Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Venjra ICQ 2126434

T-34 Tank

Recommended Posts

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Gyrene:

It would not be a stretch to say he was among the first (If not the firts) tank designer to used sloped armor in his tanks.

<hr></blockquote>

Mmmm, I think you'll find quite a few designers were thinking along similar lines. Grott (?sp) of the fUSSR springs to mind. His tanks looked remarkably modern. If he hadn't been subject to the fascination of the period with multiple turrets (in his case superimposed), and instead stuck with one, his tanks wouldn't have looked much out of place with a post-WWII lineup.

Christie's biggest problem was that he usually didn't put actual armour on his vehicles - usually all they had was a shell of dural. He preferred to rely upon speed, above all else for protection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Brian:

[/qb]

Christie's biggest problem was that he usually didn't put actual armour on his vehicles - usually all they had was a shell of dural. He preferred to rely upon speed, above all else for protection.<hr></blockquote>

If I may be so bold as to ask... what is dural?

Thanks

Jim R.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

If I may be so bold as to ask... what is dural?

Thanks

Jim R.<hr></blockquote>

Duralumin, a type of alumininum alloy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

If I may be so bold as to ask... what is dural?

Thanks

Jim R.<hr></blockquote>

Already answered, although the spelling should be duraluminium and aluminium. ;)

Basically, Christie would use thin, aircraft aluminium sheeting, a few millimetres thick on his "tanks" and claim they were "armoured".

That was the first major change the US Army made and which is why Christie always believed they'd butchered his tanks - they used steel plating and it was a wee bit thicker than his dural sheeting.

When the Russians and then the British bought the rights to manufacture his suspension system, for some strange reason they decided to also put real armour on their vehicles...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Tanaka:

Instead of producing fast and imprecise generalizations, go here http://history.vif2.ru/index.html , for a better education in this field ;) (look inside tank developement)

[ 12-27-2001: Message edited by: Tanaka ]<hr></blockquote>

imprecise? Thanks Gyrene, i did'nt feel like going out of my way to prove a point to someone who sounded so ignorant and immature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

imprecise? Thanks Gyrene, i did'nt feel like going out of my way to prove a point to someone who sounded so ignorant and immature.<hr></blockquote>

A Iron Chief, you can't imagine how well the words "ignorant and immature" sounds when you uses them... Is like if the words come from the fount of their significance...

[ 12-30-2001: Message edited by: argie ]</p>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> Already answered, although the spelling should be duraluminium and aluminium.

Basically, Christie would use thin, aircraft aluminium sheeting, a few millimetres thick on his "tanks" and claim they were "armoured".

That was the first major change the US Army made and which is why Christie always believed they'd butchered his tanks - they used steel plating and it was a wee bit thicker than his dural sheeting.

When the Russians and then the British bought the rights to manufacture his suspension system, for some strange reason they decided to also put real armour on their vehicles... <hr></blockquote>

I didn't realize that Chritie's tanks were so lightly armored, as I kept seeing the figure "1/2 inch" listed, which would not be too bad for steel (Against MG's anyway), but it's utter crap for Aluminum. This explains why his tanks were so fast. ;)

Gyrene

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

this has what to do with the t-34 argie? perhaps you should go to the IL2 forum and cry there.<hr></blockquote>

This has to do with your ways, that obviously come from another place.

If you want to make it related to T34s, then I would said that Gyrene's post wasn't in any way a valid rebuttal for anything Tanaka said, nor was intended that way. Look the above post, he even don't know from what the Armor of the Christie's tanks was done. In fact, he jumped to a conclussion only for looking a few pictures.

The same pictures have a very different meaning to me, more related with aerodinamics than with the better armor resistance slopped armor has. If Gyrene has posted a paper (even from a Internet site, as a lot of very good sources are in the Net by now, like that Russian site) in which Christie stated that one of his goals was improving the armor with slopping, then that could have been a valid rebuttal to what Tanaka posted. So far, the only we know about Christie's thoughts on armor is that armor wasn't needed if the tank was fast enough.

I find myself offended because you not only dismissed a valid source just for your own prejudices, something you are consistently doing all around the board, but also thanks to another people making a valid, but personal interpretation from some pictures, for supporting you when he wasn't, dragging him into a personal dispute between you and Tanaka.

