T-34/57 grog info

[John Kettler]

A grand total of 10 T-34/57s were produced in 1941. Ten. All were in the 21st Tank Brigade, part of the 30th Army defending Kalinin on the northern flank of Moscow. Of these ten T-34/57, six had radios, so became the mounts for regimental and battalion commanders. Anyone interested in this neck of the woods and for this period urgently needs to read The Defense of Moscow 1941: The Northern Flank, by Jack Radey and Charles Sharp. What I presented is from pages 22 and 23. Both the dust jacket and the photo section show the destroyed T-34/57 of one Major Lukin.

The book is a model of how to write military history. It defines the background of all the players, force equipage and quality, COs, morale and more as a prelude to discussing the battles proper. There are numerous maps, pertinent pictures, to include the Russian Marder equivalent, the ZIS-30. Notes and bibliography of a comprehensive nature amount to ~40% of 278 pages with smallish dense type and a quite readable font.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Surely we haven't run out of grogs, especially treadhead grogs?!

(watches the tumbleweeds roll past as the wind gusts and sighs)

Regards,

John Kettler

[Erwin]

CM1 folks are more game-oriented than groggy...

[altipueri]

I'm only groggy after a few drinks too many, but I laways (ha, that was supposed to be always - see what I mean?) - I always like Herr Kettler's grog info.

Don't stop John.

[John Kettler]

Erwin and altipueri,

Some of you are, and some of you aren't. Maybe! In any event, the aforementioned tank is the regimental commander's tank. No slouch that man. Major Lukin, Hero of the Soviet Union, won his HSU medal at Khalkin Gol. As such, he was doubtless one of the most experienced and combat tested tanker men in the entire Red Army.

Now, since I promised grog info, here it is. I learned quite a bit from reading this Wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grog

I regret to say, though, that a bunch of online dictionaries haven't yet caught up with our contraction of grognard. Worse, a site called Grognardia dares to call old school RPGers by our sacred appellation! I date back to Chainmail myself and would never presume to usurp such a proud title. OTOH, my playing AH's Tactics 2 at age twelve does entitle me to the proud grognard moniker.

Oh! In case you missed it on the GDF, we grognards have our own march. Appropriately, it came before we did. Way before.

Regards,

John Kettler

[dsf]

This is my translation of the chapter on the T-34-57 from Maksim Kolomiets' book "T-34 -

Pervii polnii entsiklopedia". I consider it by far and away the best single-volume source of information on the tank. There is more information in "Tanky v bitva za Moskvu" abd "T-34-76 i T-34-57 v boyax za Moskvu". I know Charles and was able to assist with some information.

More trivia: The same bridagde also had the only two flamethrower tanks manufactured in 1941. These were among the last tanks produced in Kharkov before Zavod No.183 was evacuated to Nizhnii Tagil.

"Tank-Destroyer"

Most authors anyhow writing about the T-34 now mention the T-34s armed with the 57mm gun. Unfortunately, all the information presented about these machines differs and basically does not correspond with the facts.

In June 1940, the Design Office of Zavod № 92 in Gorkii, under the direction of V. Grabin, received the assignment to design a 57mm anti-tank gun, which received the designation ZiS-2 . To test the ballistic characteristics (pressure and muzzle velocity), that autumn they prepared a barrel and mounted it on the carriage of a F-22-USV. In parallel with this project, on their own initiative the KB at Zavod № 92 set about designing a new 57mm gun based on the ZiS-2 and the F-34 gun, which was being developed at that time for the T-34. This initiative found support with the Chief of GAU, Marshal of Soviet Union G. Kulik, and in December 1940, the first prototype was made and received the designation ZiS-4.

Factory testing came to an end early in 1941 after 43 rounds were fired and the gun, now installed in a T-34, was sent to the Artillery Research Testing Range (ANIOP) . Between April 28 and May 13, the ZiS-4 and T-34-57 were tested there, as the tank was driven over 175km of proving ground and the weapon was fired 696 times.

The ZIS-4 resembled the 76mm F-34 tank gun with the barrel replaced with a 57mm barrel, while leaving other parts and assemblies of the gun unchanged. The replacement of the barrel led to steadiness instability, so counterweights were added to the lower part of the cradle. In addition, the TOD gunsight of the F-34 was replaced by the TMFD sight on the ZiS-4.

The 57mm ZiS-4 gun had the following characteristics:

Weight of AP shell - 3,14 kg;

Muzzle velocity - 962 m/s (calculated);

Full length of barrel - 73 calibres (4160 mm);

Length of barrel - 3481 mm;

Rifling – 24 grooves;

Slope of rifling - 25 calibres;

Greatest angle of cut – 30°;

Least angle of cut (at the snout) – 6° 10’;

Armour-piercing capability: 1000m at 30°angle, with m/v 1000 km/s - 70 mm;

Weight of the gun (with carriage) - 1110 kg;

Weight of barrel with breech - 447,5 kg;

Normal length of recoil - 350 mm;

Height of the line of fire - 1920 mm.

At the conclusion of the trials, the commission conducting the tests noted in their conclusions:

“1. The 57mm ZiS-4 gun in the T-34 is a more powerful weapon than the F-34 as far as armour-piercing capability. The ZIS-4 gun is capable of defeating enemy tanks with 70 -80mm of armour from a distance of 800m.

2. It was determined at ANIAP that the initial velocity of the explosive has an effective pressure of 3050 kg/cm², equal to 962 km/s. Tests were conducted at a pressure of 3350 kg/cm² which provided an initial velocity of 997 km/s.

3. … Based on tests of the ZiS-2 gun, one can calculate that the service lifespan of a barrel is around 900 shots. Accuracy when firing on targets from a distance of 500m and 1000m is unsatisfactory, approximately 2 or 2½ time worse than a grouping from the 45mm tank gun or 76mm divisional gun obr. 1902/30. The reason for the bad grouping consists in unsatisfactory functioning of the rotation bands of the shell because of the rifling and possibly from vibration of the barrel.

4. From checked up calculation ANIOP it is obvious that the barrel does not have the degree of durability required to sustain fire at high temperatures.

5. The semi-automatic breech worked normally without stoppages throughout the testing.

6. The recoil mechanism worked normally and the durability of the assembly was satisfactory.

7. The elevation mechanism, cradle, and extractor mechanism are satisfactory;

8. The foot trigger mechanism on the ZIS-4 takes effort to press (up to 60 or 65 kg) and large distance the pedal traverses is unsatisfactory. Firing is not possible without the gunner removing his eye from the eyepiece to make a shot …

9. The TMFD sight provided for testing is a better sight for this given gun than old periscopic TOD.

10. The armour protection of the carriage, according to the statement of representatives of the factory, is an experimental model which does not correspond to the drawings at all.

11. Servicing the gun in the turret appears to be very inconvenient. Working conditions of the loader are very difficult because the extremely narrow turret of the tank complicates the removal of rounds from cassettes. Considering that the test tank had the old turret , subsequent testing of the ZiS-4 gun, after elimination of the deficiencies noted in the report has been completed, should be conducted in the new turret with its full combat equipment.

12. Rotating the turret with both the manual mechanism and the motor is extremely difficult if the tank is listing at an angle of 14° and from 15° to 18° it is impossible, which could lead to a variety of situations when it will be impossible to carry out combat assignments.

Conclusions

The ballistic properties of the ZiS-4 gun with calculated pressure of 3050 kg/cm² do not correspond to the design specifications. In this regard, to achieve the required muzzle velocity (997 m/s) with the use of a stabilizer without increasing the specific pressure requires increasing the volume of the chamber, therefore it is necessary to make a new barrel and to test it for conformity to the requirements indicated...

