T-34 Tank

[Logan Hartke]

Sure, but the VK3002(DB) wouldn't have needed a new turret like the T-34 did.  It probably could have gotten away with a thicker glacis like the VK3002(MAN), but probably would have had trouble like the VK3002(MAN) did, too.

In short, I bet that it would have had the same problems.  Both of those designs had issue.  Neither was designed with major upgrades in mind (like the PzKpfw III and IV were from the outset).

The VK3002(DB) was, however, the simpler and more practical of the two.  If you're going to have two designs that both suffer from the same issues, you may as well get the simpler and cheaper of the two.

Cheers,

Logan

[Taiidantomcat]

The VK3002(DB) was, however, the simpler and more practical of the two.  If you're going to have two designs that both suffer from the same issues, you may as well get the simpler and cheaper of the two.

Indeed. And thank you for the long explanation  (complete with photos ) on the previous page 

[Logan Hartke]

No problem.  Sometimes it helps to visualize an issue.  You then get the idea of what's going on and what to look for in other designs.  Armor is the single biggest weight factor on tanks, so it's not just a simple matter of "make it thicker!"  Worse still, armor thickness is almost impossible to gauge just by looking at a tank, so it's largely a matter of knowing what's where and how it matters.

The PzKpfw III and PzKpfw IV had very balanced layouts and had armor of about 15mm at the start of the war and 70-80mm by the end.  That's quite impressive.  It came at a cost, however.  They had to make the side armor thinner on later PzKpfw IVs due to the weight increase and even the leap from 18 to 25 tons was putting a serious strain on the suspension and powertrain.  The later Jagdpanzer IV made this plainly evident, being called "Guderian's duck" due to its poor weight distribution and the very poor performance of the vehicle on terrain.  I've seen a running Jagdpanzer IV in the flesh compared to a Hetzer, an M10, some Shermans, and some Stuarts all running around the same day on the same field.  The Jagdpanzer IV waddled while everything else zipped, then overheated and broke down for the day.

I think the most impressive weight increase has to be the VVSS suspension of the M2, M3, M4 Medium tank family.  It was little-changed from the M2 Medium Tank to the M4A3E2 Jumbo.  VVSS was stiff and relatively narrow, but very durable.  Think about it this way.  That suspension went from 41,000 lbs to 84,000 lbs, basically a 20 ton increase!!!  That's like stacking two Panzer IVs on each other then asking the one on bottom to drive across Europe.  It's incredible and a testament to the automotive prowess of the men that designed it.  Again, however, the limit had been reached and HVSS was eventually refitted to many Shermans soldiering on past 1945.  There were, however, a number of VVSS Shermans and variants still in active service as of 2000 (Argentina, Mexico, and Taiwan for certain).

Cheers,

Logan

[dy031101]

There were, however, a number of VVSS Shermans and variants still in active service as of 2000 (Argentina, Mexico, and Taiwan for certain).

That would be the M36 on the outlying islands.  I was amazed to see them there, but the TDs have bigger guns than the M41 without the size of a CM12 (or a M48A3 for equivalent firepower) after all.


====================================================================


Hey hey hey, what says we do it like the VK4502(P)?  

Of course up-armouring the glacis would still be complicated by the hatch, but would this weight distribution at least have been just a tiny bit better?

[ysi_maniac]

Nice idea!

[Logan Hartke]

That's a line of thought that the Soviets were already going down.

http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=59&Itemid=50



http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/tanks/416.php?page=history5



Cheers,

Logan

[ChernayaAkula]

Damn, but hat assault gun in the first pic looks great! 

[raafif]

on-one's mentioned the "Teski Tenk Volzilo A" (Heavy Tank Type A) -- a 1949 Yugoslav mod. of the T-34/85, it had a new upper hull & turret.

The hull was wedge shaped in plan with front facets for better ballistic protection, the turret was cast in a potato shape.  It's arguable that the new turret was ballistically better due to the two side-protruding crew cupolas.  It used the same gun with a new muzzel-brake, a new local diesel engine and auxiliary fuel was carried in "D" shaped containers based on the Russian cylindrical ones.

Overall it had less internal volume than the standard version, was only marginally better than the standard T-34 and only seven were built as T-54's were made available.  Two remain as museum pieces, one in the "fort" in Belgrade.




It would be interesting to see a what-if on these facing Soviet T-34 / 44's in an uprising for independence.

[rickshaw]

Mmm, those cylindrical cupola housings are actually worse ballistically than the enclosed ones and would invariably be thinner armoured as well as presenting shot traps (as does the overhanging turret/mantlet).

[Logan Hartke]

Indeed.  Pretty does not mean usually better in the world of tank design.  If it looks sleek, it usually means shot traps on tanks.  That having been said, it was the best-looking T-34 made.

Cheers,

Logan

[dy031101]

Didn't that one lead to a larger development armed with a 90mm gun?

[Logan Hartke]

Yes, and a truly fine-looking vehicle that was, too, even from the few (one?) photos we have of it.  For the time, it was a great design and well-balanced.  As for the actual vehicle, I don't know how good it was.  I doubt a massive amount has survived regarding it.  Maybe srkirad can help look fine some Yugoslavian sources on the vehicle.

Cheers,

Logan

[Arc3371]

Hmm, not according to the text the M-628 was a modernization package for the T-34 in two versions AC retaining the 85mm gun and AR with the US 90mm gun

[dy031101]

Yeah, isn't the Type 636 the one that followed the Type 628?

I actually thought the Type 636 looks way better than the Type A.

Actually, the T-34-85 fits my asthetic standard better than the Type A.  

[Arc3371]

Sorry to have misled you the 636 had a 90mm gun but was abbandoned for the 636D a T-55 copy