Kit Reviews AFV Club 1/35 Soviet T34/76 (1942-43 Factory 183) with interior and Eduard detailing

Indeed.
Must run in extreme cold, extreme heat, easy to fix, and with a life expectancy of days/weeks.
I'm sure @Smeggers will be well aware of this as he assembles the beast - it cannot be 'perfect' as none of them WERE perfect ex factory!
IIRC, at the first oil change at 100kms, they'd expect to find a kilo or so of swarf in the filters.
I saw a feature on a teardown of a Ural bike engine that had broken down. Once they pulled the crankcase apart, it was rotten with swarf. This was a modern build from the 2000s.
 
Certainly the Soviets were not to concerned with perfection the quality of the builds can only be thought of as rustic, when researching my JS II build I came across a number of photos that show just how much perfection did not matter when welding or the casts.
Many years ago, I attended a Defence show at Farnborough. After looking over lots of lovely shiny, iconic planes of the day, I arrived at the Flogger. My God, I'm no aeronautical engineer, but it looked like it had been assembled by chimps and painted by blind, left-handed (no offence!) when they were actually right handed, blind village idiots.

And this was the one they put on international display! I was truly amazed at the poor workmanship on show.
 

Smeggers

ADC
Moderator
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Many years ago, I attended a Defence show at Farnborough. After looking over lots of lovely shiny, iconic planes of the day, I arrived at the Flogger. My God, I'm no aeronautical engineer, but it looked like it had been assembled by chimps and painted by blind, left-handed (no offence!) when they were actually right handed, blind village idiots.

And this was the one they put on international display! I was truly amazed at the poor workmanship on show.
Must have been the same one at the Farnborough air show! Paint looked like it had been thrown at it, with runs and streaks; two screws near the canopy were standing proud and one of the wheels was showing canvas through what was very obviously black paint! If this was the might of the Soviet Air Force, then Malta only needs one Gladiator to defend it!
 
Certainly the Soviets were not to concerned with perfection the quality of the builds can only be thought of as rustic, when researching my JS II build I came across a number of photos that show just how much perfection did not matter when welding or the casts.

View attachment 619700

The Haynes manual is one of the best I have seen - a huge amount of information.

It also explains why the T-34 was so much cheaper and faster to build than the Panther. By concentrating on the essentials and ignoring the cosmetic stuff (welds etc) the Soviets could knock out something like 20+ T-34s in the time it took to make a Panther.

In contrast a Panther would be held on the production line for a day or more while a bloke went round the tool and stowage boxes with an angle grinder or similar, grinding all the weld lines flush with the surface and making sure all the hinges opened and closed smoothly...

Apparently it offended German engineering sensibilities to allow shoddy work to pass inspection...

The more I read about German over-engineering of weapons in WW2 the more I understand about why they lost.
 

Smeggers

ADC
Moderator
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Certainly the Soviets were not to concerned with perfection the quality of the builds can only be thought of as rustic, when researching my JS II build I came across a number of photos that show just how much perfection did not matter when welding or the casts.

View attachment 619700
Who cares what it looks like, as long as it can do the job eh?
 
The Haynes manual is one of the best I have seen - a huge amount of information.

It also explains why the T-34 was so much cheaper and faster to build than the Panther. By concentrating on the essentials and ignoring the cosmetic stuff (welds etc) the Soviets could knock out something like 20+ T-34s in the time it took to make a Panther.

In contrast a Panther would be held on the production line for a day or more while a bloke went round the tool and stowage boxes with an angle grinder or similar, grinding all the weld lines flush with the surface and making sure all the hinges opened and closed smoothly...

Apparently it offended German engineering sensibilities to allow shoddy work to pass inspection...

The more I read about German over-engineering of weapons in WW2 the more I understand about why they lost.

The other side of that coin is that I did read somewhere that up to 30% of T34's wouldn't start when they came off the production line.
Apparently teams of mechanics were fettling them as they came out of the factory
 
The Haynes manual is one of the best I have seen - a huge amount of information.

It also explains why the T-34 was so much cheaper and faster to build than the Panther. By concentrating on the essentials and ignoring the cosmetic stuff (welds etc) the Soviets could knock out something like 20+ T-34s in the time it took to make a Panther.

