Jump to content


The Devil's Due


  • Please log in to reply
174 replies to this topic

Kalinin #161 Posted Mar 12 2012 - 00:10

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 13521 battles
  • 853
  • [PONYS] PONYS
  • Member since:
    12-17-2010
Still in service arguments are pointless. Fun fact: M3 Stuarts are still in service in South America. Does that mean they're really worth much these days?

Noble #162 Posted Mar 12 2012 - 02:31

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 7325 battles
  • 465
  • Member since:
    04-30-2011

 Lunaris, on Mar 11 2012 - 23:13, said:

There's  no portable computer back then in 1980 or below when soviet tank technology surpass NATO forces. Today they put those useless gizmos on T-90.

And those who say about mass production crap always forgot that T-54/55 is the first MBT in history, replacing light medium and heavy tank all together. While NATO still produce light medium and heavy until mid cold war. And also don't forget that USSR is the sole producer for Warsaw Pact tank while France, Britain, Germany and USA produce their own tanks and competing each other. And T-54/55 still produced up to 1980, still in service up to today and can be retrofitted with the latest technology.

T-72 is also a fine example. About 25k produced and is still in production compared to combination of NATO equivalent like AMX 30, Leo the 1st, M60 Patton, Challenger the 1st which also reach 20k++ but no longer in production.

And also the backbone tank of the USSR is the T-64 which is not easy to produce like T-72.

Wasn't the centurion the first MBT in history?  :Smile_great:

Lunaris #163 Posted Mar 12 2012 - 06:14

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 8216 battles
  • 996
  • Member since:
    02-21-2011

 Kalinin, on Mar 12 2012 - 00:10, said:

Still in service arguments are pointless. Fun fact: M3 Stuarts are still in service in South America. Does that mean they're really worth much these days?

Can it can be retrofitted to modern standard? If yes then its relevant.

Aristogeiton #164 Posted Mar 12 2012 - 16:54

    Private

  • Players
  • 1768 battles
  • 5
  • Member since:
    11-09-2011

 Zepheris, on Feb 17 2012 - 02:07, said:

not really, israel conflict for instance had centurions pitted directly against T-62s back during the war in golan height...

Syrian tankers and planning was decidedly poor of course but the ferocious fight where israel centurions were outnumbered sometimes 10 to 1 and held them off inflicting massive casualties (till their centurions ran out of shells) showed the relative strength of both tanks involved as well. (and showed as well that you can't just roll tanks in without ample air support and artillery even if you have numerical advantage)

Indo pakistan conflict also gives a good showcase of their abilities, this time on better limelight where russian tanks meet french, and american tanks as well.. and both sides took casualties but in a much more comparable situation unlike Israel cases where their armored forces in general have decisively better performance.

I mean anyone with half of a brain should know that T-55/62 are not meant to engage 3rd generation MBTs and perform well, so those engagement should not be considered a gauge of the tank's design, but back during the time when they were top of the line design they fought other western tanks as well of the era (M48s, Pattons, centurions, etc), and these CAN be analysed and used as a gauge of their performance.
We don't hear about it much, but South African Centurians went up against pretty comparable Russian tanks in Angola with great success. The Centurians that Israel bought and captured were pretty upgraded; almost like throwing a modern Panther turret on a 1943 Panther hull. The Israelis still have a few Centurians in service and obviously learned a lot from them about survivability.

Aristogeiton #165 Posted Mar 12 2012 - 17:00

    Private

  • Players
  • 1768 battles
  • 5
  • Member since:
    11-09-2011

 Kalinin, on Mar 12 2012 - 00:10, said:

Still in service arguments are pointless. Fun fact: M3 Stuarts are still in service in South America. Does that mean they're really worth much these days?

If you have seventy year old tanks that still work and your opponent has new armoured cars or maybe nothing, then yes. And if you happen to scrape together enough money to buy a few newer tanks on ebay it's a lot easier to transition from old tanks than from armoured cars.

