Let's say that Mikhail Koshkin has a car accident/disease which results in his death in 1936-1937 (or falls foul of the NKVD and gets shot/dies in a gulag around that time) before he could develop the prototypes which led to the T-34, rendering it stillborn. What happens next? What tank do the Soviets develop as an "ersatz T-34", then? How does this affect the Great Patriotic War/Eastern Front?
WI: No T-34
- Thread starter Whiteshore
- Start date
-
- Tags
- eastern front t-34 tanks ww2
Deleted member 1487
They probably just assign a different engineer to head up the BT-7 replacement effort which yields something like the T-34. At worst they are stuck with the A-32 that doesn't evolve into the T-34, but is an improved BT-7 with sloped armor and wider tracks:
https://console.worldoftanks.com/en/encyclopedia/vehicles/ussr/R68_A-32/
https://console.worldoftanks.com/en/encyclopedia/vehicles/ussr/R68_A-32/
Mikhail Koshkin was the leader of a large team at the KMDB factory but there were others and they took over when he died in 1941. Alexander Morozov and Nikolai Kuchrenko developed the T34 through the war. The T32 might have been a bit different (possibly thinner armour) but still revolutionary.
from the BT wiki
A-20 (also known as BT-20): prototype for a new BT tank, with 20mm armour, 45mm 20-K gun, model V-2 diesel engine, and 8×6-wheel convertible drive. Lost out in trials to the A-32, which was further improved and produced as the T-34 medium tank.
Using existing parts of BT-7 and BT-7M, Koshkin led the design team to build a new prototype labeled BT-20 (which eventually became A-20). Just like the BT-IS prototypes, A-20 had three pairs of driving wheels (albeit with only the 1st steerable pair). The turret, which was a mix of BT-7 and BT-SV, mounted a 45 mm 20K cannon. It had a crew of 4, just like the BT-SV. The armor plates were angled and varied between 20 and 25 mm. The tracks were now 400 mm wide (much wider than the 263 mm of the BT-7), improving mobility.http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/soviet/soviet_a32_t32.php
The first and only prototype was built in May of 1939. It spent most of 1939 in trials and comparisons with its rival, the A-32 (read below). The A-20 did not have impressive armor or armament, but it did have excellent mobility. The senior officials, not able to pick one over the other, approved both new prototypes for serial production. As the Kharkov plant was already being prepared to produce the A-34 it could not accommodate the A-20 production at the same time, and eventually A-20 was dropped. http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/soviet/soviet_a32_t32.php
Well, the scenario supposes he somehow dies prior to coming up with a prototype for the T-34.
Since the A-20 and T-32 were both improved BT-7's and the BT-7 exists even if Koshkin dies someone will do similar modifications. And as mentioned Morozov and Kuchrenko both continued to modify the design throughout the war.
I don't think you can butterfly this away, it's coming one way or the other. Now if the T-50 gets chosen for production instead and development of the T-34 stops that's another thing entirely...
I think a large part of the reason the T-34 was so successful was less because of the tank's design itself (although there is no doubt that was fantastic too), but the way in which it was applied to Soviet tank doctrine. Being able to build a very large number of simple to make tanks quickly is the same thing that makes people see the Sherman as a good tank after all. So getting rid of the T-34 just means something else will take its place. Which will be easy and quick to build. And will come in large numbers. And will be able to survive the 1941 German tanks because the PzIV wasn't designed with tank-v-tank clashes in mind.
- BNC
- BNC
It's actually pretty easy to butterfly away the T34, more dependent on political decision making than anything else.
Firstly in the run up to the 'formal' outbreak of WW2 the Soviets had actually broken up their tank corps (NOV1939) and split the tanks into penny packets amongst the infantry divisions. This was based on on unfavourable reports from the fighting in Spain and doctrinally the purges of 1937-8. At the time the Soviets (like many other nations) has three types of tank; the 'pure' lights (like the T40), the cavalry or fast tanks (BT5 and BT7) and the infantry tanks (e.g. the T26).
The T34 was on the wrong side of this doctrinal squabble.
Secondly the T34 experienced some pretty bad development problems historically and could have been canned, probably in favour of a T50 variant. This would have been a
'light medium' tank (of around fifteen tonnes) that, on paper, had many benefits.
Unfortunately it was a lemon. But it's entirely possible that the seemingly fixable problems would have more resources thrown at them, meaning each tank is actually more expensive than a T34. And with an unreliable engine and none of the 'stretch' that the T34 had.
The results are bad for the Soviets (less effective winter counter-offensives for example), significantly better German advances (superior morale without the 'T34 panic), more Soviet casualties, more reliance on lend-lease Shermans, no Panther...
Firstly in the run up to the 'formal' outbreak of WW2 the Soviets had actually broken up their tank corps (NOV1939) and split the tanks into penny packets amongst the infantry divisions. This was based on on unfavourable reports from the fighting in Spain and doctrinally the purges of 1937-8. At the time the Soviets (like many other nations) has three types of tank; the 'pure' lights (like the T40), the cavalry or fast tanks (BT5 and BT7) and the infantry tanks (e.g. the T26).
The T34 was on the wrong side of this doctrinal squabble.
Secondly the T34 experienced some pretty bad development problems historically and could have been canned, probably in favour of a T50 variant. This would have been a
'light medium' tank (of around fifteen tonnes) that, on paper, had many benefits.
- Similar armour thickness to the T34 and similar sloping
- KV type suspension
- 45mm main armament, only slightly inferior to the short 76mm
- it was perceived to be well suited to mass production
Unfortunately it was a lemon. But it's entirely possible that the seemingly fixable problems would have more resources thrown at them, meaning each tank is actually more expensive than a T34. And with an unreliable engine and none of the 'stretch' that the T34 had.
The results are bad for the Soviets (less effective winter counter-offensives for example), significantly better German advances (superior morale without the 'T34 panic), more Soviet casualties, more reliance on lend-lease Shermans, no Panther...
Everything will be fine
. Development of the construction T-28 will certainly not happen, KV killed this tank, but there is a great chance to get a much better vehicle than received army from the intriguer-confectioner.If you carefully read the description of the "T-34 panic" ... suddenly it turns out that instead of T-34 was meant KV.
Better yet have the US Army support Walter Christie and develop his designs into a viable US medium tank. This might require having Christie be less of an A-hole, but it's entirely plausible. The US gets a decent T-34 like tank, with a more reliable engine, that is certainly better than OTL M3 and even M4. The Soviets will have to rely on less innovative indigenous designs but will almost certainly get thousands of US "T-34s" due to Lend Lease.
Benjamin
Benjamin
True, but every early tank had reliability issues. Put in a good engine and have some automotive engineers go over it to improve reliability. Of course the US Army has to get their ducks in a row regarding the use of armor on the battlefield. They generally ignored a lot of the lessons learned from the war games held at Camp Colt. (But a tank with wings would have been really awesome.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34
Sounds like no Koshkin = no T-34 ,but some variant with half as much armor A-32.
Sounds like no Koshkin = no T-34 ,but some variant with half as much armor A-32.