"Evaluation of tanks T-34 and KV by workers of the Aberdeen testing grounds of the U.S."

Has anyone seen this article?? I found it on my internet wanderings. The site hasnt been updated for a very long time. Is it authentic?? What are your opinions?

"Evaluation of tanks T-34 and KV by workers of the Aberdeen testing grounds of the U.S."
(from the Tanker's forum, posted by Misha Veksler)

(Footnote 1 -- reads, "The full name of the document is, "An Evaluation of the T-34 and KV tanks by workers of the Aberdeen Testing Grounds of the U.S., submitted by firms, officers and members of military commissions responsible for testing tanks." The tanks were given to the U.S. by the Soviets at the end of 1942 for familiarization.")
The condition of the tanks

The medium tank T-34, after driving 343 km, became disabled and could not be fixed. The reason: owing to the extremely poor air cleaner on the diesel, a large quantity of dirt got into the engine and a breakdown occurred, as a result of which the pistons and cylinders were damaged to such a degree that they were impossible to fix. The tank was withdrawn from tests and was to be shelled by the KV and its "Z/ 3" (?) -- by the cannon of the M-10 tank. After this it would be sent to Aberdeen, where it would be analyzed and kept as an exhibit.

The heavy tank KV is still functional. Tests are continuing, although it has many mechanical defects.
The silhouette/configuration of the tanks

Everyone, without exception, approves of the shape of the hull of our tanks. The T-34's is particularly good. All are of the opinion that the shape of the T-34's hull is better than that of any American tank. The KV's is worse than on any current American tank.
Armor

A chemical analysis of the armour showed that on both tanks the armour plating has a shallow surface tempering, whereas the main mass of the armoured plating is made of soft steel.

In this regard, the Americans consider that, by changing the technology used to temper the armoured plating, it would be possible to significantly reduce its thickness while preserving its protective capacities. As a result the weight of the tank could be decreased by 8-10%, with all the resulting benefits (an increase in speed, reduction in ground pressure, etc.)
Hull

The main deficiency is the permeability to water of the lower hull during water crossings, as well as the upper hull during rain. In heavy rain lots of water flows through chinks/ cracks, which leads to the disabling of the electrical equipment and even the ammunition.

The Americans liked how the ammunition is stowed.
Turret

Its main weakness is that it is very tight. The Americans could not understand how our tankers could fit inside during winter, when they wear sheepskin jackets. The electrical mechanism for turning the turret is very bad. The motor is weak, heavily overloaded and sparks horribly, as a result of which the device regulating the speed of the rotation burns out, and the teeth of the cogwheels break into pieces. They recommend redoing it as a hydraulic or simply manual system.

KV-1 heavy tank at Bovington Museum (England) (photo by [...])
Armament

The gun of the T-34 is very good. It is simple, dependable and easy to service. Its weakness is that the initial speed of the shell is significantly less than that of the American "Z/ 3" (3200 feet versus 5700 feet per second).
Aiming/Back-sight

The general opinion: the best in the world. Incomparable with any existing (well-known here) tanks or any under development.
Track

The Americans very much like the idea of steel tracks. But they believe that until they receive the results of the comparative performance of steel vs. rubber tracks on American tanks in Tunis and other active fronts, there is no basis for changing from the American solution of rubber bushings and pads.

The deficiencies in our tracks from their viewpoint results from the lightness of their construction. They can easily be damaged by small calibre shells and mortar bombs. The pins are extremely poorly tempered and made of poor steel. As a result they quickly wear and the track often breaks. The idea of having loose track pins that are held in place by a cam welded to the side of the hull, at first was greatly liked by the Americans. But when in use under certain operating conditions, the pins would become bent which often resulted in the track rupturing. The Americans consider that if the armour is reduced in thickness the resultant weight saving can be used to make the tracks heavier and more reliable.
Suspension

On the T-34, it is poor. Suspension of the Christie type was tested long ago by the Americans, and unconditionally rejected. On our tanks, as a result of the poor steel on the springs, it very quickly (unclear word) and as a result clearance is noticeably reduced. On the KV the suspension is very good.
Motor

The diesel is good and light. The idea of using diesel engines on tanks is shared in full by American specialists and military personnel. Unfortunately, diesel engines produced in U.S. factories are used by the navy and therefore the army is deprived of the possibility of installing diesels in its tanks.

