Aberdeen Feedback

 "May 24th, 1944

I direct to you the detailed official report of the US War Department on trials of our T-34 and KV-1 tanks and brief excerpts from the translation of the report. I ask for your comments on their contents.

People's Commissar of Foreign Trade, A. Mikoyan

Attachment:
Excerpts from the summary report on trials of Russian KV and T-34 tanks at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds

Reports from German press:
New Russian tanks are the standard of good design and were produced in stunningly short time. The most fearsome tank of the Red Army is the T-34. The effectiveness of its armament, good slope of the armour, and mobility make it a very dangerous opponent.

Reports from British press:
The Russians surpassed the Germans not only in production of tanks, but also in quality. The Russian T-34 tank is the only tank that the Germans fear. They consider the T-34 the most effective and best Russian tank they encountered.
The high maneuverability, good gun, and quality of armour of the T-34 are excellent, which makes it a favourite of Russian tank crews.
The armour is the only interesting aspect of the KV tank.

KV-1 Engine Compartment

Details of the famous Aberdeen test are still not fully available online, all we have are scraps and rumours. However, user Makarov from Tiger's Corner shared a little bit of it with us. These high resolution photos of the engine and transmission compartments are sure to delight any dedicated scale modeler.

Fans of the "JS" vs "IS" debate will also both certainly be shocked at the new name the tank received in this report: KB.

Preparation of the Aberdeen T-34

"To the GABTU district engineer at factory #183, Engineer-Lieutenant Colonel comrade Kozyrev
June 3rd, 1942

Prepare three T-34 tanks for shipment immediately. One of these tanks will be sent to America in early July of this year. You will receive further instructions on where to send the two other tanks. Tanks should be from the latest batch, with all newest changes and R-9 radios. Each tank should be completely equipped with required spare parts and tools. The list of required spare components, parts, and materials is attached.

Carefully prepare each tank for shipment, protecting it from corrosion when being transported by sea. In order to achieve this, do the following:

1. Carefully prepare the tank for painting. Paint the inside and outside, no less than 3 layers.
2. Drain the oil from the engine, clean the tanks, and fill them with fresh oil.
3. Change the oil in the gearbox and final drives.
4. Completely fill all fuel tanks.
5. Clean the tank on the inside and outside.
6. Fill up the air starter tanks.
7. Take off the current batteries and install batteries without electrolyte.
8. Take off all tools carried on the outside of the tank and place them inside the fighting compartment.
9. Take off all machineguns, oil them, and put them inside the tank.
10. All components of the suspension that water can seep through should be covered in a thick layer of grease. Cover all bottom hatches in grease.
11. Hang several calcium chloride pouches inside the tank.
12. Cover the following in cloth or lacquered tracing paper:
1. Driver's hatch
2. Air exhaust and intake openings
3. Observation devices and periscope cap slits
4. Turret ring
5. Machinegun ball
6. Gun and gun mantlet
7. Exit hatch, transmission hatch, engine hatch
13. Each tank should include:
1. Tank manual
2. Engine manual
3. Tank use and maintenance instructions
4. Gun, machinegun, and radio manuals
5. Blueprints (external and assembly only)
6. Spare parts, as listed.

Attachment: list of spare parts on 4 pages

Deputy Chief of GABTU, Major-General of Technical Forces, Lebedev

GABTU Military Commissar, Regimental Commissar, Vorobyev"

CAMD RF 38-11355-936

Chrysler Visit and Sherman Inspection

"Report on the visit to the Chrysler factory in Detroit

From September 3rd to September 5th, Lieutenant-Colonel Demyanenko, Engineer Sorvin, and Engineer Prishipenko visited the Chrysler tank factory. The goal of the visit were:

1. Familiarization with the design of the Chrysler gasoline tank engine and collection of data on its performance, especially in winter.
2. Familiarization with the Chrysler tank factory for evaluation of its production capacity.
3. Personal driving of the M4A4 medium tanks on a proving grounds to obtain necessary data for comparison with M3 and M4A2 medium tanks.

We left Washington on September 2nd, at night, and arrived in Detroit on the morning of September 3rd. We were accompanied by Lieutenant Gerber from the War Department, an aide-de-camp of General Christmass, the chief of tank design and production at the War Department. General Christmass is the chief tank designer in the USA.

When we arrived in Detroit, we were presented to the a Colonel, the chief of the Detroit division of the War Department. The Colonel was very interested in our opinion of American tanks. In particular, he wanted to know about our opinion of the M4A4 tank with a Chrysler engine. This tank has been finalized, and production increases with every month. He also told us that production of M4A2 tanks with General Motors diesel engines and Canadian Valentine VII tanks, which also only use the General Motors diesel, will be complicated in the future. This is caused by a shortage of diesel engines, which are in demand by the American Navy for speedboats. The amount requested by the Maritime Department is very high, and will only increase. 

Note: these engines are built by America's only diesel factory owned by the General Motors company near Detroit. In July of this year, Engineer Sorvin visited this factory. By talking to employees and observation, he was able to establish that the factory produces about 5000 double and single tank diesels (model 6046-Series 71 and model 6004) per month with three shifts working around the clock.. The factory was being expanded to increase production. New mechanical and assembly plants were being built.

The discussion with the Colonel indicated that the above reasons will result in a reduction, or even complete cancellation, of the M4A2 medium tank. At the same time, he highlighted the advantages of the Chrysler engines, built based on automotive engines that the factory has built millions of. He mentioned that there will be no problems with supplies, and like car engines, they will be familiar and easy to service for any driver.

Chrysler's deputy chief engineer of engine production joined us during the trip to the engine factory, located close to Detroit. He stayed with us for the duration of the visit. At the factory, we met with the engine production chief, Mr. O'Malley. With him, and a group of managing engineers, we took a tour of the factory. 

Note: before we left the factory, Mr. O'Malley gave us some documents regarding the quality of parts finish at the factory. These documents are included with the report.

In many offices an laboratories, a cooler is present, capable of generating temperatures of -30 degrees Celsius. During our visit, experiments to examine the starting of a Chrysler tank engine were being carried out in one of these coolers. Additionally, two engines were being tested for wear, actual power, oil and fuel expenditure, etc. During our visit, one of these engines has been working for 400 hours, another for 300 hours. The engines were artificially loaded with Froude hydraulic brakes and an electric balancer machine.

Data gathered during these trials is not yet available, but will be available in the near future.

The next day, we went to the Chrysler Tank Arsenal factory. At the factory, we were accompanied by factory director, Mr. Richay, and the chief engineer of the factory.

The Chrysler tank factory was building M4A4 medium tanks. This factory is famous not only in America, but throughout the whole world. A lot has been written about the construction of this factory in American media, especially in 1940.

In 1941, for the opening date of the factory, the July issue of the Army Ordnance magazine had photographs of the factory, and data on the production capacity and amount of workers. The entire factory, excluding the power plant and warehouses, takes up an area of 1400 by 900 feet. Up to 70% of the ceilings and walls are made of glass. 

Until recently, aside from engines and armament, the factory built everything. Currently, due to increased demand, some components are produced at other Chrysler factories (suspensions, front hulls with gearboxes, final drives). According to the factory director, the September production plan is 600 tanks, and in December, the factory should produce 1000 tanks. 

The tank assembly area takes up the left third of the factory building, lengthwise (see map). The area has 5 assembly lines, which allow for work on 500 tanks simultaneously. 

We attempted to calculate the production capacity of the factory:

1. The amount of turret base production machinery was counted.
2. The amount of turret ring teeth cutting machines was counted.
   Based on our estimates, this is the bottleneck in the production.
   Note: turrets arrive at the factory already cast, in need of mechanical finishing.
3. By asking the factory direction (a real enthusiast of his craft), an chief engineer, we learned the time it takes to finish the bottom of the turret and the turret ring teeth. 

12 carousel machines are used for cutting down the bottom of the turret. It takes 7 hours to process one turret base, so in a day, about 4 turrets can be made. The factory director told us that to increase production to 1000 tanks, three more such machines are needed. We witnessed foundations for these machines being built. The need for more equipment is explained by the fact that an amount of machines is always undergoing preventative maintenance, but the production must always continue. 5 large tooth-cutting machines are used for cutting teeth for the turret ring. It takes 3 hours to process a turret ring. In one day, 40 turret rings can be made.

As such, the production of 1000 tanks per month is possible even now. Finished tanks are fuelled and oiled right at the end of the factory, and drive straight to the proving grounds for testing. The proving grounds are positioned close to the factory building, and consist of a 2-3 km long looped road. The road has varied terrain (concrete, dirt road, sand, elevations and descents). Quality assurance takes 50 miles. After driving for 50 miles, tanks with defects are sent to a refurbishment section for defect correction, after which they are subjected to another 10 miles of track trials. If there are no defects, the tanks are shipped by rail to a tank depot, where radios are installed. Here, instruments and ammunition are loaded into the tank. From here, finished tanks go to army units or to export. 

Due to increasing production, every department is working on installing additional equipment.

Proving grounds and tank driving

After breakfast, we drove to the proving grounds, 12-15 miles from the tank factory. The proving grounds used to be a Cadillac car proving grounds. Next to the good road for testing cars, there is a 2-3 km long tank track, which consists of a dirt road with grades. There is a section of the track that crosses a stream 0.5-0.75 meters deep, but with a hard bottom. The exit from the stream is on a 40 degree grade, which continues for 25-30 meters. There are no muddy, destroyed sections of the road. There are no swamps or trenches. There are no vertical obstacles. When we noted that the proving grounds were insufficient, the factory representatives told us that the tanks were tested at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds (Maryland), where there are allegedly all sorts of obstacles. 