Mark2 #166 Posted Mar 12 2012 - 23:59

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 24521 battles
  • 24
  • [US2AD] US2AD
  • Member since:
    11-15-2011

 Lunaris, on Mar 11 2012 - 23:13, said:

And those who say about mass production crap always forgot that T-54/55 is the first MBT in history, replacing light medium and heavy tank all together. While NATO still produce light medium and heavy until mid cold war. And also don't forget that USSR is the sole producer for Warsaw Pact tank while France, Britain, Germany and USA produce their own tanks and competing each other.
I happen to be a pretty big fan of Soviet-era Russian tanks, but I think that a case can be made for their worth while still using some care with historical facts.

For most of the production life of the T-54/55 the Soviets also produced light tanks and heavy tanks.  Notable among them are the PT-76 light tank and the T-10 heavy tank, but there were others. These were important vehicles, produced in substantial numbers.

In fact the reason NATO nations actually put heavy tanks into production (the M103 and the Conqueror) was specifically to counter Soviet heavy tanks, not through any concern over T-54/55s or some shortcomings in Centurions or Pattons.

Also, the Soviets were not the only producers of armored vehicles for the Warsaw Pact or the "communist block".  Czechoslovakia, East Germany and Poland all produced substantial numbers of armored vehicles, including licensed Soviet designs and their own original designs.  Yugoslavia and China also produced substantial numbers of tanks and AFVs that were sold to various "iron curtain" countries. Some of these were straight copies of Soviet designs, but others were further developments that required significant design efforts.

So the statements about the Soviets being the only producer, or of the T-54/55 replacing all light, medium and heavy tanks with one tank, simply do not stand up to examination.

As to the T-54/55 being the first MBT ... ask a room full of military history / tank buffs which tank was the first MBT and you'll probably get more opinions than the number of people in the room.  A case can certainly be made for the T-54.  But so also a case can be made for the Centurion, the M26 Pershing, the Panther, the M4 Sherman, the T-34, and even the Pz III.  Choose whichever you'd like, and you're guaranteed to find many folks to tell you all the reasons you are wrong...

-Mark 2

Lunaris #167 Posted Mar 13 2012 - 05:01

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 8216 battles
  • 996
  • Member since:
    02-21-2011
PT 76 produced not because they are light but because they can float. You can see that they are different than NATO light tanks like AMX 13. And T 10 Heavy tanks are Medium weight when compared to NATO heavies.

USSR still the main producer of Warsaw pact tanks. East Germany produce only T 34-85. Poland and Czechoslovakia each produce about 3000 T 54/55 and hundreds of T 72.

Mark2 #168 Posted Mar 13 2012 - 22:36

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 24521 battles
  • 24
  • [US2AD] US2AD
  • Member since:
    11-15-2011

 Lunaris, on Mar 13 2012 - 05:01, said:

PT 76 produced not because they are light but because they can float. You can see that they are different than NATO light tanks like AMX 13. And T 10 Heavy tanks are Medium weight when compared to NATO heavies.
Now you are just being silly.

Is our standard now that light tanks are produced only because they are light, and not because of their capabilities?

If so, then yes PT-76 was produced not because it was light, but because it was well suited to perform long-range reconnaissance and light combat, including crossing rivers and fighting screening forces.  But by the same token AMX 13 was not produced because it was light either, but because it had a good gun, high speed, and was small, allowing it to react quickly and perform a variety of economy-of-force missions.  

And when you are say that the T-10 was a medium by western standards, does that mean you believe the Soviets were also building a medium tank while the T-54/55 was in production?  What does that say about your thesis about the T-54/55 "replacing light medium and heavy tank altogether"?

Yes it is true that the PT-76 was different than the AMX-13.  But then the T-54/55 was different than the AMX-30 too.  And different from the Centurion, or the M46/47/48.  Which was, I believe, the whole point of the article from our esteemed Chieftain -- that the Soviets designed their tanks for different roles, and with different capabilities, than western armies.

