Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

Showing posts with label T-43. Show all posts
Showing posts with label T-43. Show all posts

Friday, 15 January 2021

T-43 Reliability Trials

 "To the People's Commissar of Tank Production, comrade Malyshev
To the Commander of the Armoured and Mechanized Forces of the Red Army, Colonel-General of the Tank Forces, comrade Fedorenko

According to your orders, I report on the work of the main components of experimental T-43 tanks.

Tank #1 travelled 2669 km.

Wednesday, 15 July 2020

New Turret

"November 15th, 1942
#SO4899

To the chief of the BTU, Colonel comrade Afonin
Moscow, Red Square, 2nd NKO house

People's Commissar of Tank Production, comrade I.M. Zaltasmann
Moscow, 11 Sadovo-Sukharevskaya street

Director of factory #183, comrade Yu.Ye. Maksarev

RE: review of T-43 and T-44 tank projects 

In addition to my letter #SO-4698 from November 2nd, 1942, sent to you and copied to the Deputy People's Commissar Zh.Ya. Kotin, the following must be said about the results of review of T-43 and T-44 tank projects.

Sunday, 7 June 2020

An Intermediate Step

The road to a new tank often goes through a number of intermediate prototypes. The Germans took this road to the Tiger and Panther, the American Pershing also evolved in a similar fashion. Soviet tank building also followed this road. For instance, the KV-13 tanks may not have gone into battle but they served as a foundation for the IS-2, the best Soviet tank of the war. The T-43 tank was also such an intermediate step. This interesting tank fell victim to trials that dragged on and a rapid increase in tactical-technical requirements in the second half of 1943.

Thursday, 4 June 2020

T-43 Wishlist

"Tactical-Technical Characteristics for a Medium Tank
November 9th, 1943

1. Overall characteristics
  1. Type: tracked, single turret
  2. Mass: 33-34 tons
  3. Crew: 4
  4. Armour: rolled, homogeneous, high hardness:
    1. Hull front: 90 mm
    2. Sides: 75 mm
    3. Rear: 60 mm
    4. Roof and floor: 20 mm
    5. Turret: 110 mm (cast front), 75 mm (rolled sides)

Saturday, 30 May 2020

T-43, Take One

Factory #183 in Kharkov worked on the T-34M medium tank in the first half of 1941. This tank was supposed to replace the T-34 in the second half of 1941. The start of the Great Patriotic War forced the plans to modernize the T-34 to be corrected. Only a handful of components migrated to the production T-34 from the T-34M. The issue of modernization was revisited in the spring of 1942. Unlike the T-34M, the tank called T-43 was built in metal and its development continued for over a year. This article covers the work performed on the T-43 tank in 1942.

Tuesday, 7 April 2020

T-43 Level Up

"Approximate calculations

Increase in mass of the T-43 tank as a result of new tactical-technical requirements

The main changes in the tactical-technical requirements that will result in an increase in mass are:
  • Increase in the front armour from 75 to 90 mm
  • Increase of the turret ring from 1600 to 1700 mm
  • Increase of the front turret armour from 90 to 110 mm
  • Decrease of the ground pressure from 0.93 to 0.8 kg/cm²
Main changes in tactical-technical requirements that will result in a decrease in mass are:
  • Decrease of the rear armour from 75 to 60 mm
  • Decrease of the roof armour from 30 to 20 mm
  • Decrease of the rear floor from 30 to 20 mm 

Monday, 23 December 2019

T-43 Power Up

"To the Deputy Commander of the Armoured and Mechanized Forces of the Red Army, Lieutenant General of the Tank Forces comrade Korobkov
October 20th, 1943

According to your order given on October 4th of this year, a meeting was called regarding the issue of the T-43 tank and the possibility of creating a new medium tank. The meeting was attended by specialists from the Red Army BTU. The meeting came to the following conclusions:
  1. Due to new tanks used by the enemy (Panther, Tiger) with more powerful armour and a higher amount of 75 and 88 mm anti-tank guns, the T-43 would no longer be capable of fully completing its objectives.

Tuesday, 16 July 2019

Upgunning the T-43

"T-43 tank turret with the D-5 system
Description

During installation of the D-5 system into the T-43 tank turret, an insert is welded into the gun port, as the D-5 system is narrower than the F-34. An armoured shield is installed in the upper front part of the turret.

The seats of the gunner and commander are located in the same place as with the F-34. The turret traverse mechanism remains in the same place. The elevation mechanism is lowered by 40 mm relative to the elevation mechanism used on the F-34.

The trigger of the system is electric. The trigger is installed in the handle of the elevation flywheel. An electric trigger also works the coaxial DT machinegun. There is also a backup hand firing mechanism for the D-5 gun.

The sights and observation devices of the turret are installed in the same way as they are when in the F-34 is installed.

The radio is located in the same place as when the F-34 is installed.

50 rounds of ammunition are carried, 29 of which are carried in the floor, 16 in the turret bustle, and 5 on the right side of the turret.

Tuesday, 4 June 2019

T-43, Take One

"For further development and improvement of medium tanks, permit the NKTP and factory #183 to produce two experimental prototypes of T-44 tanks with the following tactical-technical requirements by September 1st [1942]:
  1. Mass: under 32 tons
  2. Armour:
    1. Sides: 60 mm
    2. Front: 60-75 mm
    3. Rear: 60 mm rolled, 75 mm cast
    4. Turret (cast): 80-85 mm
      The turret must have a commander's cupola.

Wednesday, 23 November 2016

End of the T-43

"Summary of the review of the factory #183 T-43 proving grounds trials

Decision:
  1. Experimental prototypes of the T-43 cannot be recommended for mass production for the following reasons:
    1. Insufficient firepower with the F-34 gun.
    2. Insufficient armour thickness in the front of the hull and the turret.
    3. Poor ratio of armour thickness between the front, sides, and read of the hull.
    4. Unreliable function of suspension elements of the tank (road wheels and drive wheels).
  2. GBTU will provide the NKTP with a draft of tactical-technical characteristics within five days. The NKTP will give its conclusions regarding the draft within 10 days.
Chief of the 6th Department of the GBTU TU, Engineer-Lieutenant-Colonel Solonin
Acting Chief of the NKTP Design Department, Usachev
Chairman of the T-43 trials commission, Guards Colonel Kulchitskiy (September 30th, 1943)
Senior Lead Engineer of the NKTP Design Department, Yurasov (September 29th, 1943)
Assistant to the Chief of the 6th Department of the GBTU TU, Rozengard (September 30th, 1943)

Tuesday, 18 October 2016

T-43 Criticism

"Factory #183 designed and is currently producing an experimental prototype of the T-43 tank. The T-43 tank is designed based on the T-34 tank with the goal of obtaining a better armoured vehicle while keeping as many parts in common as possible.

The main drawbacks of the T-43 include:

Saturday, 18 October 2014

World of Tanks History Section: Morozov's Top Ten

On October 16th, 1904, one of the most talented Soviet tank engineers, Alexander Alexandrovich Morozov, was born. He lived for 75 years, and gave nearly two thirds of his life to tanks. He started out a blueprint copier at a Kharkov factory, then served as a rank and file engineer, then section chief, then chief engineer. Morozov was never on the front lines, but his tanks took part in battle from the first days of the war.

He continued designing tanks after 1945, and his vehicles set the trends of Soviet tank design. Here are ten vehicles from this exceptional engineer's career that can be called exemplary.

1. BT-7. 

The convertible drive BT tanks were one of the main components of the RKKA tank forces before the war. The BT-7 was the last of this family.

The BT-7 was armed with a 45 mm gun, could reach speeds of 70 kph, and had anti-bullet armour. In the late 1920s and early 1930s, this armour was standard in nearly every army, but in the late 1930s, it was no longer enough.

The BT series served as a chassis for new technical solutions, like the installation of a 76 mm gun or experiments with sloped armour (BT-SV).

The BTs fought in the Spanish Civil War, at Khalkin-Gol, during the Winter War. In June of 1941, Soviet mechanized corps that were still armed mainly with BT-7s took the brunt of the Wehrmacht's offensive.

2. A-20

In 1937, a new tank for the Red Army was being developed. The A-20 still used the convertible drive, such was the requirement from the military. Externally, it had little in common with the BT-7, aside from large road wheels, characteristic of the Christie suspension.

The tank had a welded hull and a new turret. The armour plates were sloped to increase the chances of a ricochet. The front armour was up to 20 mm thick. The tank could accelerate up to 80 kph on a highway.

The vehicle was never mass produced. The only A-20 ever built fought with the 22nd Tank Brigade. Engineers, including A. Morozov, managed to convince the military that a purely tracked vehicle was better than a combination of wheels and tracks, and so the A-20 was not needed.

Morozov and his bureau did not waste their time. The A-20 was the predecessor of a vehicle that earned its legendary title.

3. T-34

The T-34 needs no introduction. Countless books and articles have been written about it. The T-34 fought in the Great Patriotic War from the first day to the last as the workhorse of the Red Army.

At the start of the war, this tank's 45 mm thick armour and 76 mm gun made it one of the most powerful tanks in the world. The Germans only managed to surpass it in armour and firepower with the Tiger, Panther, and Ferdinand.

The first T-34s were far from ideal, and were improved greatly throughout the war. A T-34 built in 1943 was significantly different from a T-34 built in 1940-41. Morozov played a key role in all of the tank's modernizations and improvements.

4. T-43

The tank was supposed to be a descendant of the T-34, but the design differed greatly from it. Due to a superior placement of components and alteration of the hull, the level of protection rose drastically. The front armour was increased to 75 mm. The tank used a torsion bar suspension, which was more compact than the T-34's Christie suspension.

The T-43 was better armoured, but this also made it heavier. Its ground pressure came close to that of heavy tanks.

The tank was accepted into service, but was not placed into production, as the military demanded an 85 mm gun. The T-43 was so tightly coupled that there was no potential for modernization. Introducing it into production demanded the development of new technological processes, which the USSR could not allow in time of war.

5. T-34-85

The main problem with the T-34 was that in 1943, its gun was no longer sufficiently powerful. In the middle of 1943, it was decided that n 85 mm gun will be installed. In order to do this, engineers developed a larger turret with better armour, big enough for three crewmen.

The 85 mm ZiS-S-53 gun was based on an AA gun design, and provided superior penetration. This increased the effectiveness of the T-34 when fighting new German tanks. The vehicle retained excellent mobility.

It cannot be said that the T-34-85 was a radical leap forward that gave Soviet forces unparalleled supremacy, but this was a necessary and timely replacement of the T-34.

6. T-44

This tank was the leap forward. It seemed similar to the T-34-85, but its internals differed greatly.

The T-44 had a new diesel engine, placed perpendicularly across the hull. This allowed the turret to be moved further back to balance the suspension. The driver's hatch was removed from the front plate, which raised the vehicle's protection. All components and mechanisms were improved.

The Christie suspension was replaced with torsion bars. This allowed the tank to be smaller and have more room inside, making life easier for crews and repairmen.

The T-44 was accepted for service in 1944, but it had no time to serve in battle, partially due to the fact that Soviet leadership did not wish to reduce the number of T-34-85s being produced. 2000 T-44s were built after the war.

7. T-54

Another leap forward. Designed in 1946, the T-54 remained in the Soviet design school for a long time. The first vehicles had expected growing pains, but after being improved, it became a reliable and technologically efficient vehicle with a large resource for modernization.

The T-54 had a new rounded turret with up to 200 mm of front armour, an improved hull, improved transmission, and a series of other improvements. The vehicle had a 100 mm D-10T gun, which, for a while, was the most powerful tank gun in the world. Its shell could penetrate 125 mm of armour at 2000 meters.

The T-54 was used by about 30 countries worldwide, and participated in many 20th century conflicts.

8. T-55

The T-55 was developed in 1958, and had many improvements over the T-55. One of the most important ones was the installation of a full anti-radiation system. The tank had a semi-automatic rammer. The caliber and type of gun were the same as on the T-54.

The T-55 remained in production until 1979. It fought in many conflicts, and 30 countries still use it to this day. More than 10 foreign variants of the vehicle exist.

The T-55 could reach 50 kph on a highway, and its range was up to 500 km on one tank of fuel.

9. T-64

The vehicle made for a new 115 mm gun, also known as "Object 432". The tank was in production from 1960, and was a laboratory of sorts for engineers and technologists. The vehicle turned out very complicated and not exceptionally reliable. Many were built before it was accepted into service, for testing by the army. The information that came back from the military was used to continue perfecting the design.

In 1966, Object 432 was approved for service. It had a 115 mm smoothbore gun. The tank's armour was composite, and used materials other than steel to defeat HEAT shells and protect from radiation. The same armour was used on the T-64A.

10. T-64A

In the end of the 1950s and start of the 1960s, the age of Main Battle Tanks began. The MBT concept called for a tank that could perform many tasks, combining mobility, firepower, and protection.

The T-64A was accepted into service in 1969. The tank had an automatic loading mechanism, which allowed manual shell type selection. Because of this, the loader was excluded from the crew.

This was the first Soviet tank to use an optical rangefinder. It had the same composite armour as the T-64. It is hard to say whether or not the T-64A was the best tank in the world, but in the 1990s, Western military specialists admitted that it would have been a very dangerous opponent.


About the designer: 

Alecander Alexandrovich Morozov was born on October 16th, 1904 in the village of Bezhitsa, located inside the modern boundaries of Bryansk. After finishing a "real academy" (an educational institution with a focus on natural sciences and mathematics), he worked at the Kharkov Locomotive Factory. He was a file clerk, then a copier. From 1926 to 1928, he served as an aircraft engine technician.

In 1928, he returned to HPZ. Despite its peaceful title, this factory was one of the key Soviet producers of armoured vehicles, including tanks.

In 1931, he finished a machine-building college, and became a group chief in the factory's design bureau. In 1936, he was promoted to section chief. In 1938, he was promoted to Deputy Chief Engineer.

Before the war, he worked on the T-24 tank and BT tanks. Along with Mikhail Koshkin and Nikolai Kucherenko, he worked on the future workhorse of the Red Army, the T-34 medium tank.

When Koshkin died in 1940, Morozov became Chief Engineer. In 1941, the factory was evacuated to Nizhniy Tagil. Here, Morozov directed the development of the T-43, T-34-85, T-44, and T-54. After the war, Morozov designed the T-55, T-64, and T-54A.

The T-54 earned Morozov his third USSR Government Award. He earned two Hero of Socialist Labour titles and two first class Stalin Awards. In 1972, Morozov was awarded the title of Doctor of Technical Sciences.

Original article available here.

Friday, 11 April 2014

Heavy Tanks and Lightening

"To the Deputy People's Commissar of Defense, Lieutenant-General of the Tank Forces, comrade Fedorenko

Report.

On the issue of design and production of experimental heavy tanks, I report that:

The current heavy KV tank fielded by the Red Army demonstrates superiority in battle over fascist tanks with its powerful armour and armament. It can be successfully used to destroy the enemy defences, crushing them with its tracks and gun. The Patriotic war, combining in its nature a positional war with a maneuver war requires much of a heavy tank, and the KV does not fully meet those requirements. The KV lacks mobility for the following reasons:
  1. A low maximum speed limits its ability to move between flanks to counter-attack.
  2. Insufficient visibility from the tank makes orienting on the battlefield difficult.
  3. The tank's mobility is decreased by its number of gears: five forward gears is not enough for a heavy tank.
  4. The force required to shift gears is large. Momentum acquired on lower gears is wasted, and the tank must slowly accelerate in a higher gear.
  5. The brake ribbons are insufficiently reliable and lead to the tank stopping on the battlefield and requiring repairs.
The usage characteristics of the KV are limited by:
  1. The requirement for robust bridges or other means of crossing ravines or water hazards.
  2. The requirement for powerful tractors for rapid evacuation from the battlefield, dragging out of ravines, traps, etc, or the use of more of these expensive vehicles.
  3. The requirement of units to have powerful repair tools.
Based on the above, the government must task the People's Commissariat of Tank Production to order the Kirov factory and factory #183 to produce two experimental prototypes of heavy tanks with the following characteristics"
  1. Combat mass: 30 tons
  2. Crew: 4 (3 in the turret)
  3. Armour:
    1. front and turret: 90 mm
    2. side and rear: 75 mm
    3. roof and bottom: 25 mm
  4. Armament:
    1. 76 mm gun: 1
    2. DT machineguns: 2 (one coaxial and one in the hull)
    3. SMGs: 2 (PPSh)
    4. Flamethrower: 1 (attachable instead of the hull machinegun)
  5. Gun range:
    1. vertical: -5 to +25 degrees
    2. horizontal: 360 degrees
  6. Hull machinegun range:
    1. vertical: -5 to +15 degrees
    2. horizontal: +/- 10 degrees
  7. Ammunition capacity:
    1. Shells: 50
    2. Machinegun rounds: 2520
    3. PPSh rounds: 1000
    4. Flamethrower fluid: 20 shots
  8. Engine: V-2 or V-2K diesel, 500-600 hp
  9. Maximum speed:
    1. Highway: 60 kph
    2. Off-road: 25 kph
  10. Off-road range, non-stop: 10 hours
  11. Transmission: planetary
  12. View: 360 degrees, provided to the commander with an observation hatch in the turret roof, optical sights (with exit eyepiece 10-12 mm and field of vision no less than 60 degrees), and doubled observation devices (in the roof) for the driver.
  13. Communications:
    1. External: quartz radio station
    2. Internal: TPU-3 with throat microphone
  14. The side reductors must be protected by main armour.
  15. The coolant system and air filters should provide 10 hours of uninterrupted movement off-road in 45 degree heat.
  16. The engine must be able to start without external heating at a temperature of -45 degrees.
A tank produced in accordance with the above requirements will be fully equipped for modern war and will be an even more deadly weapon against fascist tanks.

BTU Chief, Major-General of Tank Forces Korobkov
Representing the BTU Military Commissar, Engineer-Lieutenant-Colonel Kovalev
June 1st, 1942"

Seems that the "medium tank with heavy armour" concept surfaced again, two years later. If you look at the characteristics of the A-44, it matches these requirements exactly!

As for the products of Kirov factory and factory #183, those were, of course, the KV-13 and T-43. Neither vehicle ended up in production, but the KV-13 influenced the IS series and the T-43's turret migrated to the T-34-85. 

Tuesday, 2 April 2013

Aberdeen: T-34 and KV-1 Test

In 1943, a T-34 and a KV-1 (the #11302 mentioned earlier) were sent to the Aberdeen proving grounds in the United States to undergo testing, and see what technical solutions from these tanks can be of use to the Americans, and what can be done to improve their designs. While the report from these tests is not widely available, another document is: a translation of the summary of the tests obtained by a GRU agent at Aberdeen. This text, especially when taken out of context, provides a very scathing, and generally incorrect view of T-34 and KV tanks. Here are a collection of documents elaborating on this information.

"Comments on the evaluation of T-34 and KV tanks by workers of the Aberdeen proving grounds in the USA, representatives of companies, officers, and commission members.

I. Tank condition

According to information received from the Americans, the T-34, after traveling 343 km, was disabled by the breakdown of the V-2 diesel engine. The Americans are of the opinion that this was caused by a poor air filter on the diesel engine.

The T-34 sent to America had an air filter of the "Pomon" type. This filter was installed on T-34 and BT tanks. If properly cleaned and supplied with oil (in exceptionally dusty environments, this must be done once every 2-3 hours), the Pomon filter guarantees normal engine operation with 79.6% air purity at air dustiness of 1 gram per cubic meter. The filter at Aberdeen was not cleaned [Note: the filter was also not oiled. The Americans wonder why the filter is called "oily" by the Soviets in their impressions], which led to uncharacteristic engine wear.

Starting with 1942, all T-34 tanks have an improved Cyclone filter, which provides 99.4% air purity at air dustiness of 1 gram per cubic meter. This filter also needs cleaning and oiling every 3-4 hours.

IS tanks in development will have an improved air filter, providing 100% air purity at air dustiness of 3 grams per cubic meter, and can operate without cleaning for 8 hours. This filter is designated "Multicyclone".

II. Armour

The Americans insist that the T-34 and KV tanks' plates are hardened shallowly, and most of the armour is soft steel. They suggest that we change the hardening technology, which will increase the armour's resistance to impacts. This opinion has no basis in reality, and was likely caused by poor analysis of the armour.

The armour of the sent T-34 tank consisted of 8S steel. All T-34s are armoured this way. This steel is hardened to high hardness (2.8-3.15 mm on the Brinell scale). The KV tank's armour was medium hardness (3.35-3.6 mm on the Brinell scale).

The Americans take the same approach as us, hardening armour of medium thickness to high hardness and armour over 40 mm thick to medium hardness. Our armour provides greater resistance to impact compared to American armour.

German heavy tanks have armour of medium hardness.

Currently, we are in the process of producing high hardness armour for IS tanks.

Perhaps, when commenting on the tanks' armour, the Americans meant that heavy tanks should have armour of high hardness.

III. Hull.

The Americans found that the tank takes on water when crossing rivers, and the hatches leak during rain. The hulls of our tanks are sufficiently watertight to cross rivers. However, the top hatches are insufficiently watertight.

IV. Turret.

The Americans consider the crampedness of our turrets a weakness. The T-34 we sent had a welded turret. New cast turrets are roomier than old welded turrets. New IS and T-43 tanks have larger turrets, due to the enlarged turret ring. The electric turret rotation mechanisms are indeed insufficiently reliable. A hydraulic turret rotation mechanism is currently in development, similar to American ones. This mechanism is very reliable and comfortable to use.

V. Armament.

It is necessary to admit that the muzzle velocity of our medium tank gun F-34 is insufficient, and is lower than that of the American 3" gun. However, the muzzle velocity of the American 75 mm gun on the M3 Medium and M4A2 tanks is also insufficient.

VI. Tracks.

During testing at Aberdeen, tracks of the T-34 tore. The track pins, instead of being guided by the guide, get caught on it and bend. This could potentially be caused by an insufficiently wide guide, or defects of the track metal. On currently produced T-34s, tracks are of much higher quality, the guide has been lengthened, and there are additional guides on the sides of the hull.

VII. Suspension.

The Americans do not like our spring suspension, based on their work with Christie tanks. [Note: the impressions of the suspension are from Christie tanks only, since the T-34 only traveled a very limited distance under the Americans' supervision. The suspension of the T-34 was different from the suspension of Christie or BT tanks]. We consider the reliability of the T-34's suspension adequate, but the T-43 is being developed with a torsion bar suspension.

