AHC: British produced T-34
- Thread starter Triune Kingdom
- Start date
-
- Tags
- british soviet union t-34 tank ww2
In comparison to the tanks fighting in 1941 it had better arranged armor, better speed/mobility, larger cannon. The S35 may have had better armor & better low speed mobility, but it lacked speed and the cannon was much smaller, like the others.
In terms of quality construction there was a difference between the the T34 built previous to June 1941 & after. Quality declined rapidly as the emergency need ramped up. The T34 that impressed the Germans was a 'prewar' model.
In terms of general design concept we are back to the problem of era. Most of the others I mentioned date back to the early to mid 1930s in design. I've seen claims the PzKw III was originally laid out in the 1920s Reichwehr era. This places the T34 in the 'next generation' so to speak. Its design was worked up circa 1938-39. Tho some would argue its derivation from the BT series makes it a early 1930s tank. I'll pass on that one.
marathag
Banned
BT-SV 'Turtle' 1937 25mm armor on BT-7 hull. The designer, Tsyganov was shot in the '38 purge. He died, but his angled armor idea lived on
BT-20/A-20 1939
A-32 1939
These were competing designs, with improvements leading to the T-34 of 1940
I see the icon and I know your remark was intended as tongue in cheek but as one whose father saw service in 1939, 1940 and 1941 across five countries on three continents losing many comrades and having brought up my children in a city which had it's entire city centre destroyed and in a house surrounded by bomb site replacement buildings not to mention a mother who had to flee across the Mediterranean as a refugee I do find the remark thoughtless and offensive.US Entry. Wasn't really WWII till then
First thing to get a British T34 esq tank, don't let Nuffield put the Liberty in the Crusader, tell him to use Kestrels. Second install a larger turret ring in the crusader. 3rd double the armour. 4th ditch the auxiliary mg turret and have a normal bow gunner. 5th give it a 25pdr gun.
In terms of performance Christie suspension can have as good or better performance over rough terrain as any suspension system with the exception of hydrogas and hydropneumatic, with greater reliability. Its inaccessibility for maintenance and volume taken up in the hull were the only big disadvantages of the suspension layout. The Merkava uses Christie suspension, but mounted externally with shock absorbers to eliminate the main problems with it, and by all accounts it is a very reliable and effective suspension.
That was a gasoline engine, though (designed to be superior to the Merlin while being about the same size and displacement). Diesels like the Detroit Diesel Series 71 or V-2 are preferable in that case.
I don't know about the GAA, but the GG (the aero V12 design from which it was derived, most of this information can be found by Googling "ford GG v12") ran sometime in 1941, probably would have passed acceptance and been produced in quantity by 1943 if given priority.
marathag
Banned
Ford had big plans in 1941 for that V-12. Turbo-supercharging and direct injection
https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1941/1941 - 2687.html
Deleted member 1487
Maybe for light tanks, but on the heavier stuff it couldn't work without modifications that would basically make it something different. Also the Merkava uses Helical Spring suspension, which is more related to Sherman tanks suspension than Christie and is used because it offers effectively additional armor, as the main feature of the Merkava is crew protection.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkava
Christie suspension also had the problem of loose tracks, which were thrown pretty easily and the cross country performance was much inferior to torsion suspension systems. Maintenance/repair is every bit as bad if not worse than the interweaves torsion suspension of the later German tanks.
Let's say a British Mission goes to the USSR looking for way to improve the Britisth tank park. The soviets tell them they have no tanks to spare, but they'll provide detailed plans. The British start complaining about all the faults in the T34 and a Russian engineer says "Not those plans, the ones for the improved T34M we were going to build before the invasion."
So the British go home with all theT34M goodies in late 41 and use them as the base for a new tank with a meteor engine, a 17pdr and slopped armor for service entry in 1943.
Much later british posters in AH.com claim it was undoubtly the best tank of WW2 and owed nothing to soviet influence.
So the British go home with all theT34M goodies in late 41 and use them as the base for a new tank with a meteor engine, a 17pdr and slopped armor for service entry in 1943.
Much later british posters in AH.com claim it was undoubtly the best tank of WW2 and owed nothing to soviet influence.
Helical spring suspension (at least the Merkava's) is Christie suspension, mounted externally rather than internally. It has no relation to the suspension on Sherman tanks except that it is mounted externally.
https://imgur.com/gallery/QSg03
https://aw.my.com/en/forum/showthread.php?30831-Merkava/page7
The cross country performance was not inferior to torsion bar suspension, and loose tracks are not inherent to Christie suspension (they were also used on all Soviet medium tanks up to the 1st T-54 prototype with torsion bars, and not used on the Comet with Christie). Those properties had nothing to do with its replacement by torsion bars.
That was due to a number of factors, the better weight distribution of front-transmission tanks, the overlapping road wheels in the Panther and Tiger, and the presence of shock absorbers, none inherent to Christie suspension. The Cromwell and Merkava used shock absorbers with their suspensions and had good stability, and the T-44 had torsion bars that had no significant performance differences over the preceding Christie suspension (they took up less space, though, and the better weight distribution of the T-44 itself improved stability).
Deleted member 1487
If Christie suspension were so great and could have been modified to have to all the above, including external mounting for extra armor, why did only the British and Soviets use it during WW2 and then dump it ASAP? The interweaved road wheel/torsion bar suspension was abandoned due to better access to metals that could handle weight without breaking and the willingness to accept a rougher ride rather than deal the complexities of the system. That and having better gunnery stabilizing systems and computers which made firing on the move more practical without relying on suspension systems.
BTW the US did not accept the Christie system BECAUSE it was an inferior cross country system and worked best on roads.
Because no one mounted it externally, so its space requirements inside the hull and its maintenance difficulties remained unsolvable. This necessitated its replacement. The Israelis finally did mount it externally on the Merkava and use it to this day.
No, the US rejected it due to the aforementioned problems, as well as it not having return rollers at the time and Christie being a pain to work with. On cross-country it worked fine.
marathag
Banned
The whole Christie system, with the roadwheel being driven to allow trackless running,
really wasn't needed, as was the extreme track pitch.
But trailing arms and coil springs?
No problem with that, and I believe Christie used the internal spring boxes for the coils, as that's what he patented. More money for him. Doing a Merkava with external springs would have worked too, and no reason return rollers couldn't have been used as well
Glyndwr01
Banned
The best 1940's suspension is the Horstmann suspension.The whole Christie system, with the roadwheel being driven to allow trackless running,
really wasn't needed, as was the extreme track pitch.
But trailing arms and coil springs?
No problem with that, and I believe Christie used the internal spring boxes for the coils, as that's what he patented. More money for him. Doing a Merkava with external springs would have worked too, and no reason return rollers couldn't have been used as well
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horstmann_suspension
marathag
Banned
Had advantages, and disadvantages, like every other type.
Cons.
limited suspension travel vs other types
Pros
easy to work on
IMO, the best 1940s suspension is the Belleville Stack planned to be used on the German E-Series, and postwar on some Swiss tanks.
It was cheap, easy to make- and needing no special alloys, good amount of travel and had inherent damping, and took far less space than coil springs