your contribution record backs you up.

I am not sure why you believe *all* of your edits *must be* adopted - what's this "mandate" business? If you build consensus among the editors, your content will be adopted. If not, it won't. Your criticism and threats are unlikely to lead to a consensus favoring your proposed edits.

So let's leave the personal attacks behind, shall we, and concentrate on improving the article? DMorpheus 20:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Another construction, that I made personal attacks (where?) and "attacked" is a pejorative word (who used it 1st?) ("attacked" is fine). And as a Wikipedian, I know whether an article is an FA or not whether or not I'm expert in the field. Yes, I'm not an expert, so I can't get the sources. Why, did you try to apply the suggestions that I posted? No, not during the 30 days. It's really ironic on how you say "concentrate on improving the article" when you haven't made any efforts to do so & clearly in this discussion I'm probably the only one who is willing to spend much time on this article to either improve it to FA status or kick it out of FA. (Wikimachine 21:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC))

Check the history of this article over the last year before you tell me I've made no efforts here. Please understand that your lack of basic knowledge about AFVs is crippling your ability to make judgments about this article. Tirronan makes a good analogy below. DMorpheus 22:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I meant that my suggestions were neglected. (Wikimachine 03:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC))

Some with good reason.DMorpheus 13:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikimachine, I am not attacking you. I am asking you to see what position you are placing us in. In your sentence "I make mandate on the contributers" is a statement that really rocked me back on my heels. I am not an expert on the T-34 though that is changing in one hell of a hurry because of this article. I simply started doing Google searches on the requested and went from there. There are good books listed at the bottom of the article. I even went to the point of checking out the engineer with the automated heat treatment process. I did all that on the same web we are both using now. Please be carefull with {{Fact}} there was one after the statement that sloped armour was better than verticle armour. That is like asking for a footnote on gravity... I will explain so that you understand I am not picking on you, take a sponge and measure it verticle, cant it 45 degrees and measure it again from the same horizontal frame and it's apparent thickness has gone 1.5 times, its physics sloped armour will always be superior to verticle armour when fired at from a horizontal frame, ie one tank firing at another or one battleship firing at another. I don't agree that every single sentence has to have a footnote when a paragraph can be footnoted by a page in a book. If you are going to edit a specalist article (and this is one) then the expectations of every editor is going to rachet upwards in that field. I didn't place a footnote until I understood the subject enough to understand that it was appropriate to place it or not.

Please understand, 30 days of waiting is pretty good for not making a mandate. But, that is WP:OR. Whether or not you think that sloped armor will have higher strength against piercing missiles, you have to cite that. (Wikimachine 21:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC))

I understand your intent, and I think that intent is honorable, just understand our time is precious to us as well. I have one editor that seems to think that 3 days of my time is just the price of his ing an article 60 times in the name of better articles, he didn't spend 5 minutes doing it. So do think about how I felt pouring 3 days worth of my time fixing it. Tirronan 21:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. (Wikimachine 21:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC))

Wikimachine that isn't OR never was OR its a well understood principle of armour I just read the definition in the link, I am not nor was the author of that statement offering anything remotely new. Now as to assuming everyone will understand it that goes to verification where you have excellent grounds to complain but it isn't OR. Also please check the link provided to the subject sloped armour already in the article Tirronan 23:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, what's you guys' stance of the {{fact}} for the introduction? Don't delete {{fact}} without excuse. If adding {{fact}} everywhere is unacceptable is your answer, I added only 3~4 of them in the introduction, & they were all under valid reasons (mentioned above). I'll reinstall the previous {{fact}} as situation calls it. (Wikimachine 19:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC))

I don't think you should be editing English language articles, let alone judging the worth of a specialist article, and beyond that trying to eliminate an entire section that you are self admittedly not equipped to judge. I don't believe that introduction sections have to be footnoted as everything there is repeated and footnoted and sourced further in the article. Please never quote OR to me or anyone else again until you really understand the concept of what you are quoting please as it is painfully obvious that you don't. I have had it with this constant bickering you seem to love. This isn't a debating club and I for one do not enjoy it. From this point on either add something correctly, substantive, footnoted, and sourced, or it will be reverted. Tirronan 19:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think you should be editing English language articles Why is that?
• let alone judging the worth of a specialist article Oh... now you're a specialist. Of course I can
• to eliminate an entire section that you are self admittedly not equipped to judge Specify
• I don't believe that introduction sections have to be footnoted But the info's that I've tagged are either 1) not mentioned again in the later paragraphs, or 2) not referenced in the later paragraphs (I see that you cited some of the statements that I tagged)
• Please never quote OR to me or anyone else again until you really understand the concept of what you are quoting Not sure what I quoted or why I shouldn't
• I have had it with this constant bickering you seem to love Guess what? I've had it with the entire trend of Wikipedia where high standards are degraded by precedents like this article.
• This isn't a debating club Sorry, but I do forensic debate.
• From this point on either add something correctly, substantive, footnoted, and sourced, or it will be reverted Some hypocrisy. Declaring a revert war is not smart...

When you're done wailing, tell me what your stance is about {{fact}} in the intro. (Wikimachine 01:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC))

From this point on either add something correctly, substantive, footnoted, and sourced, or it will be reverted, that is wiki and deal with it. I told you I am not running a debating club. Tirronan 06:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

But I'm not debating. You know how debate goes? (8 min) 1AC, 1NC, 2AC, 2NC, (5 min) 1NR, 1AR, 2NR, 2AR. I don't think our discussion's shapedlike that. And I don't think you have any authority over me to dictate what is correct, substantitve, footnoted, and sourced... never mind. You don't make any sense because adding citation, or notice on lack there of, was exactly what I was doing. Stop dodging my question. What's your thoughts on the addition of in the intro? I want explanation on why they were deleted (or answers to my reply on why they were added). (Wikimachine 02:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC))

I think an introduction is a quick outline in what is already in the article and probably shouldn't be ((fact))ed but I put a few in to cover a couple of statements anyway. I'll continue footnoting where it makes sense but at this point the article is so laced with footnotes is probably going to be pretty tough justifying anymore ing of it.

As for why your edits are reverted probably has to do with removing a section out of the article when it would have been hard to have evaluated it without a fairly comprehensive understanding of armoured warfare evolution. How a British Mark IV worked and was used to a M1A1 in DS2. Hard to say or not say how a T-34 developes the move to the MBT when you don't understand WWII AFV operations. I am sure it offended more than a few but I didn't do the revert. I think probably the same applied to the on the intro but again I didn't do the revert. Perhaps you had best ask that editor as well.

I do dozens of reverts every single week. Mostly because of irrelevent additions. Adding good content to one of these articles is hard work and it takes good sources and footnotes to do it. You also need to build up some good will and perhaps you have a bit of a problem there. Stop taking things so personally take the opportunity to learn about the subject and you will be really suprised how wonderful it can be. Anyway that is just some helpful hints edit all you want but you have to respect the editors that work on the article and the way they do things or you will get reverts. Oh and for the record no more name calling ok? Tirronan 03:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Tirronan, my patient friend, you are wasting your time engaging with this disruptive troll. You had it right when you sensed all he wanted was a debate. This whole episode has nothing to do with the T-34 and indeed nothing to do with improving what was already a very good article. Any improvement would have been an accidental byproduct of what he really wants. Wikimachine is using your own honorable intentions against you. If you stop engaging in his pranks he will go away, because trolling ins't fun when no one responds.

Regards, DMorpheus 14:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)