10. Where was the Russian T-34 tank designed?

Although built in the USSR, the T-34 tank was designed in the United States.


OK, so who designed it and why wasn't the design adopted by American forces?

See here http://www.5ad.org/Wwiitest.htm for more WW2 questions and answers/

__________________
If dogs don't go to heaven, I'd like to go where they go.

What a lot of bollocks.

While the T-34 used a suspension system developed from the Christie Light Tank, the T-34 is purely a Soviet design.

Its like saying the P-47 was designed in France because the French originated the Radial Engine!!

Do not believe everything you read on the Internet, except for my bits

__________________
Whe're off to see the Wizard, the wonderful wizard of OZ - 6 Australian Infantry Div, Bardia January 1941

I'd have to agree with Al, the T-34 only owed some conceptual design ideas to the Christie tanks of the 30's. As to why Christie tank designs were not accepted by the US:
First, the suspension using vertical coil springs gives a very bouncy ride. This made high speed cross country running very hard on the crew and made fighting the tank at any kind of speed impossible.
Second, the US was still wedded to the idea that tanks were primarily for infantry support. Speed was not a big issue for them. Thus, the primary advantage of a Christie tank was wasted effort.
As far as design, the T-34 was a progressive development of the T-32 which looked very similar but retained the wheel / track drive of the previous BT series as well as the 45mm gun.
The T-32 was not accepted for service and Koshkin, Morozov, Baran, Spekher and Nikolai Kucherenko (hull designer) were among those that had a hand in the T-34's design.
The T-34 dispensed with the previous wheel / track drive train, introduced the 76mm gun and, had more armor on the hull and turret. The previous M-17 gasoline engine was replaced with the V-2 diesel (some T-34's did get the M-17 early in the war due to shortages of the later engine).

I figured as much.

Interesting quiz, though.

__________________
If dogs don't go to heaven, I'd like to go where they go.

Agreed, Russian but for a pittance.
Definately in the running for best tank.
As with the Sherman, it did the job, and as with the Sherman, defending against them was like stepping on "ants", you just can't get them all!

__________________
All opinions expressed here are those of "Little Green Men" and don't necessarily represent views, positions, policy, thoughts, actions, or anything else.

I will have to say that is the most interesting way I have ever heard the Sherman and T-34 tanks referred to.

Given the choice between the two I would take the T-34 every time. That is especially true if it was a t-34/85, great tank.

__________________
PEOPLE SLEEP PEACEABLY IN THEIR BEDS AT NIGHT ONLY BECAUSE ROUGH MEN STAND READY TO DO VIOLENCE ON THEIR BEHALF. GEORGE ORWELL

Hey "Ice", if you like that you'll love this. Liebstandart 1st SS (sp) defending against operation "Goodwood" called Shermans...
"Tommy Cookers"!

__________________
All opinions expressed here are those of "Little Green Men" and don't necessarily represent views, positions, policy, thoughts, actions, or anything else.

Also:

The high velocity German guns that could easily penetrate the Sherman's armor, coupled with vulnerable ammunition storage, gave the Sherman the nickname "Ronson," taken from the Ronson cigarette lighter. This was based on the Ronson Company's famous slogan, "lights first time, every time."

http://www.chuckhawks.com/best_tanks_WWII.htm

__________________

I've also heard, a strike anywhere "Kitchen Match".
Kai..Love your quote from the Pole, only the future is certain, past is always changing. I've heard said...History is the lie we agree to tell.
I'm glad there are Forums such as these so all the bits and pieces of the known come together so we can formulate our own view of what is called or taught as history.
Almost no tank was total garbage or invincible. Shermans felt like Tigers against Ha-Go's on Saipan (I believe), when 3 or 4 took out a dozen of them?
What some believe to be the epitomy of size/developement, the "Maus"/"E-100" were IMO were a waste of steel. Sitting ducks for Engineers/Jabo's!

__________________
All opinions expressed here are those of "Little Green Men" and don't necessarily represent views, positions, policy, thoughts, actions, or anything else.

Who here thinks the T-34 was the best tank in WW2?

I do! For a couple of reasons, 1) the vast #'s of them produced. 2) They were very reliable.


Thoughts?

__________________

Facta non verba. "Deeds, not words"

sorry wrong thread

__________________

Facta non verba. "Deeds, not words"

T-34 was the best tank in WW2 and it remained the best untill the beginning of 50s. The T-34
was easy to produce in vast quantities it WAS reliable It HAD a respectable armor, firepower, Speed, fear factor, and overall it was suitable for 1941, 1942, 1493, 1944, 1945. Whereas the germans used fast tanks in 1941-1942, and then switched to heavy tanks, the russians were sticking to the medium T-34 tank.