Note: Engineer Sorvin went to the Aberdeen grounds in early August to observe trials of an M4A2 medium tank, and concluded that their proving grounds have nearly identical obstacles as this these proving grounds. 

When we arrived at the proving grounds, we started with a loop around the track in a 2.5 ton Dodge truck (a company owned by Chrysler). All three axles of the truck are powered. The vehicle passed the entire tank route well, including the stream and a small section of bushes, covered in deep gouges.

After breakfast, we personally drove tanks through this route.

There were two tanks there, an M3 medium tank with a Wright engine and an M4A4 medium tank produced by the Chrysler factory with their tank engine. Engineer Sorvin and Lieutenant-Colonel Demyanenko drove these tanks. The impressions are as follows:

1. The M4A4 is undoubtedly superior to the M3, and has superior mobility and acceleration.
2. The 40 degree grade coming out of the stream can be traversed by the M4A4 tank in second gear, while the M3 tank can only traverse it in first gear.
3. The M4A4 tank has a more comfortable driver's compartment than the M3.
4. Both tanks are definitely worse compared to our T-34, and possibly even the KV.

Conclusions

1. The Chrysler tank factory is the one of the newest and largest tank factories not only in the US, but in the world. All factory equipment (machines, devices, cutting and measuring tools, valves, and internal transportation) is new, mostly produced in 1939-1942.
2. The factory is currently capable of releasing 1000 tanks monthly. This capacity is guaranteed by the company engine plant, which produces 35 tank engines daily.
3. The factory produces the M4A4 medium tank with a gasoline engine. This tank is used by the American army and is mass produced at all American tank factories capable of producing medium tanks.
   Note: the M4 medium tank is available in four modifications:
1. M4A1 with a Wright air-cooled gasoline engine.
2. M4A2 with two General Motors water-cooled diesel engines.
3. M4A3 with a special 6-cylinder Ford water-cooled gasoline engine.
4. M4A4 with a 30-cylinder Chrysler water-cooled engine. 
4. The M4A4 tank is identical to the M4A2 (as well as other M4 modifications) in hull design, suspension, armament, observation devices, and communications devices.
   The M4A2 is well known in the Soviet Union from previously sent documents, and all of its drawbacks are repeated on the M4A4 (high ground pressure, height, insufficient amount of vision devices, difficulty in installation and removal of components, difficulty in service, etc)
   The tank's mobility (speed, maneuverability), ability to cross obstacles, and hp/ton is nearly identical to the M4A2 tank with the General Motors engine.
   The M4A4 is superior to the M3, both in the engine, which works on much lower octane gas (65-70) and is water-cooled, and the mobility.
5. Overall, thanks to a lack of experienced tank designers, the Chrysler factory is building tanks whose design and combat performance does not measure up to the potential of such a first-class tank building giant.

Engineer Sorvin.

September 7th, 1942

Washington"

CAMD RF 38-11355-760

An M4A4 tank was sent to the Soviet Union anyway, where trials showed that it was not good enough to order instead of the M4A2.

Rough Handling at Aberdeen

I talked about the summaries of tests at Aberdeen, but this document should shine more light on the proceedings, as it was written specifically from an engineer's standpoint.

"To the People's Commissar of External Trade, comrade Mikoyan
July 14th, 1943

I report the following on the report of engineer comrade Prishepenko from the Tank Department and his discussion with Robert Pollack:

1. One KV-1 and one T-34 were sent to the USA through Arkhangelsk in the end of August, 1942.
2. The KV-1 was produced at the Kirov factory in Chelyabinsk. The T-34 was produced at factory #183 in Nizhniy Tagil.
3. The tanks were assembled under closer supervision than usual, and tested more carefully than for mass production tanks.
4. Their designs were not different from mass production models.
5. In July 1942, before the tanks were sent to the US, BTU GABTU KA sent blueprints, instructions, and manuals on the tanks, as well as lists of design changes made in 1942 compared to the tanks described in the manuals to comrade Krutikov, to give to US general Famoville. 
6. Since general Famonville wanted these items shipped by plane, they would have arrived in America before the tanks.
   Since then, we received no further requests for manuals of explanations.
7. Our manuals are much more detailed than the American or English ones. They contain instructions on the calibration and service of individual mechanisms.
8. Because of this, the complains that Robert Pollack made in the discussion with comrade Prishepenko about certain components in the KV differing from those in the instructions are unfounded, as they were told this, and given necessary errata.
9. The KV and T-34 had R-9 radios and not 71TK-3 radios (obsolete models removed from production). This fact was also communicated through the errata.
10. Our tanks were sent with a large amount of spare parts, unlike American and English tanks. After their request, we sent them a new KV friction clutch.
11. How they managed to destroy the KV final drives is unknown. It is a very strong component of the vehicle, and very rarely breaks in practice. It is very likely that they adjusted them very incorrectly.

All of these complaints are due to the American command refusing help from our engineers working in America at this time, and never requested service instruments for our tanks.

Attachment on five pages.

Deputy chief of the Mechanized and Armoured Forces of the Red Army, Lieutenant-General of the Tank Forces, Korobkov.

Deputy GBTU Chief, Lieutenant-General of the Tank Engineering Forces, Lebedev"

CAMD RF 38-11355-1377

Aberdeen: Long Term Influence

Two previous articles described the initial impression of the T-34 and KV-1 shipped to Aberdeen, and the response of the officers to the test results. Here is the lasting impact that these tanks had on American tank building practices.

"Second report on the new American T23, T25, and T26 tanks

Two months have passed since the first report on new American tanks. Since then, I have personally familiarized myself with them on the Aberdeen Proving Grounds. I was allowed to drive them, and was given a large amount of information on the characteristics and technical details. The latter allows me to make more or less final conclusions.

All new tanks (including experimental T20 and T20E1 tanks, which were experimental and transitional models) are very obviously inspired by European models in their overall form, silhouette, and other elements. This, undoubtedly, was caused as much by isolated American experience as a delayed reaction to samples of modern tanks available to them, including our and German tanks.

Our tanks' traits can be found in many new American vehicles, especially in the hull shape, turret, chassis (suspension, leading wheel location, track construction).

American officers, including officers at Aberdeen, insist that samples of Soviet tanks (KV and T-34) that arrived in 1942 were the basis for newly developed tanks, especially the T25 and T26. The main idea of these tank programs is that new American tanks must catch up to European tanks in technical and combat qualities, such as firepower, reliability, and armour protection. "

CAMD RF 38-11355-2222

One very notable contribution to American tank development these Soviet tanks made was the idea of torsion bars. Of course, the German PzIII also had torsion bars, but the first captured PzIIIs did not arrive in America until after this report was compiled.

The British, on the other hand, went for a much more direct approach, which will be covered in a later article.

Aberdeen: British Intelligence Bulletin #78

Along with KV-1 and T-34 tanks for testing, a number of engineers and officers were sent. They, of course, wrote many reports on their experiences. This one was written by Engineer-Captain V. Prishelenko in October of 1943.

"From the materials of the [Aberdeen] proving grounds library, a certain piece grabbed my attention: "Bulletin of the British Intelligence #78, January 7, 1943". I was only allowed to view handwritten excerpts, provided to me by Lieutenant Clime. The bulletin is composed of documents captured in North Africa and prisoner interrogations. The content of the bulletin was summarized to me as:

...During the war in Finland, the Russians tested all new armament, especially tanks. Several of the tanks were found insufficient for modern war, and, with Russian energy and persistence, work on their successors began...
...Possessing talented engineers and a solid industry, KV and T-34 tanks were designed and mass produced in a very short amount of time...
...Only thanks to Hitler's foresight, and the sudden attack on Russia, were the Russians forced to start a war with obsolete equipment. Manufacturers did not gain proficiency with new tanks, crews were not trained, the armies were demoralized, the rear and supply lines disorganized. The German attacks were successful regardless of what types of tanks opposed them...
...During the war, the Russians managed to start mass producing T-34 and KV tanks. By the winter campaign in 1943 they had the advantage on all fronts. The T-34 has wonderful combat characteristics: it is fast, maneuverable, has excellent armour and armament...
...After a series of engagements against T-34s and KVs, it was made clear that the tanks are superior to German ones, and German tactics were changed accordingly. Every effort was made to avoid engagement unless a numeric advantage (on the side of the Germans) existed.

Based on this information, a comparison with the data obtained at Aberdeen convinces more and more officers that the tanks sent to them were not new, and most likely were sent after capital repairs. Additionally, they are convinced that newer vehicles are far superior, and have nothing in common with those currently at Aberdeen."

CAMD RF 38-11355-1712

The officers were right. American tests made a number of grievous errors (forgetting to oil up or clean an air filter, for instance). The tanks were several years old. The KV-1 (#11302) was made in 1942 and shipped to the Americans before Kirov workers had time to install pump screens. The T-34 was a Model 1941, based on the photographs of the museum exhibit and descriptions of its components. Two years of a brutal war wouldn't be kind to any tank. Another KV-1, shipped to the British (#11306) was previously based in Kubinka, and not as a museum exhibit. Old equipment and improper maintenance doesn't exactly make for tests that demonstrate the best characteristics of any tank.

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.