British KV-1 and T-34

[fastmongrel]

Their V-2 engine was fine. Good to great,even.
But the Clutch/Brake system for steering was no good for 25 ton tanks, let alone the T-34 or far heavier KV. The transmission was better in the KV than the T-34, where the original 4 speed units was trash on a good day.
Problem was, the Merritt-Brown was debugged only after a couple marks of the Churchill, and that was only 350hp, not the 500+ of the V-2 diesel.
Making parts that hold up to 40+tons and the torque of a 500hp engine is not easy.

I thought the delicate transmission breaking was a KV problem. The KV transmission was developed from an old Holt artillery tractor transmission so no surprise it often ended up as a box full of broken gears. I read that simply missing a gear or not matching revs correctly could blow up the box.

 

[marathag]

MB works on Churchill and worked on Centurion so no serious problem.

After debugging. It wasn't perfect in the Churchill Mk I

 

[Belisarius II]

You guys seem to focus on American production, i asked about the british producing them ASAP.
Also in 1944, the british seriously considered producing them, at least according to soviet sources in my OP.
I think the main issue of engines and the seriously crap transmission in the KV-1 could be easily fixed by off the shelves the british already had.

Well, the problem was that the British couldn't start producing them ASAP. They were already developing their next generation tanks, and they were going in a different direction then the T-34, or KV-1. A tank is the product of a whole automotive system. Engine, transmission, drive train, suspension system, armor, gun, optics, and ergonomics. Everything about the Russian tanks was different, then what was being produced in the UK. There were good design features, like the torsion bar suspension, and well sloped armor that could be incorporated into future designs but building clones of them was completely impractical.

You can't really go by Soviet sources. Saying that the British wanted to build them is Soviet propaganda. It's saying that the British thought their tanks were inferior to Soviet designs. British thinking about what a tank should be, and how it would be used was different than what the Red Army was thinking. British tank design in WWII was heading toward the Centurian. Given a choice between a T-34/85, or a Stalin II, vs. the Centurian the British would take the Centurian anytime. In Korea, and the Middle East Wars the Centurian proved itself a better tank then their Soviet counterparts.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

This all begins in late 1941 so I don't see a British T34 happening. What does it get you that continuing with the development of the Cavalier-Cromwell tank doesn't? Certainly not enough to justify scrapping the work already done and starting from scratch.

The KV1 has possibilities. Sort out the transmission, drop in a meteor and swap the gun for a 25 Pounder and you've got the assault tank the Army thinks it needs as at the moment the Churchill is a disaster that just doesn't work.

 

[173rd LRRP]

It seems the consensus that all that UK needed for a superior tank was greatly improved armor, radio, gun, engine, transmission, and suspension.

which they finally achieved with Centaurion

 

[tonycat77]

Okay, so production of direct copies is a big no-no.
How about design influences on coming tanks?
V-2 diesel, sloped armor, big gun, etc.
Could the cromwell get sloped armor sooner? would the churchill evolve to get a torsion bar?
POD is the British get a copy of both by early 1942.

 

[cortz#9]

Interesting, I actually drew up a British T-34 a few years back using the premise that the Soviets had sent a T-34 to Britain as a goodwill gesture in 41.
I'll go thru my files and see if I can find the pic I made, the background story I wrote up for it is somewhere on the Alt-AFV thread Pt. 2 or 3 .

 

[Crueldwarf]

1. Death trap. Remember I said T-34 was basically a tracked mobile crematorium? It was almost impossible to escape when hit. The hull crew had only one escape - the driver’s hatch - which was located on the glacis. It meant it was almost impossible to bail out when hit. The turret was no better: the commander and loader had one common hatch. This was corrected on 1943 model, which also corrected the shot trap on the gun mantle. Now the gunner and loader had at least a mariginal chance to bail out. But the crew losses were staggering 87% per destroyed T-34.

It is blatantly false information.

It is actually two times lower. Chances were between 23 to 29% depending on a crew position with commander being most dangerous position while radioman (in supposedly death trap of the hull) was least dangerous. It is 1,7 crew casualty per 1 destroyed T-34. In comparison Soviet Shermans suffered 1,5 crew casualty per destroyed Sherman.

Link to a table in google doc. It contains link to the sources (but in Russian).

 

[PhilKearny]

It seems the consensus that all that UK needed for a superior tank was greatly improved armor, radio, gun, engine, transmission, and suspension.

which they finally achieved with Centaurion

Ah, yes, the UK's Centaurion, "the love-child" of the A227L Centaur and FV4003 Centurion--and a reminder to tankers of why they need to make appropriate use of protection when tanking.

A27L Cruiser Mk.VII Centaur (1943)

The A24L Cruiser centaur (L for Liberty) was closely related to the more famous Cromwell, but with a nuffield liberty engine.

www.tanks-encyclopedia.com

FV 4200 Centurion

The British Centurion is recognized as perhaps as the first Main Battle Tank, perfectly balancing mobility, firepower, and protection.

tanks-encyclopedia.com

 

[BobTheBarbarian]

In Korea, the US considered the Centurion to be a very heavy tank that was underpowered and prone to breakdowns. It was also time consuming to maintain the tracks and bogie wheels, which were cumbersome to separate and replace. Generally it was considered that the M46 was more suited to operation there than the Centurion. A brief comparison of the two vehicles can be found on page 115 of "Employment of Armor in Korea, 2nd Year" (link) They concluded the best overall tanks of the campaign were the Sherman and M24 Chaffee. (Source: Employment of Armor in Korea, Vol 1, page 2) (link)