VIII. Engine.

The T-34 tank has a 15 hp ST-700 electric starter. The KV has two 6 hp starters, 12 hp in total. Currently, both the KV and T-34 are built with a ST-700 starter.
A high power tank starter was first developed here. The Americans have much weaker starters. For some reason, they evaluate our starters as weak.
The ST-700 starter has a series of defects, making its reliability unsatisfactory to us. The IS tank is being developed with an electro-inertial starter of higher reliability.

IX. Transmission.

The KV and T-34 transmissions were a result of continued development of the Christie transmission. This transmission is currently obsolete.

The Americans have a poor opinion of the KV and T-34 gearboxes. They assumed that we copied their A-23 gearbox that was built 15-20 years ago by an American company. This same company built gearboxes for Christie tanks in 1929-1930.

The T-34 and KV gearboxes use a cross-bar and a bevel gear and pinion, transmitting the rotation from the motor. Perhaps the blueprints for our gearbox are similar to the A-23 ones.

Currently, a superior gearbox is used on the KV with 8 speeds (the one sent to the Americans had 5). T-34s built by the Kirov and #174 factories use a new 5-speed gearbox (the one sent to the Americans had 4). Quality of the gears in the gearbox is significantly increased.

X. Friction clutch

The Americans consider friction clutches obsolete. Apparently, even American tank companies no longer use them. They suggest that we replace them with double differentials, like they have on their tanks.

We also consider friction clutches obsolete. IS tanks are being developed with a planet gear, which makes the tank more maneuverable and reliable. All further transmission related work is aimed at transmissions of the planet gear type. This transmission is superior to the American one, which consists of a gearbox of the tractor-automobile type and a double differential.

Additionally, American tractors still use friction clutches. For example, these can be found on American Alice-Chalmers, Caterpillar, and International tanks currently being supplied to the USSR.

As for friction clutches on the KV and T-34, they work reliably, provided they are taken care of.

XI. Overall impressions.

The Americans remark that the tank is produced crudely, absent-mindedly, and with undeveloped technology of certain parts and devices. Significant progress has been made in upgrading the quality of produced tanks. However, mechanisms of American tanks are superior to domestic ones in cosmetic finish and performance.

Overall, Americans comment that their tanks are superior in maneuverability, firepower, speed, ease of use and maintenance, and reliability of construction. While American tanks are simpler to use, but ours have superior combat performance. The combination of armour, armament, and maneuverability is significantly more optimal than the Americans', which is proven by combat application."

CAMD RF 38-11355-1712

Since the above commentary makes it seem like the Americans hated everything about the T-34 and KV, here are the good parts they found:

"The shape of the tanks is loved by all, without exception. The T-34 is especially favoured. Consensus is that the T-34's shape is the best of all vehicles known in America.
...
Ammunition rack placement is very well liked.
...
The F-34 gun is very good. It is simple, reliable, and easy to service.
...
Consensus: the gun sights are the best in the world. Incomparable to any currently known worldwide or currently developed in America.
...
The Americans love the idea of steel tracks.
...
The suspension on the KV is excellent.
...
The diesel engine is light and excellent. The idea of using diesel engines has previously come up, but the Navy uses all diesel motors produced in the USA, and therefore the Army lacks the ability to use diesel tanks.
...
Both of our tanks can deal with sloping terrain better than any American tank.
...
Small size of radio stations and their placement inside the tank is good.
...
...overall tank construction is well though out...
"

Additionally, from the "Minutes of the meeting on the question of the evaluation of T-34 and KV tanks by Americans", CAMD RF 38-11355-360

"Major-General Ogurtsov speaks:
"The Americans provide incorrect data for muzzle velocity of the guns...they claim that their gun has Vo of 5700 ft/sec, or 1730 m/sec, which seems very unlikely, even given all of its advantages.""

You may notice that the T-43 is mentioned a number of times in this report. Development of the T-43 was cancelled, but many solutions from the project were used on other tanks, such as the T-34-85 and T-44.

By the way, if you ever do come across a full report, give me a shout. I'm very interested in reading it. You'll know it when you see it, it's 650 pages.