Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Then the KV is a descendant of the BT-7M, both tanks were equipped with the V-2 engine.That's why it's a follow on.
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.The T-44 did evolve from the T-34M in a roundabout way, though.
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).All later tank designs are follow ons as previous experience comes into play.
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.The flaws and strengths of the T34 design were known when the T44 was designed.
It does not mean that ALL the changes can be considered as evolution.Tanks, cars, aircraft, ships, all manner of other products use experience gained from previous products
to create newer ones.
Exactly what "elements" did the T-34-85 get from the T-34M and T-43 projects?The T-34/85 came from elements of these two projects.
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 followed on after these and definitely has it's beginnings in the T-34m.
The very important three man turret mounting the 85mm gun.Exactly what "elements" did the T-34-85 get from the T-34M and T-43 projects?
Designed from lessons learned from the T-34.The T-44 was a medium tank and was intended to replace the T-34, that's the main thing they have in common.
Perhaps it is you who needs to open a book?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.
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.The very important three man turret mounting the 85mm gun.
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.Designed from lessons learned from the T-34.
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.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.
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.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 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.The T-44 came about because changes to the T-43 to make it a better option were required.
...but was a tank of a completely new type and the only progenitor of the family of post-war Soviet tanks.Thus a follow on using knowledge gained from previous types.
Which is saying that all experience in design and manufacture gained during the war and before it by Soviet designers...but was a tank of a completely new type and the only progenitor of the family of post-war Soviet tanks.
Nope. They just realized how not to design a tank.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.
Then who wrote the following?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.
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.The T-55 was originally a follow on design from the T-34 / 44 with probably elements of the JS series as well.
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.Just by the way - the T-43 didn't inherit Christies flaws as it had a torsion bar suspension.
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 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.
...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.If you had the book, you would know that...