Best tank engines of WWII

[bf109xxl]

That's why it's a follow on.

Then the KV is a descendant of the BT-7M, both tanks were equipped with the V-2 engine.
The T-34 left no descendants. It was a dead end in the Soviet tank design. All the Soviet post-war medium tanks up to the T-64 have one and only one ancestor - the T-44. The chief designer of the T-44 Morozov himself mentioned in all documents that it was a completely new tank in terms of design. The phrase " on design from the T-34 / 44" is absurd - just like "on design from the BT-7 / KV".

 

[dick56]

I didn't read thru all 15 pages of this thread so this might have been mentioned earlier. There a a General Patton Tank Museum located 30 miles east of the Coachella Valley on I-10 and 55 miles east of Palm Springs, California. I don't recommend coming in the summer as the average temps are well over 100 degrees every day. It is located where General Patton held tank training during the early 1940s. It is all treeless desert so a lot of the tank tracks are still visible especially from the air and have survived for over 80 years. There is a large restaurant and gas station complex located next to the museum, and they are on the Chirico Summit exit off I-10. The airfield from WWII is still there and usable with 4,500 feet of good runway with lots of tie-down space next to the museum.

The Coachella Music Festival and the Stagecoach Music Festival is only 30 miles away, but I doubt many of the forum members are Coachella Music fans.

 

[WARSPITER]

All later tank designs are follow ons as previous experience comes into play. The flaws and strengths of
the T34 design were known when the T44 was designed.

Tanks, cars, aircraft, ships, all manner of other products use experience gained from previous products
to create newer ones.

 

[GrauGeist]

The T-44 did evolve from the T-34M in a roundabout way, though.

 

[bf109xxl]

The T-44 did evolve from the T-34M in a roundabout way, though.

Nope. The T-44 did NOT evolve from the T-34M. It was a revolutionary, completely new design. Just try to read the story of the T-34 in details.

 

[bf109xxl]

All later tank designs are follow ons as previous experience comes into play.

Nope. Changes can be both evolutionary and revolutionary. The T-34 is an example of evolutionary development of the BT line (Christie's tanks), while the T-44 is in principle not an evolution of the T-34. It is a revolutionary, completely new design. The next revolutionary design in Soviet tank construction was the T-64 (starting from Object 430).

The flaws and strengths of the T34 design were known when the T44 was designed.

The experience gained during the exploitation of the T-34 is not a sufficient reason to consider the T-44 as an evolutionary development of the T-34.

Tanks, cars, aircraft, ships, all manner of other products use experience gained from previous products
to create newer ones.

It does not mean that ALL the changes can be considered as evolution.

 

[WARSPITER]

When did I say the T-44 was an evolution of the T-34 ?

I said it was a follow on.

The T-34m was to be an upgrade of the T-34 but the war intervened. The T-43 was next but wasn't as good
as had been expected.

The T-34/85 came from elements of these two projects.

The T-44 followed on after these and definitely has it's beginnings in the T-34m.

 

[bf109xxl]

The T-34/85 came from elements of these two projects.

Exactly what "elements" did the T-34-85 get from the T-34M and T-43 projects?

The T-44 followed on after these and definitely has it's beginnings in the T-34m.

Morozov began the design of the T-44 while still working on the T-43-II, to this time, no one even remembered the T-34M anymore. And despite the fact that the T-44 prototype received the T-43 turret, no one called the T-44 a "development of the T-43". And the engine of the T-44 was actually different from the previous V-2 models.
The T-44 was a medium tank and was intended to replace the T-34, that's the main thing they have in common. Otherwise there are far more differences than similarities. The T-44 is considered a completely new tank and the sole progenitor of the T-54-55-62 dynasty.

 

[WARSPITER]

Exactly what "elements" did the T-34-85 get from the T-34M and T-43 projects?

The very important three man turret mounting the 85mm gun.

The T-44 was a medium tank and was intended to replace the T-34, that's the main thing they have in common.

Designed from lessons learned from the T-34.

 

[GrauGeist]

Nope. The T-44 did NOT evolve from the T-34M. It was a revolutionary, completely new design. Just try to read the story of the T-34 in details.

Perhaps it is you who needs to open a book?

The T-34M was the start of an improved medium tank to replace the current production T-34.

The T-34M (Project A-43) had a new suspension, extra road wheel, new turret, additional armor, added fuel capacity, additional ammunition storage and an uprated engine.

The project was put on hold when the Germans attacked in 1941.

The T-43 was an evolution of the T-34M and the T-44 project was an evolution of the short-lived T-43 project.

So now what?

 

[bf109xxl]

The very important three man turret mounting the 85mm gun.

The turret of the T-34-85 was developed separately, not taken from these projects. Moreover, initially the 85 mm gun was mounted in a turret with a small ring diameter.

Designed from lessons learned from the T-34.

The lessons learned from the T-35 were taken into account when developing the KV. Let's consider the T-35 as the ancestor of the KV.

 

[bf109xxl]

The T-43 was an evolution of the T-34M and the T-44 project was an evolution of the short-lived T-43 project.

If you had looked in the book, you would have seen that the T-43-II has almost nothing in common with the T-44 - they have different layout, different suspension, different hulls and turrets (although the T-44 prototype was tested with the T-43-II turret). Let me repeat once again: Morozov himself called the T-44 a "principally new tank" in all documents.

 

[WARSPITER]

Mostly because the T-43 didn't perform as well as required. Although it was deemed to be better than the T-34 changing
production in the middle of a war wasn't deemed to be worth the reduction in tank production.

The T-44 came about because changes to the T-43 to make it a better option were required.