German comments on the T-34

“Very Worrying” – Colonel-General Heinz Guderian
Commander of Second Panzer Army

“The finest tank in the world” – Field-Marshal Ewald Von Kleist
Commander of First Panzer Army

__________________
Regards, Richard

That I very much doubt. The Centurion of 1945 was a better tank in all respects except speed and range, and in the MK III version of 1948 (with the 20 pdr gun) completely outclassed the T-34/85 in gunpower and penetration.

__________________
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website

Success through quantity alone is no indicator of quality, in and of itself. As for reliability, I don't think that the T 34 deserves the reputation it got for this. With the early models there were severe problems with the transmission. The engine always had a relatively short service life. Even post war Soviet tanks built using essentially the same engine were known to accumulate metal shavings from poor manufacturing in the amount of several ounces after just a few hours running.
The tracks used were very simple but had a very short service life. The single end pin design wore out very quickly. There was also a very bad problem with thrown tracks. The use of alternate shoe single centerline guides made this very easy to occur at high speed and/or in turns.
Optics on all models until late in the war were of indifferent quality. Bubbles and yellowing (due to the inferior quality of the glue used in laminating the glass) were very common problems.
The armor was sand cast where castings were used. These castings were usually very rough and created unnecessary spalling dangers.
In the T34/76 models the two man turret was a huge disadvantage in offensive operations. The 42 model with that large single hatch was a poor design feature too. The lack of vision devices in general (until the addition of a simple cupola on the C model) added to the inefficency.
Ammunition layout was extremely poor. There are only 3 ready service rounds in the 76 models. After this the loader has to pull 3 round suitcases from under the rubber mats that serve as a floor in the vehicle. This makes reloading very slow comparatively.
Turret rotation on all models is average and fine control is slow making target aqusition slow comparatively. Against late war German tanks which also had slow rotation rates this was not a major disadvantage, if any.
Lack of an intercom system on many vehicles is also a problem as is lack of a radio.
The T34/85 fixed many of these problems to some degree.
In both vehicles the gun chosen was not all that good as an antitank weapon. The 76 was about equal to the US 75 on the Sherman and just slightly inferior to the British 6 pdr. The 85 performed about equally to the US 3" / 76mm and the German 75L48. Neither could be called a stellar performance for the size of the gun.
In any case, the T34 proved to be what the Soviets needed to win so, it can not be termed an unsuccessful design. But, I also have alot of trouble with the idea it was somehow the "best" tank of the war.

The T-34 had the three key points for a tank of its class firepower, armour, speed.

And I agree with the experts the T-34 was the best middle weight tank of the war.

__________________
Regards, Richard

Look at it another way.

Would you be happy sitting in a T-34 facing a Tiger I, or would you rather be sat in a Tiger I facing a T-34.

Dont care what 'experts' have to say. The T-34 may have been ahead of its time but by 1943 it had lost its edge.

Gimme a Tiger or a Panther any day.

__________________
"Watch that Fu*ker, he'll 'ave someones eye out!" King Harold at Hastings 1066.

The T-34 was good in the early stages of it's career then it was just another Soviet tank to be popped. I'll take a Pz V ausf. G over a T-34/85 or even a Stug III G even, and with it's noted track record.

T.A. brought out possibly the most important drawback in the Soviet design and that was it's flawed optics where German opt. were superior till wars end

Aren't you comparing apples with grapes? At least you should choose examples of similar weight.

Definitely, that's why the /85 was developed. Even if I think a gun with better MV could be found.

Any day not bogged, on fire, wheels not frozen, or with a B-25 sitting on the supply chain?

Gee, that was cheap! Even "I" have to agree these were fine machines when everything went right*. Tiger II and upwards were overkill, but these two were fine.

* Don't tell anyone I said this, or I'll have to shoot you

[ 02. February 2006, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: Za Rodinu ]

__________________

I remember an article on an old Armor Magazine issue on the M-47 (!!) where the author told that the gunsight was useless after 4 o'clock, and we're talking about damn good 'made in USA' optics .

Caveat: I have no idea what time would proper dusk be in the context of this article, but takes this as a FWIW.

__________________

Za,

Id still rather be in a bogged down Tiger than a T-34...


Especially if you are the Political officer...