The deficiency of our diesels is the criminally poor air cleaners on the T-34. The Americans consider that only a saboteur could have constructed such a device. They also don't understand why in our manuals it is called oil-bath. Their tests in a laboratory showed that:

- the air cleaner doesn't clean at all the air which is drawn into the motor;
- its capacity does not allow for the flow of the necessary quantity of air, even when the motor is idling. As a result, the motor does not achieve its full capacity. Dirt getting into the cylinders leads them to quickly wear out, compression drops, and the engine loses even more power. In addition, the filter was manufactured, from a mechanical point of view, extremely primitively: in places the spot-welding of the electric welding has burned through the metal, leading to leakage of oil etc. On the KV the filter is better manufactured, but it does not secure the flow in sufficient quantity of normal cleaned air. On both motors the starters are poor, being weak and of unreliable construction.
Transmission

Without doubt, poor. An interesting thing happened. Those working on the transmission of the KV were struck that it was very much like those transmissions on which they had worked 12-15 years ago. The firm was questioned. The firm sent the blueprints of their transmission type A-23. To everyone's surprise, the blueprints of our transmission turned out to be a copy of those sent (?). The Americans were surprised, not that we were copying their design, but that we were copying a design that they had rejected 15-20 years ago. The Americans consider that, from the point of view of the designer, installing such a transmission in the tank would create an inhuman harshness for the driver (hard to work). On the T-34 the transmission is also very poor. When it was being operated, the cogs completely fell to pieces (on all the cogwheels). A chemical analysis of the cogs on the cogwheels showed that their thermal treatment is very poor and does not in any way meet American standards for such mechanisms.
Rolling friction clutches

Without doubt, poor. In America, they rejected the installation of friction clutches, even on tractors (never mind tanks), several years ago. In addition to the fallaciousness of the very principle, our friction clutches are extremely carelessly machined from low-quality steel, which quickly causes wear and tear, accelerates the penetration of dirt into the drum and in no way ensures reliable functioning.
General comments

From the American point of view, our tanks are slow. Both our tanks can climb an incline better than any American tank. The welding of the armour plating is extremely crude and careless. The radio sets in laboratory tests turned out to be not bad. However, because of poor shielding and poor protection, after installation in the tanks the sets did not manage to establish normal communications at distances greater than 10 miles. The compactness of the radio sets and their intelligent placement in the tanks was pleasing. The machining of equipment components and parts was, with few exceptions, very poor. In particular the Americans were troubled by the disgraceful design and extremely poor work on the drive/ gear/ transmission links/ blocks (?) on the T-34. After much torment they made new ones and replaced ours. All the tanks' mechanisms demand very frequent adjustments/ fine-tuning.
Conclusions, suggestions

1. On both tanks, quickly replace the air cleaners with models with greater capacity capable of actually cleaning the air.

2. The technology for tempering the armour plating should be changed. This would increase the protectiveness of the armour, either by using an equivalent thickness or, by reducing the thickness, lowering the weight and, accordingly, the use of metal.

3. Make the tracks thicker.

4. Replace the existing transmission of outdated design with the American "Final Drive," which would significantly increase the tanks' manoeuvrability.

5. Abandon the use of friction clutches.

6. Simplify the construction of small components, increase their reliability and decrease to the maximum extent possible the need to constantly make adjustments.

7. Comparing American and Russian tanks, it is clear that driving Russian tanks is much harder. A virtuosity is demanded of Russian drivers in changing gear on the move, special experience in using friction clutches, great experience as a mechanic, and the ability to keep tanks in working condition (adjustments and repairs of components, which are constantly becoming disabled). This greatly complicates the training of tankers and drivers.

8. Judging by samples, Russians when producing tanks pay little attention to careful machining or the finishing and technology of small parts and components, which leads to the loss of the advantage what would otherwise accrue from what on the whole are well designed tanks.

9. Despite the advantages of the use of diesel, the good contours of the tanks, thick armour, good and reliable armaments, the successful design of the tracks etc., Russian tanks are significantly inferior to American tanks in their simplicity of driving, manoeuvrability, the strength of firing [reference to speed of shell], speed, the reliability of mechanical construction and the ease of keeping them running.

Signed -- The head of the 2nd Department of the Main Intelligence Department of the Red Army, General Major of Tank Armies, Khlopo... (end missing: Khlopov?)


http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/4635/

 

I remember seeing a report like this elsewhere (where?), so I believe it.

This Misha Veksler has to be an alias... Veksler, Misha: Music During the Holocaust

 

An interesting report.

I wonder what the T-34 would have been like if it was developed during peace time.

Oh it just came to me. What if.......

 

LOL . I really try to stay away from that forum LOL.