Thus a follow on using knowledge gained from previous types.

 

[bf109xxl]

Mostly because the T-43 didn't perform as well as required. Although it was deemed to be better than the T-34 changing
production in the middle of a war wasn't deemed to be worth the reduction in tank production.

I know about the drawbacks of the T-43-II, there were many of them. But the main thing is that it was really a development of the T-34, inheriting the fundamental flaws of Christie's scheme. It had no reserves for further development.

The T-44 came about because changes to the T-43 to make it a better option were required.

The T-44 appeared primarily because Kharkov was liberated and the tank building plant could be put into operation relatively quickly. Thus, there was an opportunity to produce a completely new machine, which required a long time for finalization, without reducing the production rate of the T-34.

Thus a follow on using knowledge gained from previous types.

...but was a tank of a completely new type and the only progenitor of the family of post-war Soviet tanks.

 

[WARSPITER]

...but was a tank of a completely new type and the only progenitor of the family of post-war Soviet tanks.

Which is saying that all experience in design and manufacture gained during the war and before it by Soviet designers
was thrown out of the window in favour of a completely different design.

Apart from that my original post was about why the T-55 didn't have side skirts on the original production type. I pointed out
that previous main production models didn't either so the T-55 didn't get them at the time.

You somehow decided to make that into me saying that the T-44 and later tanks were based on the T-34 - which I did not.
You then go on to use wording such as 'absurd' to make your case.

Fine. You have satisfied your need to make an argument out of nothing and then carry it on even though it means making a
mountain out of a molehill.

Just by the way - the T-43 didn't inherit Christies flaws as it had a torsion bar suspension.

 

[Shortround6]

Sometimes change is a matter of degree. And sometimes the change is a little blurry, or a lot.

The US M-26 used the same engine as one of the M-4 Sherman versions. Sure doesn't mean the M-26 was a development of the M-4
Same engine (mostly) with different transmission, Steering (?), suspension, track.
Despite using a similar crew layout and bits and pieces of the M-20/22/23 series being used on upgraded M-4s and a lot of things being learned I don't think the M-26 was developed from the M-4.
Sometimes developed from is a polite way of saying we learned what not to do.

 

[bf109xxl]

Which is saying that all experience in design and manufacture gained during the war and before it by Soviet designers
was thrown out of the window in favour of a completely different design.

Nope. They just realized how not to design a tank.

You somehow decided to make that into me saying that the T-44 and later tanks were based on the T-34 - which I did not.
You then go on to use wording such as 'absurd' to make your case.

Then who wrote the following?

The T-55 was originally a follow on design from the T-34 / 44 with probably elements of the JS series as well.

And I only corrected it slightly by pointing out that the design of the T-34 was radically different from the design of the T-44-54-55-62 line. Therefore, it was correct to specify only T-44 as an ancestor. Yes, it is a grumble, but from my point of view it has reasons and contributes to a better understanding of Soviet tank building trends.

Just by the way - the T-43 didn't inherit Christies flaws as it had a torsion bar suspension.

I was not talking about the Christie-type suspension, but about the scheme - first of all, it is the placement of the engine along the tank axis. The advantages of the torsion bar suspension in the T-43 were used to a minimum extent, the hull height remained too high - only in the T-44 the hull height was reduced radically, which allowed to drastically increase armor. In general, the torsion bar suspension of medium tanks in the USSR was finalized much later - even on the T-44 its reliability was very low, torsion bars for heavy tanks were not suitable for medium tanks due to different working conditions.
Only the _combination_ of the transverse arrangement of the engine and transmission with the torsion bar suspension provided a radically new level of armor and protection of the medium tank while retaining sufficiently powerful armament and development reserves.
No engineering solutions could rid the T-34 line of the principal disadvantages that limited both armor and armament. Therefore, it was discontinued.

 

[WARSPITER]

Again, a follow on design does not mean an upgrade or rebuild. It is a design which follows on from
others.

Calling part of a post absurd is not slightly correcting it.

 

[GrauGeist]

If you had looked in the book, you would have seen that the T-43-II has almost nothing in common with the T-44 - they have different layout, different suspension, different hulls and turrets (although the T-44 prototype was tested with the T-43-II turret). Let me repeat once again: Morozov himself called the T-44 a "principally new tank" in all documents.

If you had the book, you would know that the T-34M had a redesigned turret, reconfigured crew arrangement, new suspension, added road wheel and an uprated engine.

If you had the book, you would know that the T-43 project was based on the T-34Ms improvements.

If you had the book, you would know that the T-44 incorporated all that was learned by the T-34M and T-43 prototypes.

 

[bf109xxl]

If you had the book, you would know that...

...all the minor improvements made in the modernized T-34s (with the exception of the suspension type) had no major impact on the T-44 design. The radical difference of the latter was the transverse arrangement of the engine and transmission along with the new low-height armored hull. These measures - and only these! - made it possible to move back the turret, to increase the radius of the turret ring, as well as the volume of the combat compartment and the armor without overloading the front wheel pairs, to remove the weakened zone in the top detail of the hull frontal armor due to the driver's hatch. The T-44 was designed almost simultaneously with the T-43-II, but the differences in layout are so great that there is much less continuity in these designs than differences. The T-43's development reserves were exhausted, and the installation of a more powerful gun could only be accomplished by reducing other characteristics, such as ammunition capacity. Moreover, according to estimates, the T-43-II had no real advantages over the T-34-85 despite the increased armor, the fuel tank right behind the frontal armor drastically increased vulnerability. The use of accumulated experience and individual components does not negate the fact that the T-44 was a completely new design.