In contrast a Panther would be held on the production line for a day or more while a bloke went round the tool and stowage boxes with an angle grinder or similar, grinding all the weld lines flush with the surface and making sure all the hinges opened and closed smoothly...

Apparently it offended German engineering sensibilities to allow shoddy work to pass inspection...

The more I read about German over-engineering of weapons in WW2 the more I understand about why they lost.
Yet they still sent out Panthers with chocolate final drives. The mechs got so good at changing them out, they got it down to a matter of hours, but it must have been a considerable pain in the hole to have to do it.
 
Many years ago, I attended a Defence show at Farnborough. After looking over lots of lovely shiny, iconic planes of the day, I arrived at the Flogger. My God, I'm no aeronautical engineer, but it looked like it had been assembled by chimps and painted by blind, left-handed (no offence!) when they were actually right handed, blind village idiots.

And this was the one they put on international display! I was truly amazed at the poor workmanship on show.
Aside/
There’s a Buran orbiter in the Technik museum in Speyer, the construction of which is straight out of the 50s, and not in a ‘futuristic shiny Sci-Fi prop’ way, but in a ‘built in a country with no natural resources by tractor mechanics’ way.
Thread/
I always liked the look of the Panzer IV, but having watched ’The Chieftain’ wriggling in and out I’ve decided I don’t really want one.
 

NSP

LE
Who cares what it looks like, as long as it can do the job eh?
I've read accounts from the height of the Moscow campaign where crews that managed to abandon their wrecks would leg it back through their lines and straight into a new T-34, rushed up so fast from the factory that they were unpainted or wearing just the primer coat, and be back in combat within a couple of hours. Rinse and repeat. As said earlier, why expend resources and time making it pretty when it was expected to be in flames in less time than the average RFC replacement pilot in WWI...?
 
There was also a fear factor for the CO of a tank unit because too many "losses" of operational hulls could get him a visit from the NKVD. When a tank was out of action for any reason, it was listed as a "loss",ie, loss of service to the Unit and the Army by extension, so every effort was made to keep tanks operational, even if all they could do was move under their own power. Tanks were only considered lost in the Western sense when they were burnt out or blown to bits (to the point of being beyond overhaul) or demonstrably unable to be retrieved from the field.
 

Smeggers

ADC
Moderator
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Day off today, so I spent the time gluing the straps for holding the "ice weather bars" in place. 16 of these we feckers and about a thousand fixing points to glue in. The spare track, or what there was of it, was also fixed in as were the PE tops to the equipment fans either side of the tank. Hinges and latches, also in PE, were added at this time. I've modelled the driver's hatch in the upright position so that the driver's position can be viewed.
IMG_20211206_211602.jpg

side view of the upper hull showing both engine hatch and driver's hatch open.

I'll spend tomorrow priming all the exposed metalwork and then spray on an undercover of Yellow Olive before a topcoat of Russian Uniform Green.
Started working on the turret and it's components. Obviously the most important of these is the 76mum with CO-axial 7.62mm machine gun. The gun breech assembly is straightforward with no great dramas fitting it all together. I did have to drill out the periscope slots on each side, then test-fitting the periscopes a couple of times before I got a decent fit. All equipment for the turret was fitted as per the instructions booklet, but a new range adjuster wheel needed to be sourced as the one supplied had a deformed side to it. A donor part was sourced from an Afrika Korps 88mm AA Gun. These items all seem to come from a generic mould as they do not seem to change at all.

IMG_20211206_211617.jpg

side view of the gun breech with co-axial mg. The gun barrel is to the right and is included in the kit.

