German T-34?

[Carl Schwamberger]

Back to the G34

We are digressing.

Consider: The Germans see the T34 in July 1941. Assume they instatly decide to 'copy' it. There still must be some modifications for German production, but assume the overall copy is verbatim in basic feature. So, best case production starts in the spring of 1942, with a German L24 75mm gun to save time?

Also, are all the other tanks in production canceled to build the maximum number of G34? Or does some sort of production and development of the Pz III & IV continue?

Spring of 1942 was about the time the Red Army was starting studies for replacement of the prewar T34 design. They did come up some some better models, but instead up grades the T34 with a new turret/gin combination. So, in 1943 we see the Red Army running a tank chassis nearing obsolesence with a up to date gun/turret.

Does the German army follow this course, fitting a long 75mm gun of their design aboard, or attempt to switch production yet again to something with more poteintial for 1944-45?

Note: there are claims the Brits, in January 1941 inquired with the USSR about purchasing some of their modern tanks for use in Africa. Taking this down the rabbit hole, what are the Germans to think when the find T34 wrecks in the Western Desert in March or May 1941?

 

[Redbeard]

Have read the thread and enjoyed all the very interesting stuff brought forward, not at least about engines - thanks

Especially one thing caught my eye, I think it was Marathag who posted it: the diesel onboard the T34 only having a 100 hour average lifetime!

That is new to me and would appear contradictionary to any claim of the T34 being a reliable tank. A standard motormarch from a railhead to the front and you would end with clapped out engines!

I know of the transmission problems of the KV1 and early T34 (often having extra transmissions strapped to the back) but also having en extra engine on the back would be taking it a bit too far.

Marathag do you have any additional info on the subject?

Anyway, even with a more reliable engine I think copying the T34 would have been a bad idea, by 1941/42 it wasn't that modern a design any longer and it anyway was designed to an entirely different production culture. It's like serving hotdogs in a French gourmet restaurant.

The Panther did have som issues when hasted into service, but AFAIR wasn't that expensive to produce compared to PzIV and much cheaper than the Tiger.

The issue of not copying somthing designed by "racially inferior" might have had influence, but it couldn't have been all important. After all the Germans build a straight out copy of the 120mm heavy mortar (IMHO one of the most brilliant pieces of weaponry ever made!) and happily included all kinds of captured eguipment.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Have read the thread and enjoyed all the very interesting stuff brought forward, not at least about engines - thanks

Especially one thing caught my eye, I think it was Marathag who posted it: the diesel onboard the T34 only having a 100 hour average lifetime!

That is new to me and would appear contradictionary to any claim of the T34 being a reliable tank. A standard motormarch from a railhead to the front and you would end with clapped out engines!

I know of the transmission problems of the KV1 and early T34 (often having extra transmissions strapped to the back) but also having en extra engine on the back would be taking it a bit too far.

Marathag do you have any additional info on the subject?

Anyway, even with a more reliable engine I think copying the T34 would have been a bad idea, by 1941/42 it wasn't that modern a design any longer and it anyway was designed to an entirely different production culture. It's like serving hotdogs in a French gourmet restaurant.

The Panther did have som issues when hasted into service, but AFAIR wasn't that expensive to produce compared to PzIV and much cheaper than the Tiger.

The issue of not copying somthing designed by "racially inferior" might have had influence, but it couldn't have been all important. After all the Germans build a straight out copy of the 120mm heavy mortar (IMHO one of the most brilliant pieces of weaponry ever made!) and happily included all kinds of captured eguipment.

http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html

 

[marathag]

The opposed piston engine isnt suitable for a tank. Junkers aero engines and Deltic railway loco, and marine engines work at mostly constant revs and are started and carefully warmed before use which suits the opposed piston layout. This isnt what happens to a tank engine which spends long times switched off whilst the tank runs off the auxillary power unit

US used radial engines, also designed for constant speed, and had a tiny APU for battery charging and such. Yes, oil would drain to the lower cylinders to the point where the engine would lock.

To me, an easier way would have been to use the APU to also keep the block warm.

