German T-34?

[Drunken_Soviet]

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

Never the design?

I'd say a combination of both poor crews and 'Monkey Model' tanks.

 

[user23123]

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

They did,both in WWII and after the war,the answer are quality and make the tank bigger.As far as the Germans are concern in WWII was the Panther the best response they could have give,well for example they could have put the transmission in the back,which will have help reduce the dimension and the wait of the tank a bit,but still have it a bit bigger then the T-34.

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have some merit (it's a fine tank, but other posters have raised the point that a copied T-34 would potentially be out of date by the time we could get it into service).

There is no point on comping an enemy tanks,what you do is analyse it and then you incorporate any good ideas that you identify in your own tanks.

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

No it won't,deciding that they need to start work on a new tank (or tanks) as a response to the soviet T-34 and IS earlier then they did will help.

 

[machine3589]

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.

Indeed. Most of the "replies" in this article were just snark without refuting anything. It reminded me of sharlin very much. And yet in spite of all that you still have the fact that T-34's suffered horrendous losses through the entire war, so while the T-34 may not be as bad as some claim, it was definitely not as good as others did/do.

 

[machine3589]

No it won't,deciding that they need to start work on a new tank (or tanks) as a response to the soviet T-34 and IS earlier then they did will help.

Theres a relatively easy way to accomplish this; have the Finns capture some T-34 or KV tanks during the Winter War (IIRC a few were deployed in that war), and then have the Finns hand them over to the Germans before Barbarossa. Knowing about these two tanks would do wonders to rectify the OTL German issues of having their tanks and AT crews equipped with guns that can't penetrate the T-34's or KV's armor.

But then again most Soviet tanks (more than 95% IIRC) during Barbarossa were not KV's and T-34's, so having 50mm or 75mm PaK and KwK guns would be a disticnt overkill in 1941.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Indeed. Most of the "replies" in this article were just snark without refuting anything. It reminded me of sharlin very much. And yet in spite of all that you still have the fact that T-34's suffered horrendous losses through the entire war, so while the T-34 may not be as bad as some claim, it was definitely not as good as others did/do.

It had good features for sure, but suffered from poorly trained crews, a two man turret, and lack of radio. Ergonomics left a lot to be desired, which gave the Germans a crucial edge given the inferiority of their own weapons in 1941-42

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Theres a relatively easy way to accomplish this; have the Finns capture some T-34 or KV tanks during the Winter War (IIRC a few were deployed in that war), and then have the Finns hand them over to the Germans before Barbarossa. Knowing about these two tanks would do wonders to rectify the OTL German issues of having their tanks and AT crews equipped with guns that can't penetrate the T-34's or KV's armor.

But then again most Soviet tanks (more than 95% IIRC) during Barbarossa were not KV's and T-34's, so having 50mm or 75mm PaK and KwK guns would be a disticnt overkill in 1941.

The only problem is that the T-34 wasn't produced until after the Winter War. The-T-34 was a product of the war with Japan, the SCW, and the war with Finland. The KV was barely used and mostly broke down as it got to the front, but it was in a period when they were winning, so the Finns did not have a chance to capture it. So that POD is really tough to pull off.

An interesting What If would be what if the Germans went for the 50mm L60 upgrade in 1940-41 instead of the L42, so they have a weapon that can kill the T-34 frontally during Barbarossa.

 

[kalamona]

The only problem is that the T-34 wasn't produced until after the Winter War. The-T-34 was a product of the war with Japan, the SCW, and the war with Finland. The KV was barely used and mostly broke down as it got to the front, but it was in a period when they were winning, so the Finns did not have a chance to capture it. So that POD is really tough to pull off.

An interesting What If would be what if the Germans went for the 50mm L60 upgrade in 1940-41 instead of the L42, so they have a weapon that can kill the T-34 frontally during Barbarossa.

Hm, not much, since the majority of the soviet tank losses were due to the AT batallions?

 

[machine3589]

The only problem is that the T-34 wasn't produced until after the Winter War. The-T-34 was a product of the war with Japan, the SCW, and the war with Finland. The KV was barely used and mostly broke down as it got to the front, but it was in a period when they were winning, so the Finns did not have a chance to capture it. So that POD is really tough to pull off.

