Tests of the Soviet T-34 tank in 1942 in the USA

In 1942, a Soviet T-34 tank was delivered to the United States for testing in Maryland. It's about testing tank at the training ground in the city of Aberdeen. On this basis, a separate group of historians is trying with significant persistence to promote the idea that it was the American specialists who applied their talent and strength to modernize the Soviet thirty-four.

In fact, this, if I may say so, theory does not stand up to criticism.

Taking into account the allied relations between the USSR and the USA during the Great Patriotic War, it should be understood that Soviet designers and technicians made efforts to obtain an independent assessment of the technology created in the Soviet Union. One of the tasks that was pursued in 1942 when sending the T-34 for testing in the United States was connected precisely with the fact that to receive such an assessment from the Americans, even a portion of criticism, which could be of some benefit in improving the combat vehicle.

The Alexnott channel examines aspects of sending the Soviet T-34 to Maryland. It was noted that we are probably talking about a modification of the T-34-76 of the 183rd plant in Nizhny Tagil.

The plot says that not only "thirty-fours" arrived in the United States. At the training ground in Aberdeen, the KV-1 tank delivered from the USSR also showed itself.

From TsAMO post:

The tank at the Aberdeen training ground in May 1942 was tested for a long run over rough terrain.

Details about the "American" tests of the Soviet T-34 - in the plot:

Comments

[svp67]

Here's how long these tests can be discussed. It would be more interesting to discuss a comparison of the tests of 1942 and 1951, the T-34/76 and T-34/85 tanks.

[Pilat2009]

Quote: svp67

Here's how long these tests can be discussed. It would be more interesting to discuss a comparison of the tests of 1942 and 1951, the T-34/76 and T-34/85 tanks.

In 1951, this tank was already irrelevant. In general, the Germans and Americans were wild to look at the wonders of Soviet ergonomics and technology.

[svp67]

Quote: Pilat2009

In 1951, this tank was already irrelevant.

The Americans captured this tank in Korea and there it was very relevant. So I would like what changes the Americans noticed in the T-34/85, except for the gun

[Aaron Zawi]

Quote: svp67

Quote: Pilat2009

In 1951, this tank was already irrelevant.

The Americans captured this tank in Korea and there it was very relevant. So I would like what changes the Americans noticed in the T-34/85, except for the gun

Ours captured several T-85s at Sinai in 67. It was considered quite formidable apshina.

[Kuroneko]

Quote: Pilat2009

in general, it was wild for the Germans and Americans to look at the wonders of Soviet ergonomics and technology

We ourselves looked at Hetzer's ergonomics with amazement. The T-34 is a comfort class limousine in comparison. = _ = When it restrains, and the Germans hamper on convenience.
As for the technique ... What don't you like? Who is recognized as the best and breakthrough tank of the Second World War?
The T-34 was the first. Moreover, even pre-war.

[smart ass]

Pha the Americans during the Second World War were at the level of Japan in tank building)) what kind of assessment did they want to get from them?

[Pavel73]

American experts, of course, put their talent in. Not only to modernization, but also to the very appearance of the T-34. This tank is a direct descendant of the BT wheeled-tracked tank. Which, in turn, is a direct descendant of the M1931 tank designed by John Christie. It was then that the classic layout of a modern tank was created: a control compartment in front, a fighting compartment in the middle, a motor-transmission compartment in the back. The T-34 was distinguished only by anti-cannon armor, a more powerful cannon, a purely tracked undercarriage and a diesel engine.

[Evil troll]

It was then that the classic layout of a modern tank was created: a control compartment in front, a fighting compartment in the middle, a motor-transmission compartment in the back.

This layout was created back in the First World War.

[svp67]

Quote: Pavel73

It was then that the classic layout of a modern tank was created: a control compartment in front, a fighting compartment in the middle, a motor-transmission compartment in the back.

And then I naively thought that this scheme took shape in 1917, with the appearance of the FT-17 among the French

Quote: Pavel73

The T-34 was distinguished only by anti-cannon armor, a more powerful cannon, a purely tracked undercarriage and a diesel engine.

And also the fact that it was a TANK ...
As if earlier, more powerful guns and diesel engines were not installed on the same BTs ...

[Old electrician]

From the Christie tank, the T-34 had only a Christie-type suspension and nothing else. I draw your attention: not the suspension developed by Christie for the T-34, but its domestic processing for a greater mass than the original BT-2 tank and in the absence of a wheel drive for the T-34.
The only advantage of the Christie tank is its high wheel speed. However, Christie did not invent anything new in the layout of the tank, and in general did not present anything to the US Army except for the prototype. Therefore, in the United States, his tanks were abandoned, although the experimental reckless Christie tank on a wheel drive accelerated to 160 km / h. The USSR bought from him the initial, not so extreme version of the tank without a rotating turret installed on it, because Christie could not bring such a turret to a working model. In terms of armor and layout, the Christie's tank is a typical tank of the early 30s with bulletproof armor.
The reason why then they were fond of wheeled-tracked tanks is the extremely small resource of the tracks. Therefore, the only purpose of the wheel drive was to save the resource of the tracks. This is especially true for the USSR with its vastness. From World War I until about 1935, the track traveled before repair was about 100 km. Since 1935, in the world tank building, they began to harden the fingers of the tracks with microwave currents, their resource jumped sharply, and they immediately began to refuse from wheeled-tracked tanks.
By the way, about the traitor Rezun, who praised the BT-2 - BT-7 motorway wheeled-tracked tanks as an instrument of aggression for the conquest of exclusively peaceful Nazi Germany. Operating instructions BT-2 - BT-7 categorically prohibited wheel travel on asphalt, concrete, etc. Such a road surface, with a run on it even less than 100 km, completely demolished the tires of the support wheels and the tank turned into a stationary heap of scrap metal with a gun. On wheels BT-2 - BT-7 could only drive on country roads.
The Christie-type suspension was structurally a weak point of the T-34:
1. The suspension occupied a large volume of the armor, so the engine stood along the longitudinal axis of the body. Because of this, in turn, the driver's hatch did not fit in front of the turret and was placed on the frontal armor plate. When a shell hit the forehead of the hull, the hatch was its weak point.
2. During the Second World War, all tanks fired aimingly only from the spot. Christie's candle suspension rocked the tank in motion. To fire, the tank had to be stopped. At the same time, the rocking continued for some time, not allowing to aim. In such a duel with German tanks, such a delay could be fatal.
Currently, Christie's spark plug suspension is not used on any type of tank.
The Christie-type suspension was inherited by the T-34 from the USSR hobby for wheeled tanks. They also wanted to get rid of it on the T-34M. However, the war began and they could not switch to a torsion bar suspension, for example, on the KV-1.
Therefore, I see absolutely no reason to admire Christie's talents. We washed ourselves with too much blood because of these talents.

[Baron pardus]

Then with the same success (that is, none) you can say "The British Sword was forged in the USA." Cromwell, Crusider and even later Comet tanks have the same Christie suspension. ... The suspension is nothing more than a suspension. Sami, the Americans have hammered on the Christie's suspension and switched to the "carts" on the Horisontal Volute Spring Suspension - HVSS. By the way, this suspension gave a smoother ride than Christie's. In combination with the Stabilizer, the later Sherman models with the 76mm cannon had at least some chance of hitting the target when firing on the move. By the way, the American 76mm M1 cannon had a similar armor penetration to the 85mm gun on the T-34-85. Although the PF action of the M1 gun was weaker not only the Soviet 85mm, but even the American 75mm. But against the "Soft" targets, the Americans had the M7 Priest self-propelled guns. Although it would be much more gothic to call the SPG "Judas Priest". Gyy ... Sorry, I could not restrain myself. Judas Priest fan since 12 ...

You can say as much as you like that "Tanks with tanks do not fight," but the realities of war "are different." From the series "We fought on paper, but they forgot about the ravines, and walk on them." I don't remember who wrote it. But one of the great generals, EMNIP Guderian himself (I may be wrong) - "The best anti-tank weapon is the tank itself."

[knn54]

Honestly, I don't like (with rare exceptions) videos.
There is, according to the test results, an interesting document:
"EVALUATION OF TANKS T-34 AND KB BY WORKERS OF THE ABERDA TESTING RANGE OF THE USA, REPRESENTATIVES OF FIRMS, OFFICERS AND MEMBERS OF MILITARY COMMISSIONS WHO TESTED TANKS"
Very detailed.
"....
Despite the advantages of using a diesel engine, good tank contours, thick armor, good and reliable weapons, successful track design, etc. Russian tanks are significantly inferior to American ones in ease of driving, maneuverability, fire power, travel speed, reliability of mechanical structures and ease of adjustments. "

TRUE: Head of 2 Management
GRU of the Red Army
Major General of Tank Forces KHLOPOV

[svp67]

Quote: knn54

Despite the advantages of using a diesel engine, good tank contours, thick armor, good and reliable weapons, successful track design, etc. Russian tanks are significantly inferior to American ones in ease of driving, maneuverability, fire power, travel speed, reliability of mechanical structures and ease of adjustments. "

And this conclusion amused me especially ... knowing the "tank tragedy" that was then in the United States ...

[Baron pardus]

The Shermans were much more comfortable and easier to fly than the T-34. And they also had good optics, where the glasses were not cloudy. Good walkie-talkie. Smoother bogie suspension. And at the same time a small generator engine. 3 people in the tower and the commander could do his own thing - and not work as a gunner. And the Sherman's frontal armor 51mm and without a hole in the form of a mechanic drive hatch was by no means worse than the 45mm armor of the T-34, and even with a hole in the form of a mechanic drive hatch. By the way, the German KVK40 sewed both in the forehead without any problems. The tests took place in 1942. By that time, Sherman had already gone into mass production, EMNIP. And they compared the T-34 with a 76mm cannon - using ammunition from a 76mm cannon of the First World War, with a Sherman with a 75mm cannon, also for ammunition with a 75mm PMV cannon.

[svp67]

Quote: Baron Pardus

Smoother bogie suspension.

The rollers of which dumped the rubberized tire, when making long marches ...

Quote: Baron Pardus

The Shermans were much more comfortable and easier to fly than the T-34.

But less high-speed and maneuverable, and most importantly, having less cross-country ability and a tendency to overturn

Quote: Baron Pardus

And they also had good optics, where the glasses were not cloudy.

But the design of the sight itself was worse, otherwise the T-34 test report would not have had an item about the "remarkable design of the sight"

[Hotdoc]

You just in a decent society try not to give this "Assessment" for a real expert report. They will laugh, after all.

[serg.shishkov2015]

15 years ago I came across a collection containing documents about the tests in the United States of the T-34, KV-1 and T-70. Everything has been said for a long time! What else to procrastinate?

[Seamaster]

At the same time, I also read these materials. There were all the same comments that our tankers complained about: filters, low diesel and suspension life, poor visibility, tightness of the turret. By 1944, ours had improved it all. I don't remember anything about low firepower. In general, reading that condescending report was somehow strange, given the state of tank building in the United States in 1942, where "General Grant" ("mass grave for seven") was considered the king of nature. Approximately how today to read the stinging reviews of Ukrainians about our aviation or automotive industry at a time when they have neither one nor the other.

[Engineer]

I don’t know what to discuss here, if the author of the video doesn’t even know that the tank was still riding on Christie’s suspension until the end of the war.

[123456789]

Tanks of the Second World War (Studio "Wings of Russia") Film 2

[Vadim Ananyin]

On this basis, a separate group of historians is trying with significant persistence to promote the idea that it was the American specialists who applied their talent and strength to modernize the Soviet thirty-four.
Well, what kind of comments are there.