A34 Comet - how soon could it have been ready?

[vinnye]

Yulzari, from what I have been told by my neighbour, he liked the Conqueror, loved the Centurion and loathed the Chieftan!

 

[tomo pauk]

...
German tank development had fairly solidly outclassed the Sherman M1A1 by 1943, so certainly the British considered the Sherman a stopgap measure until the HV75mm Cromwell 17 pdr Challenger were produced in quantity for British armoured units.
The Cromwell Challenger (as envisioned) were more than capable of dealing with Panther tanks, and it's not even certain that stopping their development would speed up the Centurion (as built)

We could note that there were other threats 'aimed' against tanks, from hand-held weapons up to different AT guns. Neither Cromwell, Challenger nor Comet were capable to shrug off that, neither were other Allied medium tanks.
Centurion did not broke any new ground in ww2 tank development, so canceling Cromwell/Challenger/Comet might've brought the 17 pdr heavy tank on the beaches of Normandy in June 1944.

 

[razor1uk]

The Russians were sure that the Germans were developing bigger tanks like they were, but repeated Soviet delegations no matter what implied questions and hinted at slips of info could only fathom what turned to be largely the truth, certainly prior to '40; that the Germans didn't have anthing aproaching the T34 or KV1/2. Mind the Germans were probably thinking of the T-24/26's if they did catch the hints about '...anything larger than that tank over there?'.

 

[yulzari]

Vinnye, as a one time foot soldier I loathed all tanks. Hated the sound of squeaking tracks nearby in the night and who thought that any sane foot soldier is going to walk up to the back of a tank that can't see you and may reverse at any moment and then stop to open up a telephone box on the back of the tank to attract the commander's attention before he squashes you. But I may be biased.......

 

[vinnye]

When you put it that way Yulzari, I can see your point entirely!
On the other hand having some of your tanks around could be handy if the other side have some knocking about!

 

[Freebird]

Yes, I was aware that Russia was allied to Nazi Germany in 1940. In fact they were right up until the time the Germans invaded them.
However, this does not mean that they trusted the Germans, far from it!
How else do you explain the fact that the Germans and Russians co-operated in exercise before WW2, and yet, the Germans were completly taken by surprise by the introduction of the T34?
.

The Russians were rather hoping that the British the Germans would weaken each other so much that they could mop up the remnants.

They just didn't want to share anything with the West.

 

[tomo pauk]

Why would the Soviets share anything with the West, prior 22th June 1941?

 

[Milosh]

They just didn't want to share anything with the West.

Then why were a T-34 and a KV-1 sent to the USA?

http://www.oocities.org/pentagon/qu.../evaluation_of_russians_tanks_at_aberdeen.htm

 

[Shortround6]

Sending 1940/41 tanks to The US at the end of 1942 isn't really sharing a whole lot. Soviets have been getting Western weapons for well over a year.

 

[vinnye]

The T34 was so much better than anything the Allies had, it would have been nice to have had it in 1940, but as previously posted the Russians were allied with Germany at that point.

 

[Freebird]

Then why were a T-34 and a KV-1 sent to the USA?

Evaluation of tanks T-34 and KV by workers of the Aberdeen testing grounds of the U.S.

They did indeed, but at the end of 1942, too late to be engineered produced in Britain before D-day.
The Soviets were reluctant to share much information with the west due to suspicion of our motives. (even as we were helping them)

 

[razor1uk]

In a way, after Hitler back-stabbed them (in their/Stalins eyes, before he got the chance to do it to them), its sort of obvious they'd be holding back on technology sharing with their 'enemies enemy'.
Not to defend the Soviets ourright, but to offer a possible more neutral bias a logical reasoning, if the roles were reversed, I think any country including the U.S. would be just as 'cagey'.

 

[parsifal]

Sending 1940/41 tanks to The US at the end of 1942 isn't really sharing a whole lot. Soviets have been getting Western weapons for well over a year.

I agree, for the most part, but would the Us have benefitted if they had built copies of the T-34, perhaps with US engines,optics and transmissions? I think the t-34 was at least a generation ahed of US tank development at that stage of the war....