So I would expect the PT-76 to be different from the AMX-13. But that doesn't mean it is not a light tank.  The T-54/55 did not REPLACE light, medium and heavy tanks, but was a medium tank produced along WITH light tanks and heavy tanks. Not because they all fit some weight scale standard, but because they each had different capabilities that the Soviets valued.  Which is usually why you produce multiple weapon systems.  You know, like pistols AND rifles AND machine guns, or fighters AND bombers AND transports.  Or M41s AND M48s AND M103s.

:Smile-hiding:  

-Mark 2

SwordFlSH #169 Posted Mar 20 2012 - 18:30

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 4831 battles
  • 139
  • [PRAVH] PRAVH
  • Member since:
    02-01-2012
When it comes to crappy better have quantity rather than quality!! And the Russians did that pretty well!

joykrishnamondal #170 Posted Aug 16 2012 - 00:39

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 6466 battles
  • 25
  • Member since:
    07-04-2012

 DerJager, on Feb 17 2012 - 02:43, said:

I would like to point out that, while the soviets built cruedly, it was in large part because they wouldn't have been able to build more advanced tanks in numbers sufficient to fight an offensive war with NATO forces. Lets face it, man for man, the NATO tankers (Germany especially, during WWII) were probably better. Not to knock on the soviets, but even later in WWII, when their tactics improved, this didn't mean that the individual soviet tankman was more skilled than his 1941 counter-part, only that command had finally worked out a more efficient way to use those relativly unskilled tankers. Its not likely that, without a war to provide actual expierience for new tankers and to sharpen the skills of veterans, overall Soviet skill would have improved. The same is true of the NATO forces, but even if the average skill of both side's deteriorates, the weterners are still starting off from a higher level.

And conversly, when the Wermact began to fight less effectivly later in the war, it wasn't really caused by a decreased quality of their average tankers, or that their commanders were getting stuppider. Panzer Lehr remained the finest training unit in the world. It was because Hitler was taking an ever larger hand in not only strategy, but even tactics. Early in the war, the wermacht units were often just given an objective and a rough time-table for advance, but how and why the objective was taken were left entirely upto them. Compare this to later in the war, when hitler was micro-managing things, sometimes plotting routes of advance for major offensives as far down as the Battalion level, and specifying which supporting units would be used and when, and leaving his commanders virtually no room for disgression.

But anway, I've gone off on a tangent there. Point is that if you compare the likely Soviet operations to those of NATO forces, clearly NATO is going to be sitting on the defensive almost exclusivly during the start of hostilities. Because they would have the defender's advantage, as well as the advantage of superior air assets (lets face it, the USA had everyone else's air forces beat at the end of WWII, and has likely held a slight advantage, even compared to other western nations, ever since), they wil face lighter casualties.

We can reasonably assume NATO, especially if the fictional hostilities are immediatly post-war, will have air-parity at minimum, leaning towards air-dominance, at least initially. The soviets also lack a ground-attack plane to match the P-47 or the Hawker Typhoon. So we can expect that advancing soviet tanks will suffer heavy casualties (numbers wise, even if not by percentages), especially if their offensive is launched through the Falda Gap, where they will be heavily concentrated. Later, the difference in airpower will have shrunk, but would probably still favor NATO. This being true, the Soviets would only have even greater need for a cheap, reasonably effective tank that they can make litteral hordes of.


And as you stated, NATO armor was, one for one, probably superior. Immediatly post-war, the US M4A3 with the 76mm was probably superior in combat to the T-34/85. Its gun was certinally superior, as was frontal armor, even if only marginally. With the M26 and the first Centurion tanks, they had tanks comperable or superior to the Is2. The overall defecit of quality likely even grew a hair as the years progressed, and more advanced electronics were developed.

In my admittedly unexpierenced assment, the Soviets wouldn't have been able to make an invasion of the west work. Mostly because an invasion of the west would lack any clear stratgic goals (they are effectivly fighting an entire hemisphere). Intially, most production centers are located in the USA and UK. Later, when Germany got back on here feet and attack of production facilities would have been a viable stratgic move..... well so what? They're fighting every part of the Western Hemisphere thats worth anything in combat.