I believe that it was DrakonFin who posted a link that claimed the Soviets deployed early T-34 prototypes during the Winter War, but don't quote me on that one.

An interesting What If would be what if the Germans went for the 50mm L60 upgrade in 1940-41 instead of the L42, so they have a weapon that can kill the T-34 frontally during Barbarossa.

I also remember reading in an Osprey book about German anti-tank guns on the Eastern Front that the Germans considered equipping all of their Panzerjäger crews with a 50mm PaK gun before Barbarossa because of their experiences with the Matilda and CharB1's, but they decided against it because they thought that the Soviets didn't have any tank that couldn't be destroyed with the 37mm gun.

 

[kalamona]

I also remember reading in an Osprey book about German anti-tank guns on the Eastern Front that the Germans considered equipping all of their Panzerjäger crews with a 50mm PaK gun before Barbarossa because of their experiences with the Matilda and CharB1's, but they decided against it because they thought that the Soviets didn't have any tank that couldn't be destroyed with the 37mm gun.

Well, that reasoning i found somewhat suspicious, considering they pushed 4,7 cm captured ones into service...

They could not produce enough, simple as that.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Hm, not much, since the majority of the soviet tank losses were due to the AT batallions?

Got numbers on that for Barbarossa?

 

[zoomar]

Germany's problem wasn't tanks, it was the war situation in general being that they were fighting the world's three greatest powers besides themselves with minor allied powers.

Had they fought the Soviets one-on-one the Panther would have done the job, though I know at least one poster on this forum vehemently disagrees with me.

For that matter, more Pzkw IV's might have sufficed. Because of the huge amounts lend-lease trucks and other support vehicles provided by the US, the Soviets could concentrate their own substantial production capability on tanks, tank destroyers, SPG's, etc. and still keep their troops in 1943-45 well-fed, well clothed, and well supplied. If the USSR was fighting Germany entirely by itself, they wouldn't have that luxury. Either they build gobs of tanks but are unable to keep them fueled, repaired, and crewed with well-fed and well-supplied crewmen, or they divert production to support vehicles and have fewer good tanks.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

For that matter, more Pzkw IV's might have sufficed. Because of the huge amounts lend-lease trucks and other support vehicles provided by the US, the Soviets could concentrate their own substantial production capability on tanks, tank destroyers, SPG's, etc. and still keep their troops in 1943-45 well-fed, well clothed, and well supplied. If the USSR was fighting Germany entirely by itself, they wouldn't have that luxury. Either they build gobs of tanks but are unable to keep them fueled, repaired, and crewed with well-fed and well-supplied crewmen, or they divert production to support vehicles and have fewer good tanks.

Given the fuel and crew shortages that's pretty tough to say. Panthers and Tigers at least maximized the experience of crews, while Pz IVs were inferior to T-34s and M4s.

Yeah, I'm of the belief that the Soviets would have been in serious trouble if they were fighting on their own, even with LL.

 

[phx1138]

On its face, a direct copy of the T-34 looks pretty stupid, if only for the difficulty in engineering it: the Sov standards & tooling would be completely different.

As for a "copy", OTOH, a new *T-34 hull on Pz4 chassis/running gear... No, I don't think it would hit the limits of the Pz4 chassis: sloped 80mm glacis beats what the Pz4 had all hollow, with no weight increase. (I'm frankly unsure if the L/70 was too heavy.)

 

[Deleted member 1487]

On its face, a direct copy of the T-34 looks pretty stupid, if only for the difficulty in engineering it: the Sov standards & tooling would be completely different.

As for a "copy", OTOH, a new *T-34 hull on Pz4 chassis/running gear... No, I don't think it would hit the limits of the Pz4 chassis: sloped 80mm glacis beats what the Pz4 had all hollow, with no weight increase. (I'm frankly unsure if the L/70 was too heavy.)