(There is also the second volume discussing the First Year of the war from a narrative standpoint, available here: https://mcoepublic.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/library/Armorpapers/ASTUP/A-F/Committee 11 Employment of Armor in Korea_vol_2.pdf)

 

[Crowbar Six]

In Korea, the US considered the Centurion to be a very heavy tank that was underpowered and prone to breakdowns. It was also time consuming to maintain the tracks and bogie wheels, which were cumbersome to separate and replace. Generally it was considered that the M46 was more suited to operation there than the Centurion. A brief comparison of the two vehicles can be found on page 115 of "Employment of Armor in Korea, 2nd Year" (link) They concluded the best overall tanks of the campaign were the Sherman and M24 Chaffee. (Source: Employment of Armor in Korea, Vol 1, page 2) (link)

(There is also the second volume discussing the First Year of the war from a narrative standpoint, available here: https://mcoepublic.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/library/Armorpapers/ASTUP/A-F/Committee 11 Employment of Armor in Korea_vol_2.pdf)

On the other hand the Centurion was very capable and proved it could go places a mountain goat could not.

 

[BobTheBarbarian]

On the other hand the Centurion was very capable and proved it could go places a mountain goat could not.

That was true, and noted in the report. However, the Centurion's main strength, which was its abilities in anti-tank combat, couldn't be brought to bear for want of enemy tanks to fight. This, combined with the superior fuel economy and ease of maintenance of the lighter tanks, is why they were preferred for this campaign.

 

[marathag]

Generally it was considered that the M46 was more suited to operation there than the Centurion

A neighbor of mine had been a Pershing Crewman there, not a fan on the M26 that in his opinion was still terribly underpowered and unreliable, powertrain wise, and would have liked to have had the M46.

 

[Belisarius II]

A neighbor of mine had been a Pershing Crewman there, not a fan on the M26 that in his opinion was still terribly underpowered and unreliable, powertrain wise, and would have liked to have had the M46.

The M-46 was essentially an M-26, with a new engine, and powertrain.

 

[Belisarius II]

That was true, and noted in the report. However, the Centurion's main strength, which was its abilities in anti-tank combat, couldn't be brought to bear for want of enemy tanks to fight. This, combined with the superior fuel economy and ease of maintenance of the lighter tanks, is why they were preferred for this campaign.

Which is probably why the Centurion earned such an excellent reputation in the Middle East, where so much of the fighting was tank vs. tank combat.

 

[Belisarius II]

In Korea, the US considered the Centurion to be a very heavy tank that was underpowered and prone to breakdowns. It was also time consuming to maintain the tracks and bogie wheels, which were cumbersome to separate and replace. Generally it was considered that the M46 was more suited to operation there than the Centurion. A brief comparison of the two vehicles can be found on page 115 of "Employment of Armor in Korea, 2nd Year" (link) They concluded the best overall tanks of the campaign were the Sherman and M24 Chaffee. (Source: Employment of Armor in Korea, Vol 1, page 2) (link)

(There is also the second volume discussing the First Year of the war from a narrative standpoint, available here: https://mcoepublic.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/library/Armorpapers/ASTUP/A-F/Committee 11 Employment of Armor in Korea_vol_2.pdf)

Every account I've read of the Korean War had little good to say about the M-24 Chaffee. While the late model Sherman's could deal with the T-34/85, the Chaffe was hopelessly outclassed.

 

[marathag]

Every account I've read of the Korean War had little good to say about the M-24 Chaffee. While the late model Sherman's could deal with the T-34/85, the Chaffe was hopelessly outclassed.

with France, US Armor engaged targets in this proportion
Buildings and fortifications - 39%
Infantry - 16%
AFV's - 14%
AAA and artillery - 13%
Wheeled vehicles - 8%

So with Korea having far fewer chances to engage enemy AFVs after 1950, that 75mm was excellent with its HE round
It's a light tank, highly mobile and very reliable. T-34 was a medium tank, very mobile and mostly reliable
Light vs medium will always have a protection disadvantage.
However, the Chaffee could have been better for engaging medium tanks, like the T45 HVAP produced

Range	T45 HVAP 75mm	75mm M72 AP	76mm M79AP	BR-365 85mm
500	117mm	76mm	109mm	91mm
1000	97mm	63mm	82mm	83mm
1500	79mm	51mm	76mm	76mm
2000	64mm	43mm	64mm	68mm

So, that T45 HVAP makes the M6 75mm gun the equal of the others in armor penetration, and HE was better than the 76mm
For HE, the 75mm M48 HE had 1.7lbs while the Sov OU-365 85mm had 1.71 lbs of HE. the 76mm M42A1 had 0.9lbs

 

[StevoJH]

Just two random questions.

- Did the british WW2 tanks have turret baskets?
- Did the KV-1 and T-34 have turret baskets?

The Russian tanks were very agricultural.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

In defence of the M26 - the first units in Korea had been sat around in storage in Japan for some years and the first 4 were sent into combat without fan belts IIRC and had insufficiently trained crews.

Needless to say they all broke down

Very little development had been done on the M26 as the US Army rapidly downsized in the late 40s and its replacement was delayed

It was around this time that the T28/T95 super heavy tank was left in a field at Fort Belvoir and began its hide and seek champion attempt (it managed 27 years before it was rediscovered) - just as an example of what was going on in the US Army from 1948-50

So its perhaps a little unfair to blame the design for failings of its operating unit.

 

[173rd LRRP]

On the other hand the Centurion was very capable and proved it could go places a mountain goat could not.

I read a well known British account of combat in Korea. It noted that a Centurion was located in a hilltop emplacement that was mortared regularly. The tank was struck numerous times with no significant/disabling damage to vehicle or crew