Military victory being essentially impossible later on in the Cold War, their best chance would have been immediatly post-war, when England was reeling from the war, France and Germany were effectivly out of the fight for the imediate future, and the USA was both war-weary and still setting things up in Japan. If they do that.... well, they're still at an overall military disadvantage, and they couldn't have done anything about nukes.

 DerJager, on Feb 17 2012 - 02:43, said:

I would like to point out that, while the soviets built cruedly, it was in large part because they wouldn't have been able to build more advanced tanks in numbers sufficient to fight an offensive war with NATO forces. Lets face it, man for man, the NATO tankers (Germany especially, during WWII) were probably better. Not to knock on the soviets, but even later in WWII, when their tactics improved, this didn't mean that the individual soviet tankman was more skilled than his 1941 counter-part, only that command had finally worked out a more efficient way to use those relativly unskilled tankers. Its not likely that, without a war to provide actual expierience for new tankers and to sharpen the skills of veterans, overall Soviet skill would have improved. The same is true of the NATO forces, but even if the average skill of both side's deteriorates, the weterners are still starting off from a higher level.

And conversly, when the Wermact began to fight less effectivly later in the war, it wasn't really caused by a decreased quality of their average tankers, or that their commanders were getting stuppider. Panzer Lehr remained the finest training unit in the world. It was because Hitler was taking an ever larger hand in not only strategy, but even tactics. Early in the war, the wermacht units were often just given an objective and a rough time-table for advance, but how and why the objective was taken were left entirely upto them. Compare this to later in the war, when hitler was micro-managing things, sometimes plotting routes of advance for major offensives as far down as the Battalion level, and specifying which supporting units would be used and when, and leaving his commanders virtually no room for disgression.

But anway, I've gone off on a tangent there. Point is that if you compare the likely Soviet operations to those of NATO forces, clearly NATO is going to be sitting on the defensive almost exclusivly during the start of hostilities. Because they would have the defender's advantage, as well as the advantage of superior air assets (lets face it, the USA had everyone else's air forces beat at the end of WWII, and has likely held a slight advantage, even compared to other western nations, ever since), they wil face lighter casualties.

We can reasonably assume NATO, especially if the fictional hostilities are immediatly post-war, will have air-parity at minimum, leaning towards air-dominance, at least initially. The soviets also lack a ground-attack plane to match the P-47 or the Hawker Typhoon. So we can expect that advancing soviet tanks will suffer heavy casualties (numbers wise, even if not by percentages), especially if their offensive is launched through the Falda Gap, where they will be heavily concentrated. Later, the difference in airpower will have shrunk, but would probably still favor NATO. This being true, the Soviets would only have even greater need for a cheap, reasonably effective tank that they can make litteral hordes of.


And as you stated, NATO armor was, one for one, probably superior. Immediatly post-war, the US M4A3 with the 76mm was probably superior in combat to the T-34/85. Its gun was certinally superior, as was frontal armor, even if only marginally. With the M26 and the first Centurion tanks, they had tanks comperable or superior to the Is2. The overall defecit of quality likely even grew a hair as the years progressed, and more advanced electronics were developed.

In my admittedly unexpierenced assment, the Soviets wouldn't have been able to make an invasion of the west work. Mostly because an invasion of the west would lack any clear stratgic goals (they are effectivly fighting an entire hemisphere). Intially, most production centers are located in the USA and UK. Later, when Germany got back on here feet and attack of production facilities would have been a viable stratgic move..... well so what? They're fighting every part of the Western Hemisphere thats worth anything in combat.

Military victory being essentially impossible later on in the Cold War, their best chance would have been immediatly post-war, when England was reeling from the war, France and Germany were effectivly out of the fight for the imediate future, and the USA was both war-weary and still setting things up in Japan. If they do that.... well, they're still at an overall military disadvantage, and they couldn't have done anything about nukes.


u are forgetting the fact that stalin did the same thing with the red army.

Drakenred #171 Posted Aug 16 2012 - 03:29

    Captain

  • Players
  • 15243 battles
  • 1,782
  • Member since:
    08-14-2011
There was a railroad company that in developing there rail lines used a soft wood for the rail ties, (so soft that even after being specificaly treated with a high preasure machine to inject chemicals in order to bascialy make them harder and denser still, and they STILL needed to be replaced every year).

