But that’s exactly my point: the Soviets didn’t need the T-34-88 as a practical combat vehicle to still find it interesting. A German attempt to mount a KwK 36-derived 88 mm system into a T-34 chassis is already unusual enough from an engineering standpoint to inspect, especially postwar when everyone was studying everyone else’s solutions.
And the Maus absolutely was tested beyond pure propaganda. The Soviets recovered the V1 hull and V2 turret, assembled a complete vehicle from both, and conducted mobility and firing evaluations at Kubinka. Same thing happened with Panthers, Tigers, Jagdtigers, etc. Captured vehicles were constantly rebuilt or restored for analysis, not because they were proven frontline successes.
Also, the fact the USSR already had extensive experience with German 88s, they were probably interested in the integration itself — recoil handling, turret fitment, ammunition storage, transmission strain, crew ergonomics, reliability, etc. They could have changed things to make it fit better; and maybe a key point of by example the recoil handling.
For the captured ones: There was the Tiger n°100, captured in Leningrad, and I think a couple near Kursk (from the picture ?), and those are the only more or less ‘fonctional’ one’s; other were abandoned after being hit, or as instructed to Tiger 1 crew, put explosive inside before leaving; the crew of the 131 forgot that or it didn’t worked, giving the only perfect state of the Tiger 1. Germany actually bombed the next day the position to try to destroy it.
The first Tiger taken by the russian forces (n°100) was the one that permitted russian troups to finally understand the weakspots on the Tiger I; only at the end of '43.
PS:
The pic you gave is from the n°100;
Here is the same.
Edit: the n°100 wasn’t alone; the number 121 was tested for the armor, and the 100 was still in a single piece in the pictures because it was used to test the barrel against russian tanks.
poor guy
Just blatant lies here lmao maybe they tested its mobility but the guns were functional lmao the turret housing was damaged
Not really when it comes to the tigers and panthers in particular they are ran until they broke and not repair after that while some tanks like panzer 4s were repaired the heavier tanks weren’t
Girl no it wasn’t that’s fake it was a possible idea to fit the 100mm gun to a tiger it wasn’t worked on it was never made
Ballistic test if you prefer, i was thinking about shooting on it.
That actually supports my point more than yours. The Soviets already knew Tigers and Panthers were valuable combat vehicles from direct battlefield experience, so they tested and ran them extensively because they were proven enemy heavy tanks.
The T-34-88/K20 is completely different: there’s no comparable combat record attached to it. No reports, no confirmed engagements, no operational history. So if the Soviets refurbished or inspected it, that doesn’t automatically mean they viewed it as some successful frontline machine — it could simply have been an unusual engineering conversion worth examining.
And even with Tigers and Panthers, the Soviets still constantly recovered, repaired and evaluated vehicles for technical intelligence purposes. That’s literally how Kubinka (the shooting range) built up its collection. The fact a vehicle was studied or rebuilt is not proof it was combat-proven or even reliable.
As for the T-IV-100, my bad, I missed my shot; it was the Tiger 100 that was exposed, and the T-IV-100 was the plan of putting a 100mm inside; it was more than worked on, even accepted by high command. But when the green flag was given, it’s armor was already obsolete.
And please stop using words as “blantant lies” or “girl”. I’m not trying to ‘lie’ as you say (the only one here who said the VT-4 was never used by Thaïland is you, or that we have proof the K20 was fully operational and saw fights because “it was logic”), and I’m not your girl. It’s pretty boring. I’m just here to give my POV on the K20, and respond to your ‘wrong’ allegations.
Its one of the 2 personally I’m leaning towards half way between it would make sense if both the su88 and t34 88 were finished/ done at the same time meaning they would both be operational AND since the su88 shows combat scars it shows a chance the t34 88 was with it. I’m working off limited information like you the Soviets very clearly wouldn’t of known how to mount the 8.8 and it left German records before Kurtland was taken over by the soviets so it left
This document showing how many beutepanzers in march showing they have none BUT 4 were later going refurbishment and made operational again as shown here
Shows all beutepanzers disappear so somewhere around early April they disappeared what lines up with the German surrender in may (somewhat) lines up and to help all my previous waffle
Here from the 12 panzer Division (focused in beutepanzers) this shows they had 9 t34s in mid/late April and this helps my whole point because with the capture of Kurtland pocket we see the ss 12th Panzerdivision was disbanded what perfectly lines up (although their surrender was recorded as only having troops so somewhere along the way they abandoned their armour) with the film from Kurtland pocket showing the t34 88
You’re basically proving my point at this stage. Almost every argument you make about the K20 boils down to “it probably worked”, “it likely fought”, “documents were probably lost”, or “Germany wouldn’t have sent it otherwise”. That’s not evidence, that’s speculation stacked on speculation. Meanwhile the actual documented evidence for the K20 as a fully operational combat vehicle is inexistant as i know, and you have no proof to prove the opposite. So no, I’m not saying it was impossible — I’m saying you’re treating a barely documented late-war conversion like it’s a fully proven frontline tank, and the historical evidence simply does not support that level of certainty.
So I think i’m just loosing time trying to make you say historical facts, and I’ll let you in your complotist/degenerative/aggressive state and ignore all your response that are far from not being with the term ‘if’ or other hypothesis.
And we still agree on the most important part: none of the documents or pictures you posted actually prove that even a single one of those Beutepanzer was a T-34-88/K20 specifically. They prove Germany still operated captured T-34s and refurbished some late-war, but that’s not the same thing as proving the K20 itself was operational or fielded in combat. That’s the distinction I’ve been making from the start.
If you have any real plausible proof it saw combat, and have a confirmed kill, or even it could move by itself, I’ll respond back. But not to any other response from you.
except its a T34 ? this is the same as the french AMD with 50mm cannon
and the only difference i can find with this tank from a normal T34-85 is the cannon but its not really a upgrade its like a side grade as the regular russian 85mm is just as powerful if not slightly weaker
im all for uniquness i usually argue about it when its just blatant copy slop to another tree but this really isnt one of those cases
I don’t think the french should of gotten it 🤷♀️ I get why they did yk lack of wheeled light tank there but it’s a German mod and should be treated as such plus the Soviets don’t need a up gunned t34 they already have it it’s the t34 100 they have their unique t34 Germany should have theirs being the 88
