Allied T-34 !!

[merlin]

It's obvious that the arrival on the Russian battlefield was a shock to the Germans. It's reasonably well known that they were tempted to copy it, but out of further study the Panther was evolved.

But, why did the Russians put up with the outdated tanks e.g. Valentine that the British were sending them!? It seems very plausible to me, that Stalin in his normal forthright manner, could have cabled Churchill complaining about the comparative standard. And for Churchill to reply requesting a couple of examples to study. But Stalin stalled on sending any in a reverse lend-lease, instead insisted that they stay in Russia but would accept a delegation to visit a tank factory and meet with the designers.

So a delegation, including Martel, was sent - before Pearl Harbor (by aircraft via the Middle-East & Persia), and began a tour of a Russian Tank factory - wasn't there one just outside Moscow? At first the British looked with derision - at the build quality, but slowly it dawned on them, the basis of the effectiveness of the T-34.

Back in Britain inter-departmental arguements erupted over what features to incorporate, who would produce it, and what would it replace. But with Churchill's backing, Britain's tank production took a qualitative leap - the Churchill tank was quickly (late '42) superceded by the Black Prince - but with a bigger engine. And after further updates of Russian tank battle experience - the Centurian made its appearance in '43.

Any ideas what effects this would have had on Anglo-German tank battles. For example in Tunisa, and especially Normandy where British armoured formations consist of Centurians, Comets and Black Princes!??

You'll notice that I have opted for an accelerated tank development, rather than a westernised T-34 design.

Comments

[Shimbo]

Surely the Western Allies were well aware that their tanks were not as powerful as German or Russian ones? There must be another reason why better tanks weren't produced?

A few possibilities:

British ideas of Infantry and Cruiser tanks having different roles held things back.

Things like the Black Prince and Centurian took time to design and make ready for manufacture even once the need was recognised.

Any tank is better than no tank and changing over production has a cost in lost production.

IIRC American doctrine called for Tank Destroyers to deal with enemy tanks.

IIRC the Sherman was as heavy as they could easily ship.

There are other factors in what makes a 'good' tank e.g cost/ease of manufacture and reliability.

Having said all that, I like the idea of British/American T-34s.

[Thande]

I don't think the Soviets would have been happy to trade away their war-winning design so easily; they wanted every card in hand to extract more Lend-Lease from the West.

Of course, the Americans also refused us permission to build our tanks in their factories (probably a good thing in the long run as the Sherman was superior to the Valentine and Matilda, and the Lee was OK) so it might have been an industrial or nationalistic thing.

[Riain]

The Western tanks were used by the SU for training, their engines were rated for 2000 running hours so they could be used for a lot longer than a t34 in rear area training roles. Tank design is a very lengthy process, even modifications take time to implement. The Sovs got it pretty right the first time with the T34, and the PzIV was capable of considerable growth. The Brits made some design mistakes which were not properly corrected, and by the time the Cent came along the war was over. The Sherman was capable of considerable growth, but the Allies were often reacting to events, the decision was made in 1942 to build 40,000 tanks to existing designs in 1943, which were used in battle in 1944, by which time the goalposts had moved and they were fighting Panthers and Tigers not PzIIIs&IVs.

[cra0422]

There were two very good reason why Allied tanks were not up to par with German tanks:

1) American and British tanks needed to be transported over water before reaching the battlefields. That's why they went primarliy with large numbers of medium tanks, lighter armored tank destroyers, and a few heavy tanks. Germany didn't have this problem (very much) so their tanks could be heavier.

2) Germany was of the mindset of emphasising quality over quantity. Tiger and Panther tanks were of higher quality than any other tank in the war, but they took MUCH longer to build than the T-34 or the Sherman, both of which could be easily mass produced and could overwhelm the Germans through sheer numbers.

