Why not a British/US T34?

[T. A. Gardner]

One thing I will say both the Russians and Americans got right in the late 30's was that their next generation tank had to have a 75mm main gun capable of both HE and AP fire.

The Germans split the difference. Their 75mm tank was primarily HE (the 75/24). Their AP tank was the 50mm

The British were looking at a good 57mm AP round with zero HE (big mistake).

The French hadn't gone beyond their 47mm really.

So, the US and Russia got it right moreso than anyone else.

[Scott Fraser]

Originally Posted by RichardS

On the issue of tank lineage I'd do it thusly:

T-34/76 - T-34/85 - T-44

Then
T-44 - T-54 - T-55

For the US for comparison
M26 - M46 - M47

Then

M48 - M60

The reason I made the splits is that by time you reach a certain point; there is so little left from the original design that I think you HAVE to call them separate tank designs. Just my opinion and worth 1/1,000,000th of what you paid for it.

That's just it, tank design proceeded along a chronological path. The origins of the T-34 design go back through the BT to Walter Christie and the descendants continue down to the T-62. The path from Point A to B is a continuous path of incremental development that spans thirty years or more. The Christie suspension was finally replaced in the T-44, which is taken as a watershed, but to do so was the next logical improvement of the design. The stillborn T-34M was in development in 1941 to replace the T-34. During the war many aspects of the new tank were incorporated into the T-34, and by 1944 the opportunity (and need) was there to revisit the hull design. The basic T-34 design was limited in the size of the turret ring it could accommodate, a factor that restricted the caliber of the main armament. The T-44 hull was a simple and effective solution, not radically different by any stretch.

Regards
Scott Fraser

[JBark]

Originally Posted by Carl Schwamberg

The devil is in the details. I'd recomend you take a few days off and compare the T34 design work of 1938-1940 with everything else on the drawing board & prototype shop floor for the same years. My take has been only the French had anything comparable (the G1) in development those years.

I was asking about frontal armor...how this represented a quantum leap. Thanks, I don't need any days off.

[JBark]

"I read the turret was changed, i.e., not the same as that of the T-34/85. The hull was wider...not the same (it certainly appears different.) The suspension was completely different. My understanding is that the engine was turned 90 degrees...again totally different than the T-34...which can not possibly be done without other changes. I read that it necessitated, among other things, an additional reduction gear. What are creature comforts? Seats?

I hope it is realized that this is merely a tongue in cheek reply to individuals that carelessly toss around words like "retarded" when addressing the normal responses that occur on a thread like this."

The reason there is a break between these two paragraphs is that they are different subjects. The comment on a poster using the word "retarded" is not directed at you, as I should hope you know. If this is the rudeness then this is the cause for the confusion of your part. I was not intending to be rude or insulting in my remarks so try to calm down. I was also pointing out that I was not entirely serious on this vain.

Originally Posted by Scott Fraser

I don't care if you're ignorant, but kindly refrain from being rude. At the risk of stating the obvious, the US put a radial engine in the Sherman and then rearranged the engine compartment to put a diesel in the M4A2. Big deal. The turret of the 76mm tanks was completely different that the 75mm tanks, big deal. The cast upper hull of the M4 was completely different from the M4A4, big deal. The HVSS suspension was completely different than the original VVSS, big deal. Shall I go on? They were all Shermans, were they not? What's the big deal?

I'm aware of the evolution of the Sherman variants that hit the battlefields of the MTO, ETO, Eastern Front and PTO. I would consider that somewhat different than an offshoot of a cancelled variant. We can disagree on that.

Originally Posted by Scott Fraser

Who pissed in your cornflakes this morning?

There is really no need for that.

Originally Posted by Scott Fraser

The T-44 was the next incremental development of the T-34. I can find the exact number, but offhand over 70% of the parts were common. The main difference was the suspension and elimination of five hull plates, perfectly consistent with the evolution of the design.

I was just trying to get clarification on what I have read about the tank. I find your "interpretation" different from what I read.

Originally Posted by Scott Fraser

Go back to bed.

Originally Posted by Scott Fraser

Scott Fraser

Perhaps you should have had less coffee today.

[Scott Fraser]

Originally Posted by JBark

There is really no need for that.

Precisely. Your rudeness and obtuseness got the response it deserved.

Scott Fraser

[ShAA]

Originally Posted by JBark

I hope it is realized that this is merely a tongue in cheek reply to individuals that carelessly toss around words like "retarded" when addressing the normal responses that occur on a thread like this.

I suppose this comment was addressed to me, and once again you're demonstrating your primitive shell game with quotes. The comment was aimed at those people who think the superiority of one design over the other could be determined by comparing the ready products produced from entirely different materials in entirely different circumstances. Not at comparing designs per se.

[MonsterZero]

I don't know if Stalin gave blueprints but he certainly gave a complete T-34 tank (as well as a KV-1) to the United States for testing. This happened in early 1940s. The Americans tested the vehicle extensively and pointed out a lot of problems due to sloppy manufacturing techniques, things like poor quality armor, an air filter that failed to filter resulting in dust ingestion and engine damage and so forth. The Americans noted that the KV tank suspension was something they experimented with in the USA many years earlier but couldn't make it work. The Americans were very surprised the system appeared in the Soviet Union.

