T34 armor - was it really that awesome?

[chosen40k]

So was the revolutionary sloped armor of the T34 really that amazing? What German guns could penetrate it? 88? 75? What about American guns (Korean War)?

Thank You.

[Red_Stinger]

Well, basically, the T34 was merely invulnerable to everything in '41. At that point germans realized that they badly needed to improve their AT weapons.
With the introduction of the PzIVF2 equipped with a 75mm long-barreled gun in march 1942, the germans ended the domination of the T34.

The sloped armor of the T34 mean that, if someone try to shoot at you with a wrong angle of fire, his shell will deflect with relatively small damage on the armor itself.
Sloped armor proved to be very useful at long range, where you cant really aim at a weak spot.

By 1942, and to the end of the war, most germans AT weapons could penetrate the T34's armor.
Also, most (if not all) american gun could pierce it at the time of the Korean War: improved ammunition and caliber definitly made the T34 useless.

[IJoe]

Considering the idea of sloped armor itself, it was, in fact, revolutionary, since it proved to be, at average, about 100% percent more effective than the non-sloped one, meaning you could have the same effect with less weight and spend a lot less resources to produce a vehicle.
Was the t-34's armor all that good? Compared to what? It was definitely a whole lot better than any other of the time the tank was introduced.

[Paciat]

Was the t-34's armor all that good? Compared to what? It was definitely a whole lot better than any other of the time the tank was introduced.

Well said. It was good just like PzIVD wa in 1939, PzIVF2 in 1942 or the Panther in 1944 (without mechanical problems).
T-34 gun was never as accurate as German guns. Thats also why Soviet tanks fired while on the move.

[IJoe]

Was the t-34's armor all that good? Compared to what? It was definitely a whole lot better than any other of the time the tank was introduced.

Well said. It was good just like PzIVD wa in 1939, PzIVF2 in 1942 or the Panther in 1944 (without mechanical problems).
T-34 gun was never as accurate as German guns. Thats also why Soviet tanks fired while on the move.

Early versions of t-34/76 didn't have an aim compensation system. So, in fact, they had to make a brief stop during the move-on in order to fire (for aiming purposes). The problem, however, was solved in later models.

[Red_Stinger]

Soviet T34 began to fire on the move when the heavy germans tanks appeared to be invulnerable at long range. Soviets didnt wanted to fire at a target if it was ineffective. With the introduction of better gun/ammunition/optics, they re-started to take their time. 

t was definitely a whole lot better than any other of the time the tank was introduced.

Well, it could have been, if Stalin didnt purged experienced and capable commanders/scientific.
It was planned to build a new version with a three man turret, new optics, radio, and better engine (all the composant that make the T34 hardly reliable), but this newer version was delayed and never entered production due to the german invasion.
This tank would have been a truly formidable tank, even throughout the entire war.
The primary version, the T34/76, was indeed very good individually compared to german panzers, but was ineffective grouped against grouped panzer. The lack of radio and commanders able to coordinate efforts made them somewhat useless.

[IJoe]

^^ Don't misuse my words in your comments, dude, - I was talking specifically about the armor.

[Red_Stinger]

^^ Don't misuse my words in your comments, dude, - I was talking specifically about the armor.

My bad, sorry then! 

[Paciat]

^^ Don't misuse my words in your comments, dude, - I was talking specifically about the armor.

Do small vision slicks that gave T-34 very limited visibility count as a armor flaw? It was the armor that was blocking the vision.

[IJoe]

Do small vision slicks that gave T-34 very limited visibility count as a armor flaw? It was the armor that was blocking the vision.

No, they don't. Not in this case, since my answer was strongly related to the topic, as I see it, and that means, I was talking about the deflecting, and overall protecting capabilities of the armor.

[Paciat]

So in short it gave good protection but it wasnt awsome nor amazing. Accually even tanks like Matilda I had similar armor protection.
The british Matilda A1 light tank
KV armor was far better than any other tank. Its the mix of armor, firepower, mobility and cheapness that made T-34 amazing.

[IJoe]

^^ absolutely right.

[Jeff 'Robotnik' W.]

the t34 had 45mm of sloping armor, compare to the 80mm or so that the panther had. it was good at the start of the war, but soon lost its invulnerability as mentioned earlier


also, like all sloped armor it suffered from the effects of overmatching, which is when a sell with a larger diameter than the thickness of sloped armor hits, it basically reduces the effective armor protection the slope offers. this can be seen with panthers being penetrated by shells from the IS2 or isu152, which had significantly larger shells in terms of diameter

[RedGuard]

It was superior to its american and british counterparts.

Only thing the t34 struggled against were tanks that outclassed it, tonnage specifically. in which case were mismatches anyway.

big tanks target for big guns

[Sovereign]

T34 is overrated albeit it was superior to most all other tanks during its prime time not because of it being powerful in terms of firepower (the T34 mind you not any of the later models) it was because it made the best use of deflection in its design through the cosine rule:
TL= TN
      cos θ
Wherein TL: Line of sight thickness TN: Normal thickness and θ: Angle of the sloped armour plate from the vertical

       
In layman's terms, sloped armored tanks trump non sloped tanks