[Dave Howery]

Originally Posted by cra0422

2) Germany was of the mindset of emphasising quality over quantity. Tiger and Panther tanks were of higher quality than any other tank in the war, but they took MUCH longer to build than the T-34 or the Sherman, both of which could be easily mass produced and could overwhelm the Germans through sheer numbers.

the Panther and Tiger were superior... when they worked. Both were notorious for being mechanically unreliable, at least in the first couple of years. The Sherman was undergunned, but ran pretty much all the time...

[Roddoss72]

Britain developed its armour for basically two types of roles and that correctly stated by Shimbo and that of the Cruiser and Infantry Tanks.

Cruiser Tanks were as i have read to be use in independent groups and to be use in fluid battles going from one location to another and not in massed numbers i.e they had to be flexible fast and comparitively lightly armoured.

Infantry Tanks had one purpose and that they were developed to be slow moving vehicles as they were deployed to support the Infantry (as the name implies) and again they were not intended to be deployed en mass and once again they were lightly armoured and lightly gunned.

It wasn't until the arrival of the Sherman Firefly that Britain had a potent tank killer, even the previous Sherman variants were outgunned by some of the German tanks.

[MrP]

Originally Posted by Dave Howery

the Panther and Tiger were superior... when they worked. Both were notorious for being mechanically unreliable, at least in the first couple of years. The Sherman was undergunned, but ran pretty much all the time...

Aye, buggers were a bloody nightmare to keep running. They have a reputation that far exceeds their long-term utility as a result.

Wasn't someone quoting something just the other week from Speer or someone to the effect that Hitler liked to see tanks, not spare parts for tanks? So the bally things were always insufficiently well-supplied.

[cra0422]

Originally Posted by MrP

Wasn't someone quoting something just the other week from Speer or someone to the effect that Hitler liked to see tanks, not spare parts for tanks? So the bally things were always insufficiently well-supplied.

No kidding. It wasn't just supplies. The Germans could build wonder weapons like the Me-262 Jets or the V-1 & V-2 rockets, but how many trucks did they have? The Allies had the Jeep while the Germans had over 100 models of motorcycles. By 1944, the American and British forces in Europe were fully motorized while the Germans had 650,000 horses to invade Russia.

[Ghostlance]

While the German tanks were in fact superior to U.S. and U.K. tanks the Russians did have parity in armor,even after the introduction of Tiger/Panther combo. The introduction of some key elements of Soviet tank design would have been extremely useful(ie.Diesel engines,wider tracks) but Stalin never would have went for a licence built copy of T-34 series,as he did think the Western Allies would be the next enemies of USSR post-war.

As for American tank design it sprang from the fact that Cavalry officers
ran the dev program and wanted a fast tank,therefore foregoing heavier armor/gun combo's.by and large most Western Allied were junk. Sherman's were even known as Ronson's as they tended to burn at the drop of a hat.
The Western tank design didnt catch up to the USSR until they got German help post-war with several designers coming to the states.

And while a Allied T-34 would drastically improve the Armor Div's effectiveness they didnt really fit the way US/UK Armor forces were used.

[Riain]

The M26 and Centurion, both of which were ready in 1945 were as good as, if not better than German tanks, but it is a knock-on effect with a few variables thrown in. The Sovs have a particular requirement for their tanks, which led the the T34 which is bigger than western tanks, and had sloped armour and a big gun as a result. This caused the Panther to have these things, and the Panther caused the introduction of heavy tanks in the West.

[merlin]

Some interesting feedback.