 

This is interesting especially how the Americans still stay away from the Christie suspension. The T-34 didn't do so bad in combat having such bad quality parts and design. I wonder how it would have performed in 'perfect' condition. I'm sure such scrutiny done on the Sherman would turn up design flaws

 

Why? Do you have anything against What-Ifs?

Now, going off-topic, the T-34s I saw in Parola in Finland were of surprisingly good quality, especially the -85. Weld seams were perfect on this one.

 

Not Really. Just to a point LOL. Just all the same ole "What Ifs". They all seem to be on the same subject. Mainly concerning the tired ole Germany wins scenarios and such LOL. I have seen some pics of the armor at the Finnish museum though. Very nice.

 

Ohhh, you've noticed those...

Someday I'll scan my old photos from the time before digicams but I can't promise anything I'm not even sure where they are!

 

Thanks . Sounds like a plan LOL.

 

An interesting report, and a pity that we didn't get the Russian view of US tanks as a comparison.

This bit made me blink, though:

Say again? There must have been some sort of misunderstanding here: both figures are far too high.

 

Thats why I was wondering if there was any other other information on this eval.

 

I can only imagine they were referring to the US 76mm tank gun. Don't know the exact figures, but its muzzle velocity must've been comparable to the Sov 76.2mm. Nothing at war's end was exceeding 3000fps anyway. Don't know where the 5700fps figure came from. For all that - an interesting report, and I can believe most of it. Here we have the classic divide between island and continental armies: the US has never had to resite its major industries in the face of invasion, for example. (When I say "island", I mean - basically - proof against cross-border invasion.) The Soviets did a good job in a hurry; the Americans had to expand rapidly to meet an emerging threat. But the US had a huge industrial sector, a large, educated population, and the wealth and political will to play a decisive part in the world. Tanks, for the Americans, were never going to be needed to defend America. So US tank specialists could afford to set pretty high standards for their machinery. The Soviet machines would have been manufactured largely as a result of a national emergency, and QA was unheard-of in those days.

Klive

 

Some of you might like this:
SHORT SERVICE MANUAL OF THE T34 TANK

Nice little site as it goes:
T34 Reference Guide

Cheers,
Adam

 

Actual muzzle velocties (standard AP loadings) of the tank guns were as follows:

US 75mm: c.2,000 fps

US 76mm: 2,600 fps, (the tungsten-cored HVAP hit 3,400 fps, but that only saw use from 1944 I believe, so couldn't have figured in this comparison)

Soviet 76mm: 2,230 fps

 

Funny how it seems tanks always have problems with the airfilters, Panthers did too under the same conditions. We even had them in Desert Storm on our vehicles.

Anyway it seems even to this day that equipment developed by Russia is not extensively tested on the proving grounds. They toss whatever they just built to the troops. It does seem logical, the troops will certainly find any bugs in the system fast enough and probably create a few along the way. I read an article about the BTR-90 the first 30 were junk but the quality improved exponentially once the reports began to filter back from the field.


Considering the circumstances the T-34 was built under then I am not surprised by this report, look at the date "end of 1942", those tanks were probably built in 1941 or early 1942, what state was Russian industry in at that time? This report cannot speak for all T-34s MADE LATER THAN THIS as improvements were undoubtedly made.

 

Vasiliy Ivanovich, this has to do with the way targets are set. I still remember a saying from the tinme the Iron Curtain was still up.

Consider a Soviet bolt factory. If the target was weight in bolts produced then they would make only large bolts. If the target was quantity produced, they would make only small ones. If the target was production value, they would make golden bolts only.

Production emphasis is on getting the product out, not after-sales-service. Actually nobody gives a damn about making spare parts, only full systems, that's why the T-34 suffered so much at first from defective transmissions, nobody worried about making spare parts to go along.

 

'Troop trials' are hardly an exclusively Russian phenomenon though. AFV design has always involved them, and a great many now successful vehicles were slated on initial issue only to be tweaked, and in some cases near redesigned, following feedback from the field.
The vehicle that's issued and proved immediately satisfactory is the rarer beast, no matter what the nationality.

Cheers,
Adam.

 

I don't see how this is relevant. I have trouble believing it also, a bolt factory in Russia didn't make just big bolts unless it was specifically tooled for that purpose. If it only has the tolls for big bolts then that's what they made.

Of course it was, they didn't have a choice. what did the Russians have at the battle of Moscow? 150 tanks of various kinds, some obsolete? They needed sytems, not parts of systems. That all changed later during the war I'm sure.