No, the Pz IV was totally overweight at 25 tons, which was more than a sloped armor version would have weighed, hence the VK2801:

 

[usertron2020]

Given the fuel and crew shortages that's pretty tough to say. Panthers and Tigers at least maximized the experience of crews, while Pz IVs were inferior to T-34s and M4s.

I'd always been under the impression that other than reliability and fuel consumption issues, the M4 and Pz IV were considered comparable, with the Pz IV having better armor?

 

[Deleted member 1487]

I'd always been under the impression that other than reliability and fuel consumption issues, the M4 and Pz IV were considered comparable, with the Pz IV having better armor?

Better armor? They were about the same. The M4 had better mobility than the Pz IV, but the Panther and Tiger actually had better mobility than the M4.

 

[marathag]

I'd always been under the impression that other than reliability and fuel consumption issues, the M4 and Pz IV were considered comparable, with the Pz IV having better armor?

Early US cast homogeneous from 2" to 4" thick was only 200-270 Brinell hardness, while the 50mm Plate on the Mk III and IV was Face Hardened to 600+ Brinell

So 2" of FH plate would be more resistant to uncapped projectiles, enough to shatter them on impact.

By late '43 German armor quality was declining, hard, but more brittle.


But in 1944 neither tanks' armor could resist the others projectiles.

 

[Napoleon IV]

You need to clarify this. When is this German T-34 attempted to be put into production? Is it after Barbarossa? Or are your hypothetically replacing the Pz 3 and 4 entirely, at the design point in 1936?

It would have to be after Barbarossa. Before then the Germans thought that Soviet designs were terrible and even testing it was a waste of time. It was only after Barbarossa that they realized how good the T-34 actually was.

 

[DrakonFin]

I believe that it was DrakonFin who posted a link that claimed the Soviets deployed early T-34 prototypes during the Winter War, but don't quote me on that one.

I have indeed seen it said somewhere that two T-34 prototypes would have been tested in the Winter War. That the T-32 saw combat in Karelia is referred to here. Here (in Finnish) even the date is mentioned: December 17th, 1939 and the location is given just as "the Karelian Isthmus". I am having trouble finding any solid sources to confirm any of this online, though.

That the SMK, the T-100 and the KV-1 were tested in the war is well known. The single SMK prototype used was even captured by the Finns, though only temporarily as it could not be evacuated West and it was re-captured by the Red Army.

Here is a Finnish photo of the tank. The date on the photo says January 1st 1940 and the location is Summa.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

What's probably better/more likely than a T-34 clone would be modifying the VK3001 chassis to stick to the original concept that Speer talked about for the Panther:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_tank#Design

Albert Speer recounts in his autobiography Inside the Third Reich

Since the Tiger had originally been designed to weigh fifty tons but as a result of Hitler's demands had gone up to fifty seven tons, we decided to develop a new thirty ton tank whose very name, Panther, was to signify greater agility. Though light in weight, its motor was to be the same as the Tiger's, which meant it could develop superior speed. But in the course of a year Hitler once again insisted on clapping so much armor on it, as well as larger guns, that it ultimately reached forty eight tons, the original weight of the Tiger.[15]
​

Make a VK3002 of 35 tons with 50-60mm sloped armor using the existing 75mm L48 gun of the Pz IV. The light Panther would then replace the Pz IV in production entirely while the Pz III would be used exclusively as the StuG and as a weapons carrier. The new tank could be upgunned to a 75mm L60, the original caliber of the 75 that was supposed to be fielded, but couldn't meet the long distance penetration capabilities Hitler wanted. Just use that instead, it would be lighter and easier to mount on the light Panther, while getting better performance without getting over 40 tons.



Getting the new tank into production would be significantly easier, cost less, be more reliable, and ready sooner. Replacing the Pz IV would be much easier too in 1942, as it was not yet in as large of production as it would be in 1943:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_armored_fighting_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II
Only 994 of all chassis variants in 1942 vs. over 3000 in 1943. Plus you can tool Nibelungenwerke for the new Panther instead of the Pz IV.

Its not going to win the war, but it would be a better option than the Panther in terms of production and just overall numbers/standardization.
It would probably look something like this: