THE RED GAMBIT SERIES

Author Colin Gee

Forums

Post Reply
Forum Home > General Discussion > T34 m46

denis rea
Member
Posts: 21

Chris,

in "Initiative" you have used the T34m46.with the bigger gun and assuminig increased weight, how does this effect it's operational use. I'm presuming there would be less room inside;

Fewer main rounds carried.

Increased maintenance problems.

Less stable gun platform, with the increased turret weight. Assuming no added armour to tank chassis.

This on top of the T44, JS4, T54 being produced, what would be the effect on overall soviet tank production?

--

Denis Rea

September 7, 2016 at 6:21 AM Flag Quote & Reply

gee_colin@yahoo.co.uk
Site Owner
Posts: 916

Hi. In the actual prototype, the bow gunner position was removed. The USSR did not go ahead with production because the turret assembly simply couldnt cope with firing the weapon, although this damage was accrued, not instant. There were also issues with the transmission and suspension system that were directly attributable to the new gun. Accuracy was also a big problem, which is surprising as the 100mm had an excellent reputation for hitting whatity aimed at.

I reasoned that, in the same way as the T34m44/85 and the SU-85, the Russians would abandon the SP in favour of the tank, so long as the problems could be figured out. I gave them some time to do so within the books.

On ammunition, the 100mm is a complete shell, and that would pose problems all of its own. The 85mm carried between 54 - 60 shells [Ive seen a range off figures]. I considered it qyite reasonable that that number coudl almost halve, a not unheard of total given the measly 28 rounds in the IS-III.

In general, my thinking was that the Soviets NEVER wasted anything. They had 100mm tubes... T34m44 assemblies, and had already tried to marry the two. WIthin RG they had numerical superiority and surprise, but technically they were not superior, and that gap closed as new tanks and ammunition was fielded by the Allies.

Carrying a gun that can kill anything is a big bonus. trading off for some range and speed issues, ammunition stowage set against a small amount of modification [once the prototype was working properly] would be a step they would make, particulaarly as they were unsure if the T-54, IS-IV, and IS-VII would work properly.

BTW, the T44 with both guns has made few appearances since Yarishlov used one. I reasoned that there was no need for the vehicle once other designs had proved themselves. But they are still serving. As I said... they didntthrow anything away.

Anything I missed? :-) Thanks for the question.

--

September 8, 2016 at 7:11 AM Flag Quote & Reply

You must login to post.

go back to the top