Because they expected to replace the ties within a year they often did not bother to properly level the balast.

In places the "balast" was mostly compsed of materials taken from spoils taken from cuts made to make a more or less constant grade as aposed to proper gravel balast. yes there were stretches that were literaly no more than packed dirt.

They literaly built bridges with the intention that they would be torn down and replaced in a year or so (usulay with another temporary wooden bridge), because they needed to get it done as fast as posible, they would build the perminent stone or steel bridge later. they often found that they were behind schedual with replaceing the temporary bridges with new temporary bridges because they needed to replace temporary bridges elswhere that had washed out or colapsed.

a number of  locomotives were "converted" from 4-4-0s to 2-4-0s by cutting down the tanks of 4-4-0 locomotives that had burst there boilers. in some cases thoes same shortend locomotives were later rebuilt as full 4-4-0s

the railroad?  the Union Pacific. they eventualy got there problems sorted out.

My point? Soviet Russia was harldy the first with the Idea do only what you need to get it done.

Edited by Drakenred, Aug 16 2012 - 03:33.


ryacko #172 Posted Aug 21 2012 - 06:50

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 21945 battles
  • 359
  • Member since:
    03-05-2011
This is what the US examintion of the T-34 yielded.
http://english.battl...and-kv-dp1.html

Quote

The main weakness is that it is very tight. The Americans couldn't understand how our tankers could fit inside during a winter, when they wear sheepskin jackets [The Americans tested T-34 Model 1941 with a two-men turret]. The electrical mechanism for rotating the turret is very bad. The motor is weak, very overloaded and sparks horribly, as a result of which the device regulating the speed of the rotation burns out, and the teeth of the cogwheels break into pieces. They recommend replace it with a hydraulic or simply manual system.

Quote

The main deficiency is the permeability to water of the lower hull during a water crossings, as well as the upper hull during a rain. In a heavy rain lots of water flows through chinks/cracks, which leads to the disabling of the electrical equipment and even the ammunition.
The Americans liked how the ammunition is stowed.


TocTeplv #173 Posted Sep 02 2012 - 02:34

    Private

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 1
  • Member since:
    09-02-2012
The funniest part in this 9 page long fanboi circle jerk (btw no disrespect for the author- he states a valid point, often overlooked, about different doctrinal approach) is that Stalin never said this quantity - quality thing.  But dont worry, people! Russians have same kind of threads in their parts of internet, where they discuss how Nato tanks would have burned in droves, being destroyed by Refleks while out of range.

From Russia with love.
Cheers.

Haunt8dTank #174 Posted Dec 13 2012 - 05:09

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 14320 battles
  • 349
  • Member since:
    01-06-2012
I found this off of a link from Wikipedias T34 page. I really wonder what happened to the author of the original report. It does seem the type of letter that could get someone sent to Siberia or a penal battalion.
Original link: http://english.battl...and-kv-dp1.html