At this time, the lower hull is complete save for the Driver figure. The upper hull will need a few extras added to it before I'm happy with it. The turret has four tiny little lifting eyes to fix in. Four are supplied, and as sure as poo stinks, the first one sprung out of the tweezers to become yet another victim of the carpet monster! A new one has been made from 0.3mm wire and stuck in place. I wanted some relaxed looking tank crew for this build and finally found this one from MB. I think one of two may be used.
IMG_20211206_221214.jpg

That's it for tonight, more tomorrow hopefully.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20211206_211351.jpg
    IMG_20211206_211351.jpg
    618 KB · Views: 16

Chef

LE
I've read accounts from the height of the Moscow campaign where crews that managed to abandon their wrecks would leg it back through their lines and straight into a new T-34, rushed up so fast from the factory that they were unpainted or wearing just the primer coat, and be back in combat within a couple of hours. Rinse and repeat. As said earlier, why expend resources and time making it pretty when it was expected to be in flames in less time than the average RFC replacement pilot in WWI...?
In the authoritative tomes on the eastern front by the historian Sven Hassel, Obergerfreiter Josef Porta notes that when the German tankies lose a wagon they end up as infantry. Whereas their Russian counterpart is put in a new tank having learned a bit more about staying alive and dangerous.
 

theoriginalphantom

MIA
Book Reviewer
Must have been the same one at the Farnborough air show! Paint looked like it had been thrown at it, with runs and streaks; two screws near the canopy were standing proud and one of the wheels was showing canvas through what was very obviously black paint! If this was the might of the Soviet Air Force, then Malta only needs one Gladiator to defend it!

maybe it was a cunning bluff, it was made from spare parts and all the rest were perfect.


(maybe not)
 

NSP

LE
In the authoritative tomes on the eastern front by the historian Sven Hassel, Obergerfreiter Josef Porta notes that when the German tankies lose a wagon they end up as infantry. Whereas their Russian counterpart is put in a new tank having learned a bit more about staying alive and dangerous.
I was thinking more of Anthony Beavor, et al. Bearing in mind that the Russian tank factories were a lot closer to the front than the German ones during the Moscow campaign and the Russians could move trainloads of tanks to the front without the hassle of being attacked by those pesky partisans...

There are also accounts that T-34s were driven by their crews, unpainted and without rubber tyres on the road wheels, straight off the STZ production line and into combat as the Germans tightened the noose on Stalingrad, before production ceased due to - well - ze Germanz...

Nizhny Tagil was the most prolific producer followed by Nizhny Novgorod (the closest plant to Moscow). Although Chelyabinsk is regarded as the epicentre of tank production ("Tankograd") it only managed to turn out a little over five thousand T-34s.
 
Last edited:
maybe it was a cunning bluff, it was made from spare parts and all the rest were perfect.


(maybe not)
Don't ever look at an Antonov-12 up close. They routinely look like they've just escaped from a warzone and canvas showing on the tyres is normal jogging. It's actually down to the design of the tyres, which were dual-purpose grass/dirt/tarmac tyres and designed to wear until they see a red paint line and scrap the tyres. Not designed like Western tyres.
 

Chef

LE
I was thinking more of Anthony Beavor, et al. Bearing in mind that the Russian tank factories were a lot closer to the front than the German ones during the Moscow campaign and the Russians could move trainloads of tanks to the front without the hassle of being attacked by those pesky partisans...

There are also accounts that T-34s were driven by their crews, unpainted and without rubber tyres on the road wheels, straight off the STZ production line and into combat as the Germans tightened the noose on Stalingrad, before production ceased due to - well - ze Germanz...

Nizhny Tagil was the most prolific producer followed by Nizhny Novgorod (the closest plant to Moscow). Although Chelyabinsk is regarded as the epicentre of tank production ("Tankograd") it only managed to turn out a little over five thousand T-34s.
I knew of the 'straight off the production line and into battle' stories, although somewhere on these pages is discussed as to how that would work; I'd want my tank bombed and fuelled up before going to battle, so where did they keep those items in the factory. But I digress.

It was more that having gone to the time and expense of training up tank crews the Germans often ended up using them as infantry as there were no replacement wagons for them to crew. The Russian crewman would get a new tank and have survived and learned something new.

Tankograd I didn't know about. I guess the Russian propaganda machine still works.
 
Panzer crew were only used as infantry as a last resort. They had other skills that the basic soldier didn't so they would be pulled back to the rear echelon to refit as soon as possible. It was common for crew to help with track changes and reloading and so on.
 

NSP

LE
Tankograd I didn't know about. I guess the Russian propaganda machine still works.
Chelyabinsk was churning out other stuff as well as T-34s - the IS and SU/ISU types and Katyusha, for example.
 

Latest Threads

Top