British T34/75 - North Africa

[RAFF-35]

Nice idea!

The British would have, I suspect, found the T-34 somewhat familiar, since both it and the British Cruiser tank designs had a common ancestor in the Christie tank designs of the 1930s. Had we got our finger out with tank design, it's quite possible that an evolved British cruiser tank could have looekd more like a T-34 and less like a Cromwell.

Can I make one small suggestion? I don't think the British would have adopted the Russian DShK heavy machine-gun as seen on this model. You could easily swap it for a more typical Bren Gun (preferably on the odd anti-aircraft mounting some British tanks used) and that would very much help to "sell" the Britishness of it.

EDIT: they were called "Lakeman" mounts. Here's one on a Valentine (note that the gun has the 100-round drum mag, not the usual curved box mag, but is IS a Bren, not a Lewis or Vickers K gun):

I completely agree with the Bren gun plus mount. I will try to feature that in a later mark of British T-34. However, I couldn't find anything native in 1/76. Maybe in Whif world the Russians supplied DShK's with the first batch of T-34s before they were built by Vickers and Vauxhall under licence?

[Weaver]

I completely agree with the Bren gun plus mount. I will try to feature that in a later mark of British T-34. However, I couldn't find anything native in 1/76. Maybe in Whif world the Russians supplied DShK's with the first batch of T-34s before they were built by Vickers and Vauxhall under licence?

Glad you like the idea.

I'm sure the British authorities would have loved a DShK to evaluate, but the problem with putting it into service would be ammunition: Russian "50 cal" is 12.7x108mm, while US/Allied "50 cal" is 12.7x99mm. They aren't compatible, so you'd have to set up a whole ammunition production line just for those guns. You might be able to produce entire DShKs chambered for 12.7x99mm, but then you have to remember that the British Army didn't like the US idea of having an HMG at the commander's station anyway, so why would they? The British Tank Corp's only use for HMGs was as turret guns on light tanks, and they were already committed to the 15mm BESA for that.

[RAFF-35]

I completely agree with the Bren gun plus mount. I will try to feature that in a later mark of British T-34. However, I couldn't find anything native in 1/76. Maybe in Whif world the Russians supplied DShK's with the first batch of T-34s before they were built by Vickers and Vauxhall under licence?

Glad you like the idea.

I'm sure the British authorities would have loved a DShK to evaluate, but the problem with putting it into service would be ammunition: Russian "50 cal" is 12.7x108mm, while US/Allied "50 cal" is 12.7x99mm. They aren't compatible, so you'd have to set up a whole ammunition production line just for those guns. You might be able to produce entire DShKs chambered for 12.7x99mm, but then you have to remember that the British Army didn't like the US idea of having an HMG at the commander's station anyway, so why would they? The British Tank Corp's only use for HMGs was as turret guns on light tanks, and they were already committed to the 15mm BESA for that.

This is fantastic, I'm learning lots here thank you. So given that the British army weren't keen on commanders having heavy machine guns, would it be more realistic to not include the gun position at all?

[Oldpanzer1]

Great version and really good back history!

[Wardukw]

Raff when it comes to HMGs Weaver I'd bang on ..it's only when you see the Brits in Europe that you'll see their tanks with .50 cal MGs on em but you'll also see M1919 30cal machine guns too and Vickers K guns .
Another thing with the Dushka which Weaver forgot to mention is the diameter of the russian 50cal shell cases..they are fatter than the US ones even tho you can put russian 50cal projectiles into US shell cases 😉  and of course vise a versa .
For your next build you could smack a M1919 on the tank as the British SAS used these here and there but the  Vickers K was used more often ..easier to get ammo for .303 over US 30.06 .

[Weaver]

I completely agree with the Bren gun plus mount. I will try to feature that in a later mark of British T-34. However, I couldn't find anything native in 1/76. Maybe in Whif world the Russians supplied DShK's with the first batch of T-34s before they were built by Vickers and Vauxhall under licence?

Glad you like the idea.

I'm sure the British authorities would have loved a DShK to evaluate, but the problem with putting it into service would be ammunition: Russian "50 cal" is 12.7x108mm, while US/Allied "50 cal" is 12.7x99mm. They aren't compatible, so you'd have to set up a whole ammunition production line just for those guns. You might be able to produce entire DShKs chambered for 12.7x99mm, but then you have to remember that the British Army didn't like the US idea of having an HMG at the commander's station anyway, so why would they? The British Tank Corp's only use for HMGs was as turret guns on light tanks, and they were already committed to the 15mm BESA for that.

This is fantastic, I'm learning lots here thank you. So given that the British army weren't keen on commanders having heavy machine guns, would it be more realistic to not include the gun position at all?

That would certainly be an option, and if you look at pictures of Crusaders or Valentines in the desert, they more often don't have them than do. However you then lose an opportunity to flag up the fact that it's a BRITISH T-34, not just a Russian one in an odd paint scheme. The US guns that Wardukw mentions were most often found on US-built tanks, like .30 cals on Stuarts. Vickers K guns were generally used on aircraft and only adopted by the LRDG/SAS for their jeeps because they managed to 'borrow' some from aircraft graveyards. However it's very easy to mistake a Bren with a drum magazine for a Vickers K because most people associate the Bren with the curved box mag and the K with the drum, even though both guns actually had both options.

[Devilfish]

Brilliant!  Fantastic Whif.  Not a tank guy, but this is great!!

[Jakko]

I'm sure the British authorities would have loved a DShK to evaluate, but the problem with putting it into service would be ammunition: Russian "50 cal" is 12.7x108mm, while US/Allied "50 cal" is 12.7x99mm.

It gets worse: if the British hadn't taken American equipment, they also wouldn't have had American .50-calibre weapons, but only British .50 Vickers, which is 12.7×81 mm.

You might be able to produce entire DShKs chambered for 12.7x99mm

That is certainly possible — Americans owning DShKs apparently make this conversion quite often.

[RAFF-35]

Brilliant!  Fantastic Whif.  Not a tank guy, but this is great!!

That's as good a compliment as I could hope for, thanks!
(I'm also not much of a tank guy 😄) 

[Wardukw]

Brilliant!  Fantastic Whif.  Not a tank guy, but this is great!!

That's as good a compliment as I could hope for, thanks!
(I'm also not much of a tank guy 😄) 

It's alright Raff..nobody's perfect   

[RAFF-35]

Brilliant!  Fantastic Whif.  Not a tank guy, but this is great!!

That's as good a compliment as I could hope for, thanks!
(I'm also not much of a tank guy 😄) 

It's alright Raff..nobody's perfect   

    

[NARSES2]

That's really good   

One of the things that hampered British tank design, and I don't think it's been mentioned, is the fact that they clung on to the outdated concept of having separate Infantry and Cruiser tanks, certainly with domestic designs anyway. You could say the Soviets had similar ideas of course with the T-34 and KV-1, but they moved on a lot quicker.

[Wardukw]

That's really good   

One of the things that hampered British tank design, and I don't think it's been mentioned, is the fact that they clung on to the outdated concept of having separate Infantry and Cruiser tanks, certainly with domestic designs anyway. You could say the Soviets had similar ideas of course with the T-34 and KV-1, but they moved on a lot quicker.

Chris you can see those outdated ideas with the 2pdr guns they kept fitting to  their tanks ..even when the chaos who got forced to use em told the dudes in the head sheds that they were useless.
It was weird that they wouldn't learn anything from all the mistakes made and then the Centurion came out ..one of the best tanks ever made..clearly some brilliant minded men got things right .

[Rick Lowe]

And when the Russians got Shermans under Lend Lease, they kept the US .50s - made the supply lines easier, with an 'all-foreign' ammo usage/organisation.

But it means I can't really put a Dushka on my M4A2, without a good reason (other than 'it looks cool and different', of course) - same with repainting it 4BO...

[Jakko]

One of the things that hampered British tank design, and I don't think it's been mentioned, is the fact that they clung on to the outdated concept of having separate Infantry and Cruiser tanks, certainly with domestic designs anyway. You could say the Soviets had similar ideas of course with the T-34 and KV-1, but they moved on a lot quicker.

No, they didn't. The concept of having two basic tank types (three if you include light tanks) was not outdated until after the war, when the T-54 and 20-pounder-armed Centurion came along as universal tanks capable of filling both roles (which the Americans then dubbed "MBTs" when they got onto the bandwagon too).

The Soviets used the T-34 as their fast tank for exploitation and general tank combat (in British terms making it a cruiser), and the KV as their heavy, breakthrough tank (making it an infantry tank to the British). When the KV was shown to be a piece of junk, it got redesigned into the IS-series of heavy tanks that fulfilled the same roles of breakthrough and infantry support until the end of the war and beyond.

The Germans initially used the Pz.Kpfw. III as the cruiser tank and the IV as the infantry tank, but had to retire the former because it couldn't be upgunned to keep up. However, the Panther and Tiger follow the same concept: the Panther was intended for general issue, the Tiger as a breakthrough tank.

The Americans give the impression that they had just a general tank, namely the M4 medium, and no "infantry" tank, but that's deceptive. In reality, the M4 is what the British would have called a cruiser tank — just one that, like the T-34, had a better gun than its British equivalents — and the US Army intended the M6 heavy tank as its breakthrough one. However, the M6 was so poorly designed that it never did more than try and get people to buy war bonds. Once the fighting in Europe got serious, the US Army realised it had no infantry tank but badly needed one, so the M4A3E2 was developed to fill that gap. It was sold to those making the decision on its procurement as being necessary to defeat the Westwall ("Siegfried Line" to the Allies) but its actual intended purpose was to function as an infantry or breakthrough tank.

Chris you can see those outdated ideas with the 2pdr guns they kept fitting to  their tanks ..even when the chaos who got forced to use em told the dudes in the head sheds that they were useless.

The British kept using the 2-pounder because of the heavy losses of tanks and guns they sustained in France in 1940. The 6-pounder was already under development at that time and intended to replace the 2-pounder ASAP — it's just that "ASAP" turned out to mean: "after we've rebuilt our strength". Better to have an army with tanks with guns that are becoming obsolete, than an army with tanks with no guns at all because the factories making them are retooling for a better one. Plus, the 2-pounder was not obsolete yet in 1940–41: it could easily punch through Pz.Kpfw. III and IV armour, let alone anything the Italians put into the field. Only once the Germans encountered the Soviet 76 mm guns did they start uparmouring their vehicles to a level where the 2-pounder was no use against them anymore. And those new tanks, of course, filtered down to North Africa and required 6-pounders (and later American 75 mm guns) to counter them — which, by then, were available.