[ 12-30-2001: Message edited by: argie ]

[ 12-30-2001: Message edited by: argie ]</p>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personal dispute? Try a disagreement, your realy showing your age. Since you seem socialaly retarded and unable to discuss a subject with someone who may not have the same view as you,i suggest you head on over to the IL2 Forum.

Also i think i hear tanaka crying out for his warm milk, mabe you two should go to a forum about your favorite soap opera or soemthing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

Personal dispute? Try a disagreement, your realy showing your age. Since you seem socialaly retarded and unable to discuss a subject with someone who may not have the same view as you,i suggest you head on over to the IL2 Forum.

Also i think i hear tanaka crying out for his warm milk, mabe you two should go to a forum about your favorite soap opera or soemthing.<hr></blockquote>

How interesting... A disagreement... Calling other people "ignorant and immature" or "socialy retarded" (both things coming from a guy who can't properly use sentences and capitals) is a mature way to show "disagreement".

I have yet to see you posting any fact. After that, maybe, and just maybe, something can be discussed, if you try really hard to learn how to talk to other people with respect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, but Iron is no troll..

Most probably he has a genuine interest in the game and the subject matter in general.

He's just one of the many individuals here on this forum that doesn't take things that serious, thus he constantly trips on people who do.

He's spelling and grammar is poor, thus he appears dumber than he probably is.

He no doubt feels it is he's right to voice any personal/subjective opinion on historical facts no matter if it is supported or not, frustrating some people here who has had academic research and writing training.

I for one dislike posts that throw out false "facts" high and low confusing the threads and necessitating repeated, long winded, explanations to clarify what things "actually" were like.

Right now I am reading a book covering a trial surrounding a case of alleged Holocaust denial. It becomes agonizingly clear how complicated it is to disprove the seemingly simple statement that "there were no gas chambers in Auschwitz".

Leaving the trial completely behind it is still pretty obvious how casual statements very often require considerably much more work to correct than needed to utter them. A further source of dissent being if the "careless" poster has a personality that has a hard time being corrected and/or can't accept that there is such a things as "higher" learning.

That is not to say that those who take a deep and passionate interest in the subject matter can't be just as childish. The difference though is that "scholars" must abide by academic rules or loose the argument by default.

M.

[ 12-30-2001: Message edited by: Mattias ]</p>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with that. Scew the spellcheckers and other 6th grade english teachers oh yeah and statisticiains.

We can all agree that typing is a poor way to commuinicate. We should always remember how inperfect it is. Talking face to face you can understand sarcasm and get a lot more said in the same amount of time. And misunderstandings could be solved much more quickly.

As to the T-34 and Christie....Of course Christie's tank were lightly armored. They were just test vehicals. Just a chasis and some armor that could not fend of SMK ammo from a machine gun. He could not afford all he would have liked to have done to his toys. Be sure of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, to get back to the subject that started this thread, I watched THC's T34 show tonight. I was rather disappointed. It said very, very little about the T34. It was mostly just a 1-hour recap of the war on the Eastern Front and "oh yeah, the Russian 'steamroller' was mostly T34 tanks. Here's a picture of 1." Then more scenes of arty firing and grunts running around. Oh well.

As for Christie's stuff, the US did buy quite a few of his vehicles. Not many at any one time--the biggest sale appears to have been 7 M1931s (4 with 37mm guns called T3 Medium Tanks and 3 with just MGs called T1 Combat Cars). These looked just like members of the Russian BT family.

More importantly, the army bought some of Christie's patents, particularly those for his suspension system and the wheels-or-tracks conversion. Throughout the early 30s, army arsenals built numerous experimental vehicles incorporating these features. This amounted to a significant portion of US AFV production during that period because not many of any types of vehicles were made at that time due to budget constraints.

So it wasn't like the US Army didn't give Christie's ideas a chance. They didn't just toss him out on his ear as is sometimes believed. They spent millions of hard-to-get early-1930s budgets on Christie's products, ideas, and the development of both at their own plants and test facilities. But eventually they decided on other systems. Oh well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible that the US army opted for other designs because of budget caps due to the great depression?

Also America was an isolationist nation during this period, and the populace very adamant about not going off to another war in Europe. Though i think a war with Japan was forseen, considering their naval presence in the pacific and an unprovoked war against China in wich they refused to opt for peace.