The American reports was a mixed verdict.

I understand Stalin learned of the report and it pissed him off because he reprimanded his tank production authorities and the Soviets actually fixed that air filter in all production vehicles delivered after the American report.

As for the reason why the American didn't simply copy the T-34 I suspect it has a lot to do with the fact that the tooling and the assembly lines were already set for making the Sherman tank. Preparing the Sherman tank production had been challenging, involving enormous manufacturing resources, thousands of technicians and billions of dollars, including government grants to automobile manufacturers for converting auto factories to tank production. The Sherman production had to go on. Even as late as 1943 the American Sherman was considered to be very good. I think only after the Normandy landings reports really started pouring in that the American vehicle was not suitable for the conditions in Western Europe.

[JBark]

Originally Posted by ShAA

I suppose this comment was addressed to me, and once again you're demonstrating your primitive shell game with quotes. The comment was aimed at those people who think the superiority of one design over the other could be determined by comparing the ready products produced from entirely different materials in entirely different circumstances. Not at comparing designs per se.

Of course it is directed at you. I don't know what shell games I play...I do play games to amuse myself here but I'm not sure if this is what you are referring to. That being said I have to restate that using the word "retarded" to refer to another poster or posters is inappropriate here IMO. I'm more than willing to compare models in the field, designs, or both. My knee jerk reaction was to simply start comparing tank to tank since the tanks on the field are a good benchmark for what the design is capable of.

[JBark]

Originally Posted by Scott Fraser

Precisely. Your rudeness and obtuseness got the response it deserved.

Scott Fraser

Scott Fraser
__________________
A contentedly cantankerous Old Fart.

Yep.

[RichardS]

Gentlemen; Get back to posting on the topic and not AT each other. We don't want Panther and Listy having to intervene do we?

[panther3485]

Originally Posted by JBark

Excellent post. I wondering though why the design is considered a quantum leap when armor was being angled on other tank designs for years. I know that angled side armor may not have been so widely used (why I don't know) but angles frontal armor was certainly not new on the T-34.

The idea of sloped armour was not new. What was new though, was the degree and extent to which sloped armour was incorporated all around the tank. Front, sides and rear. Sloping was built into the design to a level of completess and effectiveness that had simply never been approached before on a series production tank. Combine that with the wide tracks, long-travel suspension, diesel engine and outstanding (relatively, at the time of introduction) dual-purpose gun and the T-34 can, IMO, rightfully be seen as a revolutionary advance in overall design achievement.

[DogDodger]

Originally Posted by Erkki

Well then, I would have misunderstood your original message , happens at a annoying density...

No worries.

Originally Posted by Erkki

Non the less they at least tried, kind of hard to spend money on research projects when your entire economy is collapsing I suppose.

I don't know enough about the ammo stowage of Black Eagle or Nizhniy Tagil's prototype to make an informed comment, to be honest. But with the economic collapse, you're definitely right that new tank designs were not near the top of the priority list.

Originally Posted by Erkki

USSR is still around?

Oops, ha. It was early in the morning when I made that post, and my mind didn't transition quickly enough from the WW2 and Cold War talk.

Originally Posted by MonsterZero

...including government grants to automobile manufacturers for converting auto factories to tank production...

FWIW, Shermans weren't built in auto factories. Some of the tank arsenals were owned by car companies, however.

[panther3485]

Originally Posted by RichardS

Gentlemen; Get back to posting on the topic and not AT each other. We don't want Panther and Listy having to intervene do we?

... which will happen if folks keep taking pot-shots at each other.

[ShAA]

Originally Posted by JBark

Of course it is directed at you. I don't know what shell games I play...I do play games to amuse myself here but I'm not sure if this is what you are referring to. That being said I have to restate that using the word "retarded" to refer to another poster or posters is inappropriate here IMO. I'm more than willing to compare models in the field, designs, or both. My knee jerk reaction was to simply start comparing tank to tank since the tanks on the field are a good benchmark for what the design is capable of.

You have been explained in great detail by myself and a few other posters why production quality could not be used as a benchmark to determine the quality of a tank design, given the entirely different circumstances the USSR and the US found themselves in when they entered the war. Nevertheless, you still returned to this remark of mine as if no explanation had been provided. Stop beating around the bush and grow up a bit if you want any serious discussion.

[JBark]

Originally Posted by clackers

The words:

"although welds in Soviet tanks are inferior in quality and much more brittle than corresponding welds in American tanks, this condition has not been a major factor in impairing the battlefield performance of Soviet armour. Poor joint fits, sloppy appearance, jagged and rough finishes should not divert attention from the fact that the Soviet tanks are rugged and battle-worthy and require many fewer man-hours of labor, precision machine tools, jigs and fixture to construct than corresponding American tanks."

are not Zaloga's.

He quotes them from an American report, possibly, looking at the sources at the back of the book, by the Chrysler Engineering Division, the major builder of the Sherman.

What do you think now?

Sorry I missed that. For one thing it makes me feel better about Zaloga. I have to wonder about it...the wording, from Chrysler, saying the poor welding does not impair battlefield performance. How do they know this? In all I don't know what it should change...it is testimony to sloppy workmanship, bad welds are bad welds and will give out eventually.

Tell me what it sounds like to you.