Evaluation of The T-34 and KV Tanks By Engineers of the Aberdeen Proving Grounds
Print  Email
Author: n/a
Created on Wednesday, 19 September 2001 12:51
Last Updated on Monday, 19 September 2011 12:52
Total hits: 1175
Evaluation Of The T-34 And Kv Tanks By Engineers Of The Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Submitted By Firms, Officers And Members Of Military Commissions Responsible For Testing Tanks
The tanks were given to the U.S. by the Soviets at the end of 1942 for familiarization.
The condition of the tanks
The T-34 medium tank after driving 343 km, became completely disabled and that could not be fixed. The reason: owing to the extremely poor air filter system on the diesel, a large quantity of dirt got into the engine and a breakdown occurred, as a result of which the pistons and cylinders were damaged to such a degree that they were impossible to fix. The tank was withdrawn from tests and was to be shelled by the KV and American 3" gun of the M-10 tank [M10 "Wolverine" SP antitank gun]. After that, it would be sent to Aberdeen, where it would be analyzed and kept as an exhibit.
The heavy tank KV-1 is still functional. Tests were continued, although it had many mechanical defects.
The silhouette/configuration of the tanks
Everyone, without exception, approves of the shape of the hull of our tanks. The T-34's is particularly good. All are of the opinion that the shape of the T-34's hull is better than that of any American tank. The KV's is worse than on any current American tank.
Armor
A chemical analysis of the armor showed that on both tanks the armor plating has a shallow surface tempering, whereas the main mass of the armored plating is made of soft steel.
In this regard the Americans consider that by changing the technology used to temper the armored plating, it would be possible to significantly reduce its thickness while preserving its protective ability. As a result the weight of the tank could be decreased by 8-10%, with all the resulting benefits (an increase in speed, reduction in ground pressure, etc.)
Hull
The main deficiency is the permeability to water of the lower hull during a water crossings, as well as the upper hull during a rain. In a heavy rain lots of water flows through chinks/cracks, which leads to the disabling of the electrical equipment and even the ammunition.
The Americans liked how the ammunition is stowed.
Turret
The main weakness is that it is very tight. The Americans couldn't understand how our tankers could fit inside during a winter, when they wear sheepskin jackets [The Americans tested T-34 Model 1941 with a two-men turret]. The electrical mechanism for rotating the turret is very bad. The motor is weak, very overloaded and sparks horribly, as a result of which the device regulating the speed of the rotation burns out, and the teeth of the cogwheels break into pieces. They recommend replace it with a hydraulic or simply manual system.
Armament
The F-34 gun is a very good. It is simple, very reliable and easy to service. Its weakness is that the muzzle velocity of AP round is significantly inferior to the American 3" gun (3200 feet versus 5700 feet per second).
Optic
The general opinion: the best construction in the world. Incomparable with any existing tanks or any under development.
Tracks
The Americans like very much the idea of a steel tracks. But they believe that until they receive the results of the comparative performance of steel vs rubber tracks on American tanks in Tunis and other active fronts, there is no reason for changing from the American solution of rubber bushings and pads.
The deficiencies in our tracks from their viewpoint results from the lightness of their construction. They can easily be damaged by small-calibre and mortar rounds. The pins are extremely poorly tempered and made of a poor steel. As a result, they quickly wear and the track often breaks. The idea of having loose track pins that are held in place by a cam welded to the side of the hull, at first was greatly liked by the Americans. But when in use under certain operating conditions, the pins would become bent which often resulted in the track rupturing. The Americans consider that if the armour is reduced in thickness the resultant weight saving can be used to make the tracks heavier and more reliable.
Suspension
On the T-34, it is poor. The Christie's suspension was tested long time ago by the Americans, and unconditionally rejected. On our tanks, as a result of the poor steel on the springs, it very quickly (unclear word) and as a result clearance is noticeably reduced. On the KV the suspension is very good.
Engine
The diesel is good and light. The idea of using diesel engines on tanks is shared in full by American specialists and military personnel. Unfortunately, diesel engines produced in U.S. factories are used by the navy and, therefore, the army is deprived of the possibility of installing diesels in its tanks.
The deficiency of our diesels is the criminally poor air cleaners on the T-34. The Americans consider that only a saboteur could have constructed such a device. They also don't understand why in our manuals it is called oil-bath. Their tests in a laboratory showed that:
    the air cleaner doesn't clean at all the air which is drawn into the motor;
