AHC: British produced T-34

[marathag]

Thats a better hole puncher than the US 75mm - although the US 75mm was a more useful gun overall which is why the British adapted their Cromwells and later Churchills with the Ordnance QF 75mm as they found better HE was preferred to better AP - which is perhaps your point?

On the subject of the T34/76 it was not that good of a tank - the later /85 addressed many of the issues but the Panzer III while 'on paper' appears to be inferior was actually a better tank than the T34/76 - and coupled with then better crews the panzers had resulted in the German tank dominating the Russian one.

Back to the OP - how long would it take to stand up production of the T34? 2 years? By that time the British have the Cromwell, later Churchill and access to US production of the excellent Sherman as well as the M10 and subsequent TDs - all in fairly large numbers

Biggest problem with UK construction is the loading gauge

You may be able to knock 5" off each side with narrower tracks and roadwheels, plus eliminating the Fenders. That makes the ground pressure worse, but around what the existing skinny track cruisers ran at, so not much lost.

For engine, will take too long to work up building the V-2 engine, so are looking at doing the Meteor sooner or some other converted inline Aero engine.

The six speed Wilson gearbox from the Matilda could be used, though would need a very different final drive ratio to get the speed up to what the suspension is capable of handling.

The real problem of the early T-34, besides the reliability, was lack of radios, and even when equipped, sets that can both transmit and receive short range for inter platoon coms, and longer range for talking back to HQ.

Per British practice, the Turret will need to be larger to fit the radio gear, and maybe squeeze in the 5th man. easy way is to make the turret walls closer to vertical.

Now let's talk hatches and vision devices.
Neither the Soviets or British were good about this, but that was just atrociously bad on the T-34. When buttoned up, almost no outside visibility.

UK Tankers would find this out very quickly.

 

[Aber]

After seeing the T-34, and US plans for their M4 design, the British realize they can build such a tank.

Production started in November 1941



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_tank

 

[alexmilman]

Pretty sure the biggest advantage of the T-34 is that there were 85,000 of them built (though some may have been remanufactured multiple times), not that the tank itself was particularly brilliant.

It was that and the fact that due to the simplistic construction it was not taking a lot of time to train the crews. T-34 had a lot of flaws but it must be kept in mind that it was built for a special purpose, fighting a battle. If you know that the tank is not going to last beyond a month or two, it does not make sense to make it excessively sophisticated or even to deal with the known imperfections because doing that would just complicate its production. Unless, of course, the issues are impacting performance. The gun was upgraded to deal with the better armor of the German Panthers and Tigers and, IIRC, there were some improvements in the engine, carburetor, etc.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

In basic concept the T34 was a great tank for 1940. In 1943 it was aged in comparison to the new T20...T26 design of the US, or Centurion prototype in Britain.

As it was the Red Army accepted US M4 tanks and asked for more.

Even with the two man turret and Christie suspension? The Soviets were planning on the T-34M upgrade in 1941 due to all of the problems of the core design.

 

[marathag]

Even with the two man turret and Christie suspension? The Soviets were planning on the T-34M upgrade in 1941 due to all of the problems of the core design.

Well, Canada was making Valentines thru 1943, and that's even with more core problems than the T-34/76.

 

[tomo pauk]

Even with the two man turret and Christie suspension? The Soviets were planning on the T-34M upgrade in 1941 due to all of the problems of the core design.

I'm not sure why people are bashing Christie suspension. Yes, it was not the best thing after canned beer, but it served the purpose, even in 1990s on T-34-85s.

 

[riggerrob]

WI Massey-Harris is tooling up the build British cruiser tanks with Christie suspension?
Canadians are stunned by all the little, hand-fitted parts. They immediately look at ways to simplify production. The simplification process begins with replacing most rivets with welds. They also apply their experience to make systems farmer-proof. Yes
General Worthington keeps insisting on larger gun.
Meanwhile, a Canadian ??? tours Manchurian battlefields and interviews a few survivors.
Even more amazing! Another Canadian gets sneak peak inside the first T34 factory.
They share their observations with General Worthington and Massey-Harris ......

 

[Deleted member 1487]

I'm not sure why people are bashing Christie suspension. Yes, it was not the best thing after canned beer, but it served the purpose, even in 1990s on T-34-85s.

The Chieftan had a lot of bad stuff to say about it. Plus the Soviets themselves wanted to abandon it in 1941.

Well, Canada was making Valentines thru 1943, and that's even with more core problems than the T-34/76.

Wasn't it an infantry tank that was used in a different role than the T-34?

 

[hipper]

one big problem, that effected design of UK armor
T-34/76 1941
Width 9 ft 10 in

Churchill Tank Width 10 ft 8 in

how did they manage? (they only moved the tanks on the parts of the network with the widest gauges)

 

[marathag]

The Chieftan had a lot of bad stuff to say about it. Plus the Soviets themselves wanted to abandon it in 1941.


Wasn't it an infantry tank that was used in a different role than the T-34?

The biggest of the core problem, an Infantry tank with no HE till late in it's life, and at that point, a two man crew in a cramped turret.