The commission notes that the 57mm ZiS-4 tank gun in the T-34 appears to be a true destroyer of tanks because of its armour-penetrating action, piercing armour up to 80 mm thick. Once the deficiencies are eliminated the gun can be put into production.”

Over the next six weeks the KB of Zavod № 92 was occupied with completing the ZiS-4 and conducting tests of the new prototype of this artillery system. The modified ZiS-4 gun was installed in a T-34 and from July 6 to July 18 underwent testing at the Sofrinsky artillery range, where 170 rounds were fired. The modified gun differed from the first example in having an increased chamber, changed slope of the rifling and the introduction of a stabilizer. The results of tests were as follows:

“When the tank is level, the effort on the handwheels is about 3 to 5kg; with the tank between 0° to 15°, the elevating and rotating mechanisms demand an effort of about 6 to 8 kg. With the tank at an angle of 15° it is impossible to turn the turret by hand or with the motor and the elevating mechanism is jerky and the effort required increases sharply...

The optics of the TOP sight are located close to the breech which creates inconvenient working conditions for the gunner, especially when the tank is moving...

Ammunition stowage in the tank is convenient, but the floormats covering the ammunition boxes should be made to fold...

The semiautomatic extraction shell system worked satisfactorily during testing with charges of normal pressure.

Results:

1. The 57mm tank gun with new the barrel, having the modified rifling with a constant slope of rifling of 30 calibres and larger chamber provides a muzzle velocity of 990 m/s and pressure of 3100 kg/cm² and is at present the most powerful tank destroyer.

2. The accuracy of the system is satisfactory and provides a hit even from a distance of more than 2 km.

3. The high angle of elevation (to 30°) allows for bombardment of the opponent at great distances from covered positions.

4. Operation of the counter-recoil mechanism is satisfactory. The length of recoil throughout the tests was normal, equal to 335 or 340 mm.

5. No fluid leaks were observed throughout testing…

6. The footpedal firing switch must be changed for a pushbutton.

Ammunition.

1. Adding a stabilizer to the explosive when assembling the AP shell produces extremely undesirable results since the fumes and gases produced by the stabilizer when the shell is fired make the atmosphere in the tank extremely unpleasant, even with the ventilator working.

2. The armour-piercing shell of drawing № 2-1558-a penetrates 90mm of homogeneous armour at an angle of 30° from normal only from a distance of 1000m and closer. Therefore, for an accurate estimate of the round tests should be conducted not on 90mm armour, but on plate with a lesser thickness.

3. Grouping of the shells is good.

4. The proper functioning of the rotation bands on the fragmentation shell (drawing № 2-1405) requires verification since three shots fell short of ten rounds fired.

5. The 57mm brass casings worked well.”

After considering the results of the test of the ZiS-4 gun, GAU made the decision to introduce it into mass production in the second half of June 1941, however it was not possible to do this at once, since the entire effort of Zavod № 92 was thrown into the production of the 57mm ZiS-2 ant-tank gun, which had a barrel identical to that of the ZiS-4. The problem was that the long, thin barrel created an array of problems during manufacturing which led to a large percentage of rejects. Many technologists and designers even suggested that the barrel be shortened by approximately a meter. In order to arrange for normal production techniques for the 57mm barrels, the KB at Zavod № 92 spent much effort to provide a new manufacturing culture and strict observance of accepted production methods. In addition, with a view to reducing costs and simplifying the design of subsequent barrels, the two-part assembly (Free barrel and housing) was replaced with a monoblock design. These steps allowed for simpler construction and an increase in production.

