Yes I know this is just a silly picture of a T-90 crushing a WW2-era Panzer and I probably shouldn't take this too serious because it's just meant to be a funny joke, but I can't let your statement remain to be unanswered so who ever is interested in history should read this:
The T-34-76 lacked efficient optics or a cupola hence the tank commander lacked situational awareness. Furthermore it had only a 2-men turret (the commander was also the gunner) which means that the commander had to do both jobs shooting and spotting at the same time (unlike in the Panzers which had 3-men turrets for separated commander, gunner and loader).
T-34s operated in a disorganised fashion with little coordination, or else tended to clump together like a hen with its chicks. Individual tank commanders lacked situational awareness due to the poor vision devices and preoccupation with gunnery duties. As a result of the poor fire control factor, a tank platoon would seldom be capable of engaging separate targets, but would tend to focus on a single target selected by the platoon leader. As a result T-34 platoons lost the firepower of three independently operating tanks.
Only the company commanders' tank could be fitted with radio set, due to their expense and short supply – the rest of the other tanks in each company had to signal with flags which was a dangerous procedure in combat. Meanwhile all German Panzers had their own independent radio sets, allowing effective coordination and situational awareness for all Panzers.
The Panzer III J & L, which were the most produced versions, had the long gun barrel with increased penetrating power which delivered the same fire power as the T-34's much bigger gun. And with the APCR round (which was delivered to all Panzer platoons) the long gun could penetrate the T-34's front armor easilly.
But the Pz III L version had an additional layer of spaced armor on the front plate
(20mm + 50mm) of spaced armor, which increased the effective armor protection level and reduced the penetrating power of shells, as after penetrating the first 20 mm plate the shell would deform, break or disintegrate and shatter on impact with the inner 50 mm plate, which boosted the overall armor protection level. This means the front armor on the Panzer III L was about 80 mm effective which isn't any worse than the T-34 armor which had about 90 mm effective armor. So they both had about the same (equal) armor value, but the Panzers therefore had all the other additional advantages (independent radio, better vision, separate commander and gunner etc).
Though the T-34 is a legend due to its high production rate, low cost and reliability. And of course its sacrificing strenght and the overal reputation for winning the war. But the T-34 was clearly not "overkill" to a single Panzer III, that's just a myth. In fact it was the contrary as real combat showed, most of the times the Panzer III L or Pz IV G would "overkill" the T34's. The combat results show the Soviets lost an average of 3-4 tanks for every German Panzer lost. This doesn't seem to be quite overkill in favor of the T-34 now, does it? More like the other way around. The T-34 made up for the highest tank losses in combat in WW2 (not just on the eastern front but on any front of WW2) but of course it could allow this due to its high production and replacement rate. The entire battlefield was literally littered with countless burning T-34 wrecks. a In the end the Soviets only won with overwhelming numbers against an popressed opponent that was already fighting on 3 separate fronts against 2 other "great powers" at the same time, while its cities were being bombed and destroyed by Allied (British and American) air force bombing raids beginning from 1943 to 1945.
And now, unfortunately, we are at this point once more again. Russia is being encircled and surrounded by warmongering NATO and NWO. God damnit will people never learn from history?
tanker1408
Mr. joined
Oh. HI :D