 

[razor1uk]

Yep Parsifal, I think with the T34, the Soviets (design wise) jumped ahead of everyone by one generation, and perhaps another one production wise too; even if it was a little rough and ready, it was also tough and ready. Didn't they 34's also have rail mounted engine/transmission packs.

 

[parsifal]

dont know. i do know thay had aliminum cast engine heads something pretty revolutionary for their time. T-34s acquired a terrible reputation transmission wise, and a great reputation for ease of maintenance. There was a lot of "stretchability" in the design. with influences showing all the way through to the T-72.

 

[Freebird]

I agree, for the most part, but would the Us have benefitted if they had built copies of the T-34, perhaps with US engines,optics and transmissions? I think the t-34 was at least a generation ahed of US tank development at that stage of the war....

I don't know that it's really that helpful. Using some of the better design points (sloped armour etc) on future US tanks certainly, but the Soviet tanks had some mechanical problems that didn't give them a long lifespan, and would need to be re-designed

From the link posted earlier...

Evaluation of tanks T-34 and KV by workers of the Aberdeen testing grounds of the U.S.

Engine: 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.

Transmission: On the T-34 the transmission is 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.

Clutches: Without doubt, poor. In America, 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.

The Soviets were fine with a tank that would only be used for a few hundred km, as it was more or less disposable. The US on the other hand, was going to considerable effort expense to ship tanks over the ocean, so wanted a tank to last longer than Soviet tanks.

The main problem with US tanks wasn't the lack of design options, it was the doctrine that precluded a more effective tank

 

[vinnye]

According to Wiki, the T34 was pretty reliable :
Koshkin's team completed two prototype T-34s in January 1940. In April and May, they underwent a grueling 2,000-kilometre (1,200 mi) drive from Kharkiv to Moscow for a demonstration for the Kremlin leaders, to the Mannerheim Line in Finland, and back to Kharkiv via Minsk and Kiev.[21] Some drivetrain shortcomings were identified and corrected.

 

[Shortround6]

The Russians seem to have a history of prototypes performing much better than production examples.

Of course there is also the question of what an experienced driver could do compared to a driver with minimal training.

For those of us that remember manual transmission cars a question or two.

How many of us can remember a friend or relative that could get 60-100,000 miles on one clutch?
How many of us can remember a friend or relative that could ruin a clutch in 12-20,000 miles?

and that is for cars weighing 1-2 tons and small engines compared to a tank engine, it also is for transmissions that for the most part were synchronized (at least on the upper gears).

I used to drive a couple of fire trucks with non-synchro transmissions (30 years ago and they were left overs then) and if you blew a shift the best thing was to come to a complete halt and start in 1st gear again. Granted we weren't being shot at but we were responding to emergencies. Blowing the transmission doesn't get you to the fire

 

[davebender]

Britain received 17,000 sherman tanks. It's reliable and has decent cross country performance.

7.5cm/48 KwK 40 cannon fit into turret of 18 ton (original weight) Panzer IV. A similiar British made cannon should fit into larger Sherman turret without difficulty.

Germany welded 30mm RHA plates to front of Panzer IVG. Larger Sherman tank should support similiar 30mm RHA plates without difficulty.

Problem solved. Britain just needs to build Sherman upgrade kit which includes better main gun and add on frontal RHA. With these two upgrades surviving British Sherman tanks can serve into the early 1950s.

 

[fastmongrel]

I used to drive a couple of fire trucks with non-synchro transmissions (30 years ago and they were left overs then) and if you blew a shift the best thing was to come to a complete halt and start in 1st gear again. Granted we weren't being shot at but we were responding to emergencies. Blowing the transmission doesn't get you to the fire

I used to drive an old ex Army AEC Scammel 6x4 breakdown truck with crash box and that was shall we say a bit pot luck which gear you got. Luckily it was so low geared going from 2mph in 1st to a wobbling roaring 20mph in top 6th gear that it didnt really matter which gear you hit as long as it was generally in the right place. It could however have towed the Moon backwards if a long enough chain had been available.