I realise this is probably a chunk of the book in itself, but how useful was Spain for the Soviets? It always struck me in other areas that the conditions of the Spanish Civil War tended to produce "lessons" that were either inapplicable in most other circumstances, or simply entirely wrong.

First of all I'd like to thank you so much for this AMA, and for the great primary source work you've done with TankArchives. I've made great use of a lot of those documents, it's a really nice resource to have available. I have a raft of questions that I'm hoping you can answer.

1. Was ramming ever actually adopted as a tactic for WWII Soviet tank crews, both officially and in actual practice? I've heard claims that it was explicitly taught in early-war manuals, but I've never seen a source. Further, I've heard claims of its use as an ad-hoc combat tactic, but I am also in general not sure how legit these are. For instance, supposedly it happened at Prokhorovka, but I am not sure if this is just an artifact of Rotmistrov's aggressive maneuver to close with the German forces, thus making it appear that the Soviet tanks were trying to ram. I'm particularly curious if you've seen any manuals that teach this.
2. How extensively did the Soviets use captured Axis armor, and how officially? I've heard that there were formalized units of captured Panthers, for instance, and I've seen documents on your site indicating that captured artillery was used on a formal, commander-instruction basis.
3. Not a tank question, but do you know if Soviet troops tended to prefer the PPS-43 or the PPSh-41? The PPS seems like a better weapon from a mass-manufacturing standpoint, but I know people who have fired museum examples of both weapons and supposedly the PPS is much less pleasant to use. I haven't managed to find much mention of one over the other in soldiers' diaries or the like, though.

I'm sure my scatterbrained self will come up with half a dozen more right after I post this, of course...

Always wondered, but why did the Soviets decide to put the Turret in front of the T-34 when a lot of tanks in that era had commonly placed the turrets in the middle or back of tanks?

Was there an advantage to this?

I'm overjoyed to hear you've published your first book, mate. I'll be sure to give it a read as soon as I can get my hands on it. And now you're another step ahead of your detractors, which is what makes it even more gratifying.

I'm guessing the book covers all the various variants of the tank? I'd tried a few years ago to do something like that to little success. I'd be interested to see how a professional take on that looks.

I suppose your book will answer this in detail, but the question I've always had is: with the focus of tank doctrine on specialised "fast" and "infantry" tanks in the interbellum, where does an all-rounder design like the T-34 actually come from? Did it represent a rejection of prevailing doctrine or was the T-34 originally intended to fit only one of these specialised roles only to be repurposed as a medium tank, like the Panzer IV or the M4?

The currently fashionable Internet revisionism says that the engagement at Prokhorovka was essentially a Soviet propaganda fiction, and that a small number of German tanks fought a withdrawal there with next to no losses, while destroying hundreds of Soviet tanks. On its face, this is implausible, and sounds like wheraboo fake history. Can you disprove the claim? Is there ironclad evidence that the engagement played out as orthodox historians claim?

Appreciate you doing the AMA!

How did the Soviets view the ammo load of their prospective medium tanks? Did they consider the ammo onboard to be sufficient, deficient, barely enough for a day's worth of fighting, etc. Was there any particular attention paid to the ease of reloading the vehicle? Thanks in advance!

I would love to know. At the time that the T-34 was designed and tested. Were there any other competing tank models that the Soviets were testing? If not, did they entertain the thought of buying designs from other foreign powers like they did with the British Vickers 6-ton?

Does your book have any mention of that Czech attempt to make the T-34 amphibious?

Or the Type 63/65 SPAAG based on the T-34 chassis?

Was there any link between the Soviet and German military cooperation during the Weimar era and the expectations they carried into their later confrontations?

Somewhat outside the subject of Soviet tank design, but I have read that the lend-lease tank most preferred by the Russians was the Valentine. Do you know anything about that topic?

This might not be relevant but when did they decide to switch from the L-11 to the F-34 and why? Since the L-11 was an equal to all but the 88 at the time

Thanks for doing this AMA! I'm a neophyte regarding tanks, but hey, no stupid questions, right?

Was fuel efficiency paramount during the designing process? By that I mean, was it a fundamental point of discussion? If so, was the resulting T-34 more fuel-efficient than other contemporary tanks?

Was the T-34 designed for tank desant, or was this feature more of a post-production doctrinal adaptation/battlefield ad-hoc addition? Was thinking about this since the frontal turret placement seems suspiciously convenient for turret rotation without knocking soldiers off left and right!

I have a couple of questions to toss out!

1. Was the sloped armor of the T-34 considered revolutionary at the time it was designed (either in the USSR or other countries)? We’re there other pre-war tank designs that also used sloped armor?

2. Popular perception seems to be that soviet tank guns were inferior in accuracy to those of other nations at the time. How true is this, and if so, why?

Hi! Thanks for doing this. I hope my question isn't too basic, but I notice your design period covers the interwar period. Would you say that the time between WWI and WWII was a technological arms race in terms of armored vehicles?

How much influence do you think the Kama tank school had on Russian tank design and doctrine?

Just want to write I am super excited for the book!

What did the USSR see in the Christie suspension exactly, given that they used it on a number of designs in the period? My impression is that despite being an American design, the US found it woefully deficient, hence why we don't see it on notable American tanks of the war, yet the Soviets seem to have really loved it! What resulted in such apparently different assessments of its strengths and weaknesses?

Thank you for doing this.

What were the institutions in place that helped create the T-34? And how were those institution and innovation effected by the various late 30's purges? And how did the military institution recover enough to create the T-34 and use it effective?

As an aside, do you have any reading recommendations that cover the military technological and bureaucracy during the inter-war period?

How big was the impact of the use of Katyushas on the war? Because one would think that they were useful after the soviets took the initiative on 1943, but they were used much earlier.

You are a tanker who is going up against German armor in 1943 and you can choose between a T-34/76 or the M4 Sherman with the 75 mm gun. Which do you choose???

What were some of the flaws that became apparent only once the T-34 and its variants saw combat in the war against the Germans?

Thanks for letting us know this is coming out; I have added it to my Christmas list now.

I have always wondered what inspired them to move away from the multi-turreted tanks like the T-28 & T-35, rather than keep messing about with the same design?

I know the T-34's big claim to fame was its use of sloped armor for the first time in a major role. However, I am sure sloped armor was used in other designs, what were some of the more notable prior designs that made use of sloped armor?

What got you into this topic and if you had to choose war thunder or world of tanks?

Have you watched the movie “T-34”? What did they get right and what did they get all wrong?

I’m fairly unfamiliar with the facts and imagine they took lots of creative license in the movie but would love to learn more.

What are some of the more outlandish designs on the T-34 chassis?

Congrats on the book release!

I've seen a fairly detailed presentation on the general differences in manufacturing between Soviet and German tanks (might have been at the National WWII museum), and while I've forgotten a lot of it, the two things I do remember are that Soviet tanks ended up being extraordinarily simply engineered, partially by necessity, but also because the average survival time of one in combat was measured in single digits of hours.

Can you talk a bit as to how this philosophy was implemented with the T-34 design?

Hello! Was a decision by the soviets not to develop a high velocity 76 mm gun for T-34 motivated by the worsening of potential use of HE shells by said gun? Did the soviets view HE power more important than penetrating power?

Could 1 hit to the king tigers track destroy the track? (T-34)

Will your book have a Kindle version?