    its capacity does not allow for the flow of the necessary quantity of air, even when the motor is idling. As a result, the motor does not achieve its full capacity. Dirt getting into the cylinders leads them to quickly wear out, compression drops, and the engine loses even more power. In addition, the filter was manufactured, from a mechanical point of view, extremely primitively: in places the spot-welding of the electric welding has burned through the metal, leading to leakage of oil etc [this claim was noticed and later variants of T-34 received the new "Cyclon" filter]. On the KV the filter is better manufactured, but it does not secure the flow in sufficient quantity of normal cleaned air. On both motors the starters are poor, being weak and of unreliable construction.
Transmission
Without a doubt, poor. An interesting thing happened. Those working on the transmission of the KV were struck that it was very much like those transmissions on which they had worked 12-15 years ago. The firm was questioned. The firm sent the blueprints of their transmission type A-23. To everyone's surprise, the blueprints of our transmission turned out to be a copy of those sent. The Americans were surprised not that we were copying their design, but that we were copying a design that they had rejected 15-20 years ago. The Americans consider that, from the point of view of the designer, installing such a transmission in the tank would create an inhuman harshness for the driver (hard to work). On the T-34 the transmission is also very poor. When it was being operated, the cogs completely fell to pieces (on all the cogwheels). A chemical analysis of the cogs on the cogwheels showed that their thermal treatment is very poor and does not in any way meet American standards for such mechanisms.
Side friction clutches
Out of a doubt, very poor. In USA, they rejected the installation of friction clutches, even on tractors (never mind tanks), several years ago. In addition to the fallaciousness of the very principle, our friction clutches are extremely carelessly machined from low-quality steel, which quickly causes wear and tear, accelerates the penetration of dirt into the drum and in no way ensures reliable functioning.
General comments
From the American point of view, our tanks are slow [Americans got the T-34 with a 4-speed gearbox. With a such gearbox T-34 could use the 4th speed on a firm and even surface - i.e. on paved roads. Thus, the max speed on the cross-country was 25.6 km/h. On later modifications there was a 5-speed gearbox to be installed. This gearbox allowed to drive with a 30.5 km/h]. Both our tanks can climb an incline better than any American tank. The welding of the armor plating is extremely crude and careless. The radio sets in laboratory tests turned out to be not bad. However, because of poor shielding and poor protection, after installation in the tanks the sets did not manage to establish normal communications at distances greater than 10 miles. The compactness of the radio sets and their intelligent placement in the tanks was pleasing. The machining of equipment components and parts was, with few exceptions, very poor. In particular, the Americans were troubled by the disgraceful design and extremely poor work on the transmission links on the T-34. After much torment they made a new ones and replaced ours. All the tanks mechanisms demand very frequent fine-tuning.
Conclusions, suggestions
    On both tanks, quickly replace the air cleaners with models with greater capacity capable of actually cleaning the air.
    The technology for tempering the armor plating should be changed. This would increase the protectiveness of the armor, either by using an equivalent thickness or, by reducing the thickness, lowering the weight and, accordingly, the use of metal.
    Make the tracks thicker.
    Replace the existing transmission of outdated design with the American "Final Drive," which would significantly increase the tanks manoeuvrability.
    Abandon the use of friction clutches.
    Simplify the construction of small components, increase their reliability and decrease to the maximum extent possible the need to constantly make adjustments.
    Comparing American and Russian tanks, it is clear that driving Russian tanks is much harder. A virtuosity is demanded of Russian drivers in changing gear on the move, special experience in using friction clutches, great experience as a mechanic, and the ability to keep tanks in working condition (adjustments and repairs of components, which are constantly becoming disabled). This greatly complicates the training of tankers and drivers.
    Judging by samples, Russians when producing tanks pay little attention to careful machining or the finishing and technology of small parts and components, which leads to the loss of the advantage what would otherwise accrue from what on the whole are well designed tanks.
    Despite the advantages of the use of diesel, the good contours of the tanks, thick armor, good and reliable armaments, the successful design of the tracks etc., Russian tanks are significantly inferior to American tanks in their simplicity of driving, manoeuvrability, the strength of firing (reference to muzzle velocity), speed, the reliability of mechanical construction and the ease of keeping them running.
The head of the 2nd Department of the Main Intelligence Department of the Red Army, major-general Khlopov
Source: "Nevski Bastion" No.1, 1997 (2nd issue)

Beausabre #175 Posted Jan 21 2019 - 18:37

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 10 battles
  • 63
  • Member since:
    06-18-2018
I always figured that any technical whiz-bang we had, they had. If there were differences in doctrine, well, maybe theres suited what they had to work with than ours a. If there was a difference, it was in the level of training




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users