As related above, the 57mm ZiS-4 tank weapon was initially suggested for use to arm the modernized T-34M tank. With the termination of work on this machine at the beginning of the war, the urgent need for the ZiS-4 disappeared. The question of organizing production of the 57mm tank gun was revisited only in August 1941, when the management of NKSM brought before GKO the question of forming a tank brigade named for Narkomsredmash. It was suggested that combat testing of different items of new tank technology could be conducted on the basis of this unit. It was suggested that T-34 tanks armed with the 57mm ZIS-4 gun be used, among others, to equip the NKSM brigade. Preparation of these machines was planned in Kharkov, but because of the delay with manufacturing guns the work was postponed. The first eleven production ZiS-4 guns were not delivered to the factory until September 1. In second half of September, ten of them were installed in T-34 tanks (serial numbers: 895-20, 875-17, 0859-6, 469-07, 553-06, 609-20, 609-96, 875-14, 609-15 and 609-95, last four tanks with radios). Other than the length of the barrel, the only external difference was the cylindrical insert in the forward part of the armoured recoil housing of the weapon. On October 5, 1941 all ten T-34s with the 57mm gun, together with 12 normal Т-34s, were dispatched from Kharkov to Vladimir on transport № 21/414.

Here it is necessary to make an aside. The issue is that in not one document of the period is there any reference to the T-34 with 57mm gun by the name “Tank-istrebitel’ ” (noted by the author - M. Кolomiets). This is with regard to 1941 and again to 1943, when the question of arming the T-34 with 57mm guns came up again. (More about that below.) This name was brought into circulation by some authors recently, however it does not represent the facts, quite the opposite. Apart from that, it is desirable to clarify and dispel the myths about the quantity of T-34s made in 1941 with the ZiS-4 gun. So far (2008) it has not been possible to find an exact figure for how many of these weapons were manufactured at Zavod № 92 in Gorkii. The gun was very complicated and expensive, and if one recognizes that in total there were about 250 57mm ZiS-2 anti-tank guns made to the end of 1941, of which 100 were mounted on Komsomolets tractors, it becomes clear that they were not able to make many ZiS-4 guns. In the author’s opinion, there could be no more than thirty, including the examples used by Zavod № 92 for testing. This number follows from the 11 weapons available in Kharkov on September 1 and 12 57mm guns which were taken from Zavod № 183 to Nizhni Tagil during evacuation. As for T-34s with 57mm guns, apart from the 10 tanks sent to Vladimir on October 5, 1941, there were no more! To become convinced of that, the author had to pore through all the shipping orders from T-34 tank factories for 1941, and it appears that except for the tanks described above, there were no more T-34s with 57mm guns. And to convince skeptics I will add that in the shipment documents, as well as the type of weapon installed in the tank, it also specified its serial number so there cannot be errors. Therefore, information encountered in some publications that 40 T-34s were armed with 57mm guns by the middle of October, 1941 and assertions that tanks with these guns were also produced at STZ are inventions and do not correspond to the documentation.

Ten T-34s with the ZiS-4 were assigned to the 21st Tank Brigade which was formed in Vladimir. Together with 19 standard Т-34s they were part of a battalion of heavy and medium tank regiments, but the service career of these tanks was rather short. Immediately after formation, the brigade was thrown into action near Kalinin, where there were fierce battles going on as the Germans attempted to break through to Moscow. In the operational reports from the staff of 21st TB on their combat in the area, it states:

“The 21st Tank Brigade was formed on October 10, 1941 in Vladimir, incorporating into the regiment 29 Т-34s and 32 light tanks (BT-7s, Т-60s, etc.) On October 14 the brigade disembarked in the area of Demidovo and readied for action along the Kalinin - Moscow highway.

From 15 to 17 October, the brigade became subordinate to the Western Front in the 16th and then 30th Armies.

The brigade entered battle October 15, receiving the order to attack with 16 T-34s near Kalinin along the route Turginovo, Pushkino, Troyanovo with the goal of striking the enemy flank, supporting the 16th Army in the destruction of the group of enemy forces around Kalinin.

Particularly heavy losses were suffered by the German tank regiment which was on a deep raid and had reached Kalinin. The crew of the Sergeant Gorobets became famous (in a Т-34-76) during these battles, when the tank rushed into the city centre, shooting up a column of supporting German troops, and proceeded through the entire city, twice breaking through the ring of enemy troops before heading out on the Leningrad highway, leