No T-34 in WWII

I have seen many WI's regarding some weapon or another but I cannot really think of one which does away with the much coveted T-34. Yet after a little research for a TL I found an interesting fact. In 1939 Mikhail Koshkin had to convince Stalin for permission to keep working on his A-20 prototype. The designers did not agree with the A-20 for the most part, and it wa considered worthless for what Koshkin wanted in a tank. This was during the time of the Great Purge, as well the next Five Year Plan, so it seems almost amazing that Stalin decided to put more energy into a project which outside of the designers seemed to fit the needs of a tank for the time period. The Five Year Plan from 1938-1943 showed a shift in Soviet thinking towards war by the increase in arms production. So WI Stalin decided testing was not needed on new tanks, and that production was required more then research?

WI the A-20 was put into production in 1939 or 40?

A simple comparrison of the two for those unfamilar with the T-34 development:

A-20 prototype
Armor 0.8 in
Primary armament 45 mm gun
Secondary armament 2 × 7.62 mm (0.308 in) DT machine guns
Engine 12-cyl. diesel
Suspension Christie, with a 8x6 convertable treads base to run on just the wheels


T-34
Armor 2 in
Primary armament 76.2 mm tank gun
Secondary armament 2 × 7.62 mm machine guns
Engine 12-cyl. diesel model V-2 500 hp (370 kW)
Suspension Christie
 
Last edited:
IIRC the A-20 was shown to have a lot of problems when used in Spain.
If for some reason it is never sent to Spain, most of the problem would not be revealed till after it was in major production.
However these problem would come to light during the 39~40 years and a upgrade would begin in 1941, so I see at most a 1-2 year delay.
 
IIRC the A-20 was shown to have a lot of problems when used in Spain.
If for some reason it is never sent to Spain, most of the problem would not be revealed till after it was in major production.
However these problem would come to light during the 39~40 years and a upgrade would begin in 1941, so I see at most a 1-2 year delay.

Not even close. The A-20 was only produced twice as it was a prototype, same with the A-32 (which would become the T-34). In the Spanish Civil War the most common tank was the T-26, and the BT series backing them up. The experince from the Civil War showed the need for thicker armor. The A-20 had that, it just lacked the more revolutionary design features of the T-34. What occured was the Soviets listened to the designers of the A-20 and agreed to let them make two prototypes instead of one.

So the WI still stands.
 
Presumerably, given the thinner armour and smaller gun, these would be cheaper and easier to make than the T-34s? As a result more of them might be available come 1941 if that makes a difference. Would the 45mm gun struggle against the armour on German tanks in the early years?

On the whole though presumerably the Soviets would recognise that a tank with superior armour and a larger gun without much reduced performance would be a better investment. So you might not see a T-34, but you would presumerably see something more powerful go into production relatively quickly.
 
Presumerably, given the thinner armour and smaller gun, these would be cheaper and easier to make than the T-34s? As a result more of them might be available come 1941 if that makes a difference. Would the 45mm gun struggle against the armour on German tanks in the early years?

On the whole though presumerably the Soviets would recognise that a tank with superior armour and a larger gun without much reduced performance would be a better investment. So you might not see a T-34, but you would presumerably see something more powerful go into production relatively quickly.

I was thinking that to. However the A-20 had the sloped armor concept already in it, so it was still rather advanced. Given how the Soviet's enjoyed making tens of thousands of "okay" tanks, while the germans made hundreds of "superior" tanks I wonder if the USSR even needs to make a new tank model. I am thinking along the lines of a A-20 with a bigger gun added.

If production occurs near the same time frame as the OTL T-34 then the Soviets may lose some important months on the battle front. As 20mm armor is vastly different then 58mm armor. The Panzer III had a 35mm gun, I think, so the A-20 could be dead after a shot (unsure how sloped armor will affect this, but a shot to a 20mm turret with a 35mm round comes close to a kill shot). More over the Panzer III was 5mm to 70mm depending on the variant, so either a 45mm gun will rip it apart, or annoy it. The question then becomes will those extra months of defeat hurt or merely delay victory?
 
Well I imagine even the Soviets would want a tank that could atleast stand up to the main gun of a Panzer III, certainly after they have seen such tanks perform in Europe. On the whole though I doubt they would want tanks which were markedly worse than Panzer IVs for any length of time, and by 1940 these would be no secret. Getting out something which was atleast broadly equivelent, even its an updated A-20 with thicker armour and a heavier gun, would be a priority. So again, you might not get a T-34, but I think its likely you would have something similar very early in the war.

I don't think that the T-34 had a major effect on Barbarossa, which was decided at the strategic level, and so I don't think this would have a major impact upon OTL.
 
Well I imagine even the Soviets would want a tank that could atleast stand up to the main gun of a Panzer III, certainly after they have seen such tanks perform in Europe. On the whole though I doubt they would want tanks which were markedly worse than Panzer IVs for any length of time, and by 1940 these would be no secret. Getting out something which was atleast broadly equivelent, even its an updated A-20 with thicker armour and a heavier gun, would be a priority. So again, you might not get a T-34, but I think its likely you would have something similar very early in the war.

I don't think that the T-34 had a major effect on Barbarossa, which was decided at the strategic level, and so I don't think this would have a major impact upon OTL.

I do not think anything short of full surrender on the Soviets part would help Barbarossa. I do however think that the T-34 was an important weapon in how it slowed, and countered the German advance. Without it I think tank development changes.

No T-34-> Germans fine with current tank models-> no larger more massive tanks-> no constantly changing models-> less resources/industrial strain

Maybe simplistic but as Germany kept making newer and bigger tanks, to counter the Soviets, if they encounter a Soviet weapon they can destroy instead of the T-34 perhaps we do not think if the King Tiger, or the Panther rolling along the steppes.
 
You guys may want to look at T-50. IOTL Soviets abandoned it in favour of T-34 but IATL it might work. This was a pretty decent design as far as mobility and protection is concerned, so Red Army isn't going to be outgunned by much.
 
Off-topic, but please note that website of this Ukrainian company is in Russian and English only, English version being an "export variant" of Russian one. It should tell you volumes about depth of "national enlightement" or "ukrainism" in Eastern Ukraine, when even after 20 years of independence it's industrial gigants don't care to show even token support for official language.
 
Imo, the best way to make the T-34 go poof, is make the US Army buy into Walter Christie's ideas, and start producing tanks for America. Thus, no need to go elsewhere, and thus no Christie suspension based tanks in the USSR.

Or you could go for the easier path and make it so the Federal Government catch Christie selling military technology to a foreign nation w/o government approval.
 
Imo, the best way to make the T-34 go poof, is make the US Army buy into Walter Christie's ideas, and start producing tanks for America. Thus, no need to go elsewhere, and thus no Christie suspension based tanks in the USSR.

Or you could go for the easier path and make it so the Federal Government catch Christie selling military technology to a foreign nation w/o government approval.

That is not the POD though. The simplist way to get rid of the T-34 is to have the A-20 be produced, and the A-32 not be allowed to enter the prototype stage.
 
On a slightly different track how would no T-34 effect the Germans and other areas of war? Everything I've read says that a big reason Panzer IVs got long 75s and the Panther and Pak 75 were built was to counter the T-34 and to a lesser extent the KVs. Without these would the Germans have had the tanks and antitank guns that so outclassed British and American armor in the west?
 
On a slightly different track how would no T-34 effect the Germans and other areas of war? Everything I've read says that a big reason Panzer IVs got long 75s and the Panther and Pak 75 were built was to counter the T-34 and to a lesser extent the KVs. Without these would the Germans have had the tanks and antitank guns that so outclassed British and American armor in the west?

Yes this sounds about right. Each side reacts to the other sides development. No T-34 means no Panther & Tiger at least not in the historical sence. However their are limits. The Tiger and Panther were both prewar projects [VK-30 & VK-20] and both the Pak 38 [50L60] and the Pak 40 [7546] were also prewar projects so these would go forward.

The Panther programme was the VK 20 design that orginated in 1938 as a replacement for the Panzer III, that would enter production in 1942. It may or maynot have sloped frontal armor, but the frontal thickness would be about ~70-80mm LOS Facehardened. It was to be armed with the 50L60 gun so this could still happen, but it should easily be upgunned to the 75L48 gun later if a T-34 appears later in the war.

The original Tiger design VK-30 was as an enlarged Panzer IV with 50mm armor and 75L 24 start point, however after the experience with French and British armor in 1940, they proposed the VK-36 design that had 100mm frontal armor and 80mm side armor as a break through tank. This was originally to be armed with the 75mm squeeze bore gun, but the pending decision on Tungsten supplies ended that development. The only gun capable of meeting the 100mm @ 1500m target was the 88L56 gun. But that would require a further enlargement of the design to fit such a huge gun in a turret. Thus the VK-45 was born which became the 58 ton Tiger tank.

Its possible that the 75L70 could still be developed as a competing design since this occupied smaller space leading to a smaller turret ~ 8-9 tons compared to 13 tons for the Tiger I turret. It could mean the VK 36 design could go forward with the smaller Tiger chassie and up armored Panther turret resulting in a 42-43 ton tank. Otherwize the historical Tiger would have to be built.

That intern should trigger the Russian 85mm gun for the KV upgrade and then the Stalin tank with the 122mm gun , plus the allied development of the 76mm gun and the 17lb gun later in the war along with the M-26 tank etc.
 
I see where you're going. One thing I wonder with this though is if these designs aren't furthered until T-34/KV appear or are designed to face more primitive French and Brit designs how would this effect the timeline of the war or at least armor? If the designs for what became the Panther and Tiger aren't made major projects to face the T-34/KVs might we see the Germans beaten in Africa and the fighting in Italy by the time those designs come into service, if the designs aren't being produced until 1943 or later?
 
I see where you're going. One thing I wonder with this though is if these designs aren't furthered until T-34/KV appear or are designed to face more primitive French and Brit designs how would this effect the timeline of the war or at least armor? If the designs for what became the Panther and Tiger aren't made major projects to face the T-34/KVs might we see the Germans beaten in Africa and the fighting in Italy by the time those designs come into service, if the designs aren't being produced until 1943 or later?

By themselves no armament is going to change the out come of any war unless its some kind of A Bomb. It will alter the war but its not clear exactly by how much. For example the Panzer III and IV both remained in service long after their 'sell by date', due to the Tiger and Panther being heavy tanks that only a few production lines could manufacture.

If we change the Panther, so its in the 20-30 ton region of the VK 20 design, then all the Panzer III production can halt by the end of 1942/43 and Panzer IV production probably by end of 1943/44, with some improved version of the VK 20 design. Some models of the Panzer IV might continue as weapons carriers like the Hummel ; Nashorn ; Jagd Panzer IV or Brummbar etc, but the bulk would switch over to this notional improved VK 20 model. So much more tanks and much fewer StuG etc.

However as long as Hitler is C-in-C with a strangle hold on units maneuver with his 'no retreat' mentality , Germany will ultimately suffer the same fate. You need to have one Super General in change ,like in WW-I or like Stalin with Timoshenko and then Zhukov. See 'BlairWitches' 'Manstein' project.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=123904
 
Long run with no T-34, slightly more dead Russians.
The Soviets do a bit better because they have a larger number of modern tanks in service in '41 but they are still wasted due to strategic incompetence.
Soviets do worse in '42 to OTL with well commanded Panzer III's going up against equal but worse coordinated Soviet tanks but the Germans still aren't going to get Stalingrad or Moscow. The problem at this stage wasn't wining battles it was logistics and German logistics haven't been altered by this POD.
Soviets do worse in '43, by this point the A-20 has reached its ceiling in terms of expansion and like the Panzer III is begging to be phased out and replaced by something like a late model T-34 based on war experience. The Kursk equivalent goes better for the Germans but the balance of forces means they get pushed back anyway from the high tide of Autumn '42.
Soviets do better in '44. With the Germans not having had as much of a shock they are slower to upgrade their tank force while the Soviets now have a force made of up T-43's which are superior to the Germans Panzer IV's and more numerous. German 4th Generation tanks (Panther and Tiger) begin to come into service but its to late.
Soviets do better in '45. Allied bombing and Soviet numbers drive the Reich back to Berlin. Having had less time to iron out the kinks the Germans 4th Generation tanks (Panther, Tiger I) perform worse than in OTL while the Soviets T-43 is better than the T-34(85)'s they were using in OTL as it has yet to reach its improvement ceiling.

End result reduced casualties in '44 and '45 don't quite balance out additional losses in '42 and '43. As in OTL the war is decided by logistics and industrial production which is in the Allies favour.
 
Interesting information on the T-34's gun from Bryan Perrett’s ‘Iron Fist’

That the Soviet Union Armoured Corps had adopted a 76.2mm calibre as standard for its main armament at a time when the German were making the transition from 37mm to 50mm is a story in itself. Stalin had appointed one of his old Civil War cronies, Marshall G I Kulik, as his Chief of Artillery, largely because he was too dim to be devious and could therefore be relied on. Although Kulik knew very little about his profession or anything else for that matter, he was much given to making Olympian but totally groundless pronouncements, one of which was that German tanks were being fitted with 100mm armour plate. As luck would have it, a team of Russian experts was visiting German tank production plants at the time and its members flatly refused to believe their hosts assertion that the PzKw IV, then being fitted with 50mm frontal armour, was Germany’s most recent design. The team’s suspicion tended to support Kulik’s assertions and as a result the Red Army’s newest generation of tanks was fitted with guns capable of penetrating the thicker, if as yet imaginary plate.
 
DaleCoz had a timeline where the T-50 was produced instead of the T-34 which is well worth looking at.

A number of officers liked the A-20 over the A-32 as it was cheaper and easier to manufacture. It's inability to be up-armed (the A-30 was the A-20 with the 76.2mm cannon, reports state the turret was now too crowded) and the thin armor led Stalin to prefer the T-32.

Maybe have Stalin be told the cost benefits as well as something like existing factories don't have to be retooled to produce the A-20 whereas they will have to be for the T-32?
 
I was thinking that to. However the A-20 had the sloped armor concept already in it, so it was still rather advanced. Given how the Soviet's enjoyed making tens of thousands of "okay" tanks, while the germans made hundreds of "superior" tanks I wonder if the USSR even needs to make a new tank model. I am thinking along the lines of a A-20 with a bigger gun added.

If production occurs near the same time frame as the OTL T-34 then the Soviets may lose some important months on the battle front. As 20mm armor is vastly different then 58mm armor. The Panzer III had a 35mm gun, I think, so the A-20 could be dead after a shot (unsure how sloped armor will affect this, but a shot to a 20mm turret with a 35mm round comes close to a kill shot). More over the Panzer III was 5mm to 70mm depending on the variant, so either a 45mm gun will rip it apart, or annoy it. The question then becomes will those extra months of defeat hurt or merely delay victory?

The early Panzer III models had a 37mm anti-tank gun...
(Ironically, the 45 mm gun used on the A-20, was effectively a "bored out" version of the PaK 37 anti-tank gun used by the Germans, but I suspect that it had a lower muzzle velocity than it's progenitor...).
 
Top