For coldweather and opposed piston engines, you have the Swedes and the S-Tank with the RR K60

The L60 was hamstrung by the NATO requirement to run on any fuel available. The idea was that varying the crankshaft timing would alter the compression to allow anything to be used. Multi fuel was a crap idea and by the time they realised it was too late the Cheiftain had been built round the engine. Other nations learnt from the problems we had and just ignored the multi fuel policy.

Needed to do that did the L60 no favors. Multi-fuel wasn't even used that often on the M1, and turbines are the friendliest to multi-fuel.

 

[sonofpegasus]

IIRC There was a story how veteren Red Army tank crews would hold onto there old T34 by hook or by crook because the arlier ones were not only better built but the steel used was of a better quality.

 

[marathag]

Especially one thing caught my eye, I think it was Marathag who posted it: the diesel onboard the T34 only having a 100 hour average lifetime!

That is new to me and would appear contradictionary to any claim of the T34 being a reliable tank. A standard motormarch from a railhead to the front and you would end with clapped out engines!

They had real trouble with reliability with that at first, air filters was a large part of it, but aluminum is flexy, and thats one reason the Germans changed from the original aluminum block Maybach to cast iron, for reliability.

The engines produced during the first years and until about 1943, didn’t come with a lifetime as expected. Normally, the engine should be able to run for 100h without issues. But due to material and quality issues the engines often didn’t came that far. Continuous improvements during the war increased the life time of the engine constantly to values of 300h and beyond.

http://www.kampfpanzer.de/propulsion/v-2

 

[Redbeard]

http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html

That is indeed an interesting link with a worthy analysis - thanks

If this goes on even the Covenanter will end up appearing like a decent tank

 

[Redbeard]

They had real trouble with reliability with that at first, air filters was a large part of it, but aluminum is flexy, and thats one reason the Germans changed from the original aluminum block Maybach to cast iron, for reliability.

The engines produced during the first years and until about 1943, didn’t come with a lifetime as expected. Normally, the engine should be able to run for 100h without issues. But due to material and quality issues the engines often didn’t came that far. Continuous improvements during the war increased the life time of the engine constantly to values of 300h and beyond.

http://www.kampfpanzer.de/propulsion/v-2

Thanks, very interesting. The discussions are fun, but the access being provided to all the colletive knowledge and analysis is the real worth of this board

 

[fastmongrel]

US used radial engines, also designed for constant speed, and had a tiny APU for battery charging and such. Yes, oil would drain to the lower cylinders to the point where the engine would lock.

The radial tank engines had to be hand cranked before starting to make sure no oil had collected in the bottom cylinders. I dont know if there was a decompressor to help clear out any oil but there must have been some mechanism.

An opposed piston engine cant have a decompressor as it uses piston controlled ports in the cylinder walls. if a cylinder has its pistons on the compression stroke with the ports covered there is no way of getting the oil out.

 

[Bad@logic]

http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html

http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/p/christos.html

 

[kalamona]

http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/p/christos.html

Hm, cute.
"I am interested in finding out how the Germans bypassed elementary geometry and made sloped armour that does not limit space." Well, there is a reason, why tank designers usually have to bypass elementary training. And while i understand, that net internal volume is somewhat fuzzy to define, it exists.

Lot of "mobbing" in the article, not to mention the style witch i hate with a passion, have a few points, but generally speaking, bollocks.

 

[marathag]

The radial tank engines had to be hand cranked before starting to make sure no oil had collected in the bottom cylinders. I dont know if there was a decompressor to help clear out any oil but there must have been some mechanism.

Spark plugs

I heard they would 'bump' the electric starter, wait, and repeat.
If it didn't 'sound' right, out came the hand crank, and removing bottom plugs if needed.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html

The author pays lip service to operational losses and the lack of crew training as factors but then dismisses them as unimportant without any evidence as to why that is. I'm not unreceptive to arguments that the T-34 was inferior to its contemporaries from and ergonomic and target acquisition perspective (and the problems with production quality are fairly well-documented from what I've read) but people who attempt to prove the point by citing loss ratios as though weapon systems operate in a void unaffected by the greater strategic situation in which combat takes place aren't proving anything.

 

[hx87]

The author pays lip service to operational losses and the lack of crew training as factors but then dismisses them as unimportant without any evidence as to why that is. I'm not unreceptive to arguments that the T-34 was inferior to its contemporaries from and ergonomic and target acquisition perspective (and the problems with production quality are fairly well-documented from what I've read) but people who attempt to prove the point by citing loss ratios as though weapon systems operate in a void unaffected by the greater strategic situation in which combat takes place aren't proving anything.

Didn't this guy also diss the T-72 due to crappy KD ratios in the Gulf War? I'd wager a properly crewed contemporary Soviet model would be an even match for the M1A1.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

Didn't this guy also diss the T-72 due to crappy KD ratios in the Gulf War? I'd wager a properly crewed contemporary Soviet model would be an even match for the M1A1.

Well, it is true that the T-72s utilized by the Iraqis were downgraded monkey models or even crappier local copies there-of. However, even what capability these offered was completely undermined by the Iraqis mind-boggling incompetence to the point that one of Schwarzkopf's staff officers later remarked that you could have switched the two sides equipment entirely and the results would have been little different.

 

[marathag]

Didn't this guy also diss the T-72 due to crappy KD ratios in the Gulf War? I'd wager a properly crewed contemporary Soviet model would be an even match for the M1A1.

It's always the fault of the low grade export 'Monkey Models', or the poor crews in them, hmm?

Never the design?

 

[ObssesedNuker]

It's always the fault of the low grade export 'Monkey Models', or the poor crews in them, hmm?

Never the design?

As the old saying goes: it is a poor user who blames his tools. Or if you prefer something attributable, there is Chuck Yeager's "It's the man, not the machine."

 

[Kome]

The issue of not copying somthing designed by "racially inferior" might have had influence, but it couldn't have been all important. After all the Germans build a straight out copy of the 120mm heavy mortar (IMHO one of the most brilliant pieces of weaponry ever made!) and happily included all kinds of captured eguipment.

Bigger issue, has anyone found a way to adequately solve the identification issues yet?

Letsee, you get a report that Soviets are operating in the area and your being assigned to provide overwatch for retreating forces. Unfortuantely losses mean that your AT battery is being crewed only by new reserves. Now is that platoon of T-34's cresting the ridge racially inferior or glorious German steel?

Alternatively your bomber only has a narrow window of opportunity to decide whether to drop the bombs on what you think is your target, or to abort to prevent bombing friendlies.

This was already an issue for all sides during the war with captured equipment or otherwise. I don't see how flat out copying the same tank as your biggest enemy is going to make it any easier. Sure, experienced soldiers might be a bit more perceptive, but we're already hemorrhaging experienced soldiers like it's going out of style and their replacements are more likely to shoot first and ask questions later.

From a technical point of view it might have some merit (it's a fine tank, but other posters have raised the point that a copied T-34 would potentially be out of date by the time we could get it into service), but from a field point of view it's a bit difficult to work with. And I think Germany realized that already OTL. Captured tanks had to cover themselves in Balkenkreuz just to stand a chance against friendly fire.

With that said, it has the potential to result in rather interesting situations, if they decide to go ahead with production anyways.

 

[usertron2020]

How about copying the JS series? Too late for the war, or in no way addressing German needs?

 

[kalamona]

The author pays lip service to operational losses and the lack of crew training as factors but then dismisses them as unimportant without any evidence as to why that is. I'm not unreceptive to arguments that the T-34 was inferior to its contemporaries from and ergonomic and target acquisition perspective (and the problems with production quality are fairly well-documented from what I've read) but people who attempt to prove the point by citing loss ratios as though weapon systems operate in a void unaffected by the greater strategic situation in which combat takes place aren't proving anything.

A very,very valid point - and i think, we simply do not know the answer for sure, if the design flaw or the crew competence was the reason behind the horrid loss ratios.

(However, empirical evidence suggests, that the t34-s were blind as a bat even in 44. problem with that again, that besides the evidence beeing empirical, we still have no proof for the cause of the blindness: crew quality or design problems. Back to square one, again.)