So for prepping for an inevitable showdow with the Empire of Japan, would it realy matter whether our main battle tank was a Sherman, or a T-34 when going up against the severly inferior armor of the japanese?

The United States attitude was to leave European wars to the European nations. So there would technicly be no need for an expensive state of the art tank capable of crashing thru the European countryside when in fact it would not become a reality, there for a complete waste of money.

Our leaders more then likely thought the europeans capable of settling any disputes amougnst themelves. Imperial Japan was more of a threat since it took on an expansionist stance through the pacific sphere where we had asets of our own( phillipines ect..)

Where as Germany had France and Britain to keep them in check, wich apeared to be the case, Japan had none but The United states santions to slow it's hostilities towards other nations.

This situation would greatly reduce the need for a "super tank" and call more for ocean going vessels and aircraft of a better quaility. i believe this is the reason that we went ahead with the B-17 project and others of the same nature and importance, while declining on the Chirsite tank designs. this is just something i've thought of right now so no need to rant and rave if it differs from some actual facts. smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only advantage the Christie design had was mobility, and that was never something that American tank designs lacked.

That mobility of the Christie design and later the T34 was more important in the Russian side of the War than in Western Europe, so the US would have had little to gain from that design, as it's tanks were already far more mobile and reliable than German designs.

The sloped armor of the T34 and it's superior mobility was instrumental in it's dominance over the PzIV and in forcing the Germans to counter with the Panther, but the T34 (75mm) as good as it was was still no real match for the Tiger I (Which ,by many accounts ,was created to counter the American T1E series & the M6 heavy tanks, which was never deployed.)

Late War American designs proved to be superior to the T34, with M26 Pershings easily dominating T34/85's in Korea, so in the long run the US did not miss out on much.

The T34 was much better than the Sherman and the PZ IV, but it was not better than the German heavies. There just was a whole lot more of them.

Gyrene

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,I go away a few days, come back, and find this...

ICS…

When a few months ago you arrived at this forum, you typed a sort of compact text without punctuation, capital letters and spaces between issues in your posts. Then slowly you started moving in the “right” direction… points here, a few commas there… then come the spaces between issues, and finely the last addiction, capital letters.

As you can see, you are slowly moving back to typing form… in my humble opinion, the last few steps you need, are more related to the content of your posts then with the cosmetics of them. This last step is the hardest, as it requires another part of your brain, one you clearly seem not being using for a longer time then the repetition one. I will give you some aid in this important and hard last step… Try reducing the number of posts for a start, the idea his for you to post less, but with more quality.

Now, on a more personal level… As said in one of my old posts on another topic, I’m also a part time shrink… yes, it was a correspondence course offered in a morning cereals promotion, but it does wonders some times. :D

I can feel by your posts a troubled young man not wanting to leave childhood …

The adult live, as its advantages/disadvantages, but more important, also brings the responsibility to a new and much higher level. Some individuals take more time then others to do this last but not least important step, others never give it… So the important is that you actually give the step, not before you complete the childhood, but some time on the end of it. Judging by your age, 24, you seem to me as being about a good time on doing it, a little bit longer and you could rotten like a mature fruit, don’t be afraid, billions of mammals of your specie have done this before you.

If you have difficulties, I would advice a contact with the female branch of our specie… women are very good in taking dumbness out of the males. On the first contact, don’t be afraid, women are different, but they don’t bite… like the males, they just want a piece of the action.

If all goes wrong, (it can happen some times), don’t give up, just keep trying… or yet, look for some professional advice with any college of mine (one that preferentially doesn’t had take his degree on cereals), you will see that live as it’s stages, time doesn’t go back and there is no point in staying in one of them.

PS- New Year is about… perhaps a New Year resolution, who knows …

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Gyrene:

The only advantage the Christie design had was mobility, and that was never something that American tank designs lacked.

<hr></blockquote>

Why do you say that? The American design with the wheel pairs in one suspesion (what is that system called anyway?) is a nightmare cross-country, and very fuel-consuming on anything not very even. The tanks were fast on streets, but on bad streets they took a lot more fuel and as you leave the streets you slow down to a crawl, and on top of that the narrow tracks on early Shermans will let you bog down rather sooner than later.

Both the Christie system and the torsion bar suspension were much better. The torsion bar syspension was even better driving-wise, but took a lot more space (which made the Jagdpanther so laughable high for a Jagdpanzer).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

Is it possible that the US army opted for other designs because of budget caps due to the great depression?

<hr></blockquote>

I don't think a Christie suspension would be more expensive than the American design, a Torsion bar suspension surely is (for material and space reasons).

A think people overlook that one massive influence for American tank design was shipping space. That laughably high design of the Sherman was for a reason. A ship deck is pretty high, but floor space is what limits the capability. Saving 10cm of a tank's width makes a huge difference.

From a hastly estimation I also think that the US system is easier to upgrade for an uparmored or upgunned tank. You can exchange the outer parts for stronger one, you generally can't do that in a Christie suspension, which is more integrated into the hull.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

The United States attitude was to leave European wars to the European nations. So there would technicly be no need for an expensive state of the art tank capable of crashing thru the European countryside when in fact it would not become a reality, there for a complete waste of money.

<hr></blockquote>

Even if they expect to be engaed in Europe, it was clearly their policy to do so pretty late, and with throughout preparation. They may have been clever enough to realise that any current tank design is not worth mass-producing if you need the tanks two years from now. It was also important to try them out in the desert.

Needless to say, they managed to botch it nontheless, arriving with non-tungsteen 76mm TDs against Panthers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Gyrene:

The only advantage the Christie design had was mobility, and that was never something that American tank designs lacked.

That mobility of the Christie design and later the T34 was more important in the Russian side of the War than in Western Europe, so the US would have had little to gain from that design, as it's tanks were already far more mobile and reliable than German designs.<hr></blockquote>

Mmmm, definitly more reliable but more mobile?

I seem to remember reading about US Shermans being bogged badly in the mud of the winter of 1944-45 and how their commanders sadly lamented the ability of the Panthers and Panzer IV's with their much wider tracks being able to continue to be mobile.

US tanks until the advent of the M24 and M26 were always at a disadvantage in really heavy going, compared to the Germans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf:

Why do you say that? The American design with the wheel pairs in one suspesion (what is that system called anyway?) is a nightmare cross-country, and very fuel-consuming on anything not very even. The tanks were fast on streets, but on bad streets they took a lot more fuel and as you leave the streets you slow down to a crawl, and on top of that the narrow tracks on early Shermans will let you bog down rather sooner than later.

Both the Christie system and the torsion bar suspension were much better. The torsion bar syspension was even better driving-wise, but took a lot more space (which made the Jagdpanther so laughable high for a Jagdpanzer).<hr></blockquote>

The early Shermans used a vertical volute suspension. It was indeed better on hard surfaces and had the disadvantage of relatively narrow tracks. It was easy to produce and maintain and was quite reliable. The second-generation used a horizontal volute suspension that improved things a bit, in particular being able to use wider tracks.

As to the torsion bars effect upon raising the height of the jagdpanther, I'd always had the impression that the height was a function of gun trunnion placement and the need to give the piece adequate vertical movement. The torsion bars do take up a few inches of floor space but this didn't seem to affect the Panther or Tiger's height either, and their hull height was very similar to the jagdpanther, at least until the latter's barbette was considered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by gunnergoz:

As to the torsion bars effect upon raising the height of the jagdpanther, I'd always had the impression that the height was a function of gun trunnion placement and the need to give the piece adequate vertical movement. The torsion bars do take up a few inches of floor space but this didn't seem to affect the Panther or Tiger's height either, and their hull height was very similar to the jagdpanther, at least until the latter's barbette was considered.<hr></blockquote>

The Spielberger book on the Jagdpanther is clear on that the Germans even considered replacing the torsion bar suspension with Pz IV parts in the Panther chassis for height reasons, the long 88 needs a lot of free space and they couldn't lower the driver's seat as they wanted. They only stuck with the original Panther suspension because it would have been too much overhead to had seperate constructions for both AFVs. They book also has shots of the suspension, it takes a lot of space (more than a few inches) between the plates of the lower hull that in the best of cases can be used to store ammunition, but neither for fuel tanks nor crew placement, not to speak of moving gun parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×