British & American T-34 Tanks - A True Story



The hell of it is the US had the basic design of the T-34 in the Cristie suspension system but chose not to pursue it to it's conclusion.

I have never liked a slack track system, due to time spent around and under tanks that have thrown the track, even using support rollers. Though I know that is just a characteristic, with the real design determinant of Christie suspension being the suspension of the drive sprocket. My opinion is that as tanks got heavier (now 65-70 tons) it becomes even more important, as taking tanks up a steep incline at angle or neutral steer in soft uneven traction soil, thrown tracks are a pain in the ass.

There's nothing like laying under a tank with thrown track, blocked by trees from retriever, tank slipped sideways, sinking in the mud, with a cutting torch and goggles, and a rope around your legs for your crew to pull your ass out, if the tank starts to move faster, while or when cutting center guides. Note: Tracks always throw to the inside and most often, during a critical maneuver, preferably avoided, but sometimes, not possible.
 
The hell of it is the US had the basic design of the T-34 in the Cristie suspension system but chose not to pursue it to it's conclusion.

Well, the design was created by an American, and the US did look into it for several tank models. In fact, they purchased over a dozen different Christie designed tank demonstrators over almost 20 years. And the issues between Christie and the Army were legendary. But it goes even beyond that, as not even the T-34 really used the "Christie Drive" as the inventor had intended.

Now one of the primary features of his design was that they used oversized wheels that were each powered, and that they had the ability to be used even with the tracks taken off. In fact, they were almost always faster with the tracks removed. However, his tracks were almost an afterthought, and the vehicles behaved much better on wheels than on tracks. Especially when it came to steering, which was poor when the tracks were in use.

However, while the Soviets did indeed use the suspension and track system, they completely discarded any thought of operating them without tracks shortly after they were introduced. The crewmembers of the BT series almost never operated them without tracks, and it was simply not worth the hassle. The removable tracks was completely discarded in the T-34. In almost all ways, they were conventional tanks in all ways, just using the track system.

And even the Soviets realized the issues with the Christie suspension, but it was simple and both easier and quicker to manufacture because it had less moving parts. And it was only used during WWII in the BT series and T34. Once the war was over and they had more resources even the Soviets abandoned the design, instead going to a more conventional torsion bar suspension. So while later Soviet tanks like the T-54 and T-55 look like they use a Christie suspension, they do not. The suspension is pretty much like any other tanks like say the American ones, simply without the top rollers.
 
Here is a good documentary that goes more in depth to the Christie Suspension, and many of the vehicles that used it.



And as a side note, when we were going through our anti-armor classes and tank and armored vehicle identification lectures, there was one main thing that we had repeated to us over and over again.

And that is if the tank had what appeared to be a Christie Suspension, 90% of the time it was going to be an enemy tank and fair game. By the 1980s, I think the only nations that still used that basic design (even if in appearance and not actual operation) were Soviet nations and their allies. All the others had gone to tank suspensions with top rollers. The only one I can think of the US had that was not was the M113, but that also looks very unlike any Soviet designed vehicle.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top