Yes I know about the division of British tanks into two classes - Infantry & Cruiser. Which is why I opted for accelerated development, rather than an Anglo T-34.
There was already a relationship between the British and Russian military regarding armour. It was seeing what the Russians achieved with the Christie suspension, that got the British to import it from the US (as tractor parts) for the Cruiser tank designs. So, I do not see any fundamental reason, why Stalin couldn't have agreed and indeed suggested the further sharing of information on tank design.
1, He needed the West to be successful against Germany.
2, I am sure, I have read of British tanks being encounted, in action, by the Germans; so the Russians would benefit from a kick start in western tank capabilities.
Granted later, he might have been more guarded e.g. not mentioning upgunning from 76mm to 85mm gin.
The T-34 was not a heavy tank, for that the Russians had the KV series. What it was, was fast, hard hiting, and (with its sloping armour) well protected.
Unfortunately, decisions in warfare aren't always made with the right motive. This especially applies to British tank development - the Matilda 1 was produced on the basis of cost - i.e. treasury not military need ruled, witness the time it took to get the 2 pdr gun replaced by the 6 pdr!
But with the right 'kick up the backside' it could have been done better.
And it is all very well saying, about how we out produced the Germans with the Sherman etc. But what about the poor guys who had to fight (and die) in them!?

[The Dean]

Originally Posted by Thande

I don't think the Soviets would have been happy to trade away their war-winning design so easily

No that is a British specialty with the Nene jet engine, cavity magnatron, Frisch-Peieris memorandum...... no I can't go on it's too depressing.

[The Dean]

Originally Posted by Ghostlance

Sherman's were even known as Ronson's as they tended to burn at the drop of a hat.

That was referring to Ronson's advertising slogan "get a Ronson they light up first time every time!" Unfortunately they did.
The other name they got from the Werhmacht was "The Tommycooker"

[Matt]

Originally Posted by The Dean

That was referring to Ronson's advertising slogan "get a Ronson they light up first time every time!" Unfortunately they did.
The other name they got from the Werhmacht was "The Tommycooker"

That in particular was a fault of the gasoline engines that the A3 Shermans had. The A2 had diesel engines, but the US Army made decision to simplify its supply chain by reducing its dependence on diesel. They pawned them off on the Marines, and the Russians (ironically enough) who did not have this problem.

[Tyr]

Hey, don't diss the valentine.
It was quite a good tank. As said it was a quantity over quality vehicle, it was very easy to build.

[Riain]

Keep mind that it took WW2 to shake out the roles and doctrines for armour. For most of the war armies were stuck with AFVs developed with untested interwar doctrines in mind. Also it takes about 4 years, give or take, to bring a tank design into mass production and combat. So by the time the Allies had worked out what it was that armour was going to do they didn't have enough time to bring into service appropriate designs.

[Redbeard]

Actually the Valentine was popular in Soviet service as it provided them with a reliable, agile and well protected vehicle well suited for training or escorting the cumbersome heavy Soviet types (KV,JS, ASU).

The 2 pdr. on the Valentine was as good as the 45mm on light Soviet tanks and was provided with HE.

The M4 in Soviet service was diesel powered and wasn't significantly ahead ot behind the T34. It had a three man turret, which was a big advantage, but the stowage of ammo high in the hull sides made it vulnerable until wet stowage was introduced (IIRC in 1944). The T34 did have a lower profile though and lower ground pressure, but didn't have a commander's cupola until 1943, and radios were long between. Large numbers of M4s were in Soviet service and were well liked, IIRC the entire 5th Guards Army was equipped with M4s in 1944-45.

Concerning reliablity the early T34s and KVs had serious problems, especially with transmissions, you would often see T34s or KVs going into battle with an extra transmission strapped onto the hull!

A T34 in allied service would have required some heavy alternations, first of all a petrol engine for logistic reasons (logisticians allways having more to say in the allied armies than most others). As an allied I would also hesitate to give up a three man turret, and no way be without plenty of radios. The T34/85 of mid 1944 did have a three man tuurret, but the 76mm armed M4s could match it, especially the Easy8.

All in all I would prefer to introduce the wet stowage in the M4 from the start, it after all was a quite simple but effective solution and need not have the M4 be any later.

But of course the question remains if a more effective tank could have been in service earlier - we discussed that some months ago:

http://www.alternatehistory.com/disc...ad.php?t=58352

Regards

Steffen Redbeard