Christie suspension gives you a lot of travel. More than a single torsion bar. Downsides is when there are no included dampers/shock absorbers.

Coils are easier to make than torsion bars, but take up more hull volume on the sides of the hull- and worse as supported weight is increased, than torsion bars do on the floor of the hull. Slightly worse to work on than torsion bars

Trade-offs.

Soviets were able to debug torsion bars with the SMK heavy tank before the war. It's a learning curve, and metallurgy isn't easy either, got to give them credit.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

There were worse engines in the Cruiser tanks than Liberty, to the point that several thousands of tanks were deemed unfit for combat.



German Pz-III with short 5cm was not dominating the T-34. If that was the case, we wouldn't see the Pz-III & -IV 'specials' (with long guns), Tiger I, II, Panther and whole series of SP AT guns.
The video, while well researched, does not point out anythig that it was known known decades ago - German medium tanks were noted for their user-friendly ness and reliability (even by the Soviets in ww2), while the T-34 was noted for it's dual-purpose cannon, good armor and maneuverability.
What the video fails to note was that tanks were not just used to fight other tanks, but also infatry in open and in fortified positions, and AT guns. The main German AT gun of 1941, 37mm, will struggle to harm T-34 at ranges greater than 100m, while the T-34 stand a good chance to harm it with it's HE shell. OTOH, the Soviet 45mm will stand good chance to kill Pz-III, while 5cm HE shell is not as dangerous, apart from direct hit. Let's recall that Soviets produced more than 100,000 76.2mm cannons, that will play havoc with Pz-III of any kind, and 5cm was no answer for those. That was acknowledged by Germans as such, and the last Pz-III version got the short 75mm.



A 'very high standard' of production was noted also on German tanks. That does not excuse Western tanks of their failings/shortcomings, that each of those had. Many of those were not actually produced per 'very high standard' of production either.

Long gunned Pz's were not just because of the T34s but the KV, Matildas and even the French B1 that the Germans had come up against.

The idea that we would not see a rapid development of German tanks while everyone else did is never going to happen

 

[elkarlo]

Pretty sure the biggest advantage of the T-34 is that there were 85,000 of them built (though some may have been remanufactured multiple times), not that the tank itself was particularly brilliant.

Problem is its early versions didn't do well in the heat.
The turrets were also cramped. Which made actually fighting out of them difficult . Hard to sight and command a tank from such a small turret

 

[Father Maryland]

Seen a secondary source the Brits inquired about purchasing Soviet made tanks, for use in Egypt. This is placed in very early 1941. If this is correct then the T34 may have been evaluated then vs later. More likely would be BT series tanks.

The US received a T34 & KV tank for evaluation in 1943. A translation of a Soviet army officers report on this evaluation can be found on line. The US engineers description is not favorable. Among other things the engine was a obsolecent design & the air filter worthess, The transmission badly built, serious manufactoring flaws were noted in the armor. The wide tracks we're favored.

In basic concept the T34 was a great tank for 1940. In 1943 it was aged in comparison to the new T20...T26 design of the US, or Centurion prototype in Britain.

As it was the Red Army accepted US M4 tanks and asked for more.

I'm surprised the Soviets would have any extra tanks to purchase in 1941.

 

[Not James Stockdale]

I only see the British taking design cues from the T-34 regarding the "heavy cruiser" tanks. Maybe the alt-Cromwell ends up with wider tracks, sloped hull sponsons, a sloped hull front, and a sloped turret. The interior design and "fightability" of the T-34 was atrocious even by British standards and a five man crew is mandatory.

As far as the gun goes, a reverse-engineered British T-34 would probably start out with a 6 pdr or US 75 mm gun in the 2-man turret and move to a 77 mm HV in a subsequent 3-man turret. Experience with the 17 pdr in the Firefly shows us why such work and such guns should be left to tank destroyers.

One of the T-34's best assets was its 500 hp diesel, which was significantly more powerful than almost anything the Western Allies were making in that size range. However, the preponderance of gas-fueled armored vehicles in the British and American armies would probably point towards the Meteor as the engine if choice.

 

[Bad@logic]

The US received a T34 & KV tank for evaluation in 1943. A translation of a Soviet army officers report on this evaluation can be found on line. The US engineers description is not favorable. Among other things the engine was a obsolecent design & the air filter worthess, The transmission badly built, serious manufactoring flaws were noted in the armor. The wide tracks we're favored.

Not all fault lies with the Soviets for the evaluation of the T-34 and its defects at Arlington.... the Americans did some rather elementary mistakes like not oiling an air filter which required oil. That oil filter had been replaced in 1942 anyway, so the British didn't see the earlier version.

[/quote]In basic concept the T34 was a great tank for 1940. In 1943 it was aged in comparison to the new T20...T26 design of the US, or Centurion prototype in Britain.[/quote]
This is a falty comparison. The T34 was not a 1943 tank, so of course it does not compare well to the later designs. The correct comparison would be to Soviet projects like the T-44, or any of the extremely long host of other Soviet tank projects. If we were to compare the T-44 to 1940 tank designs from the Americans or particularly the British, they too would not come off looking well. As it stood, the T-34 was able to continue to be used from 1940-1945 in light of its upgrades, when the Panzer IV (from an earlier design period of course) was clearly reaching its obsolescence towards the end of the war, while the Sherman and the British mediums in particular entered substantially later.

As it was the Red Army accepted US M4 tanks and asked for more.

Of course, the M4 was an excellent tank, but that doesn't say that the T-34 was a bad one. I'm sure Soviet Armies also asked for more T-34s...

T-34 is a modified USA design rejected by US Army. So instead of or in addition to, have the UK also build this design after paying an American a small licensing fee.

Frankly this is an extremely bizarre claim. The T-34 is not a US design, although it does incorporate some US derived innovations such as the Christie transmission. It is a purely Soviet designed and built vehicle. It would be the equivalent of saying the Abrams is a German vehicle because it has a 120mm gun from the Germans.

 

[Dorknought]

I'm not sure the Brits can learn much off the KV, just keep building Churchills. They wre also well aware of the Christie design having bought on in the mid 30's that developed into the Cruiser Mk IV:

 

[tomo pauk]

The Chieftan had a lot of bad stuff to say about it. Plus the Soviets themselves wanted to abandon it in 1941.


Wasn't it an infantry tank that was used in a different role than the T-34?

Again, I never said that Christie suspension was the best thing around, just that it did it's job well. It takes up the volume at the sides of the hull, contrary to the torsion bar suspension that takes up volume at the bottom of the hull, while not allowing bottom escape hatch. Both for the Soviet designers and manufacturers, Christie suspension was a known thing, that has it's advantages when one makes 350 000 sets of suspensions within just 4 years, plus another 500 000 for another 6 years.

Christie suspension worked well also in the Bristish tanks that used it.

Long gunned Pz's were not just because of the T34s but the KV, Matildas and even the French B1 that the Germans had come up against.

The idea that we would not see a rapid development of German tanks while everyone else did is never going to happen

I have no quarrels about that, bar reiterating that thing of 5cm not being that good vs. non-AFV targets, and Pz-III being vulnerable to any AT gun it went against.
BTW - let's recall that we will not see a British tank that can beat the Pz-III in it's game (= user-friendliness and reliability) until Cromwell is around. So just because Germans have the nifty Pz-III, it does not mean that British have it, too.

I'm not sure the Brits can learn much off the KV, just keep building Churchills. They wre also well aware of the Christie design having bought on in the mid 30's that developed into the Cruiser Mk IV:

What Churchill was equal to what KV? Granted, armor is there, but engine and gun are not.

 

[Ramontxo]

The proposed British T 34 would never got an diesel engine as the Wallies earmarked them for Navy use, landing crafts and the like (yes I know some Shermans got the General Motors Diesel but they were the exception to the rule)

 

[BlondieBC]

Not all fault lies with the Soviets for the evaluation of the T-34 and its defects at Arlington.... the Americans did some rather elementary mistakes like not oiling an air filter which required oil. That oil filter had been replaced in 1942 anyway, so the British didn't see the earlier version.

In basic concept the T34 was a great tank for 1940. In 1943 it was aged in comparison to the new T20...T26 design of the US, or Centurion prototype in Britain.[/quote]
This is a falty comparison. The T34 was not a 1943 tank, so of course it does not compare well to the later designs. The correct comparison would be to Soviet projects like the T-44, or any of the extremely long host of other Soviet tank projects. If we were to compare the T-44 to 1940 tank designs from the Americans or particularly the British, they too would not come off looking well. As it stood, the T-34 was able to continue to be used from 1940-1945 in light of its upgrades, when the Panzer IV (from an earlier design period of course) was clearly reaching its obsolescence towards the end of the war, while the Sherman and the British mediums in particular entered substantially later.


Of course, the M4 was an excellent tank, but that doesn't say that the T-34 was a bad one. I'm sure Soviet Armies also asked for more T-34s...


Frankly this is an extremely bizarre claim. The T-34 is not a US design, although it does incorporate some US derived innovations such as the Christie transmission. It is a purely Soviet designed and built vehicle. It would be the equivalent of saying the Abrams is a German vehicle because it has a 120mm gun from the Germans.[/QUOTE]

Its not bizarre. You can still start with the same USA design idea, then go to UK development. It can use whatever UK gun you want, and you get the equivalent gun.

You have the scenario backwards on the Abrams. Instead of building a local tank, the Germans take the Abrams blueprints a few years before OTL Abrams comes out. The Germans build a tank that is mostly Abrams, but instead changes a few things like using a German gun. They call it the Leopard II. It would be like saying the Leopard II is a American design.

 

[Triune Kingdom]

Well, I was thniking more along the lines that the British get their hands on T-34 as early as possible, very early in 1942, thus increasing the chances of its adoption, since it would be either comparable or better to what the British have in service, and M4s have not yet entered production, thus removing them as a possible obstacle to adoption of T-34.

When I started this thread I meant full adoption of the T-34, barring minor modifications, not British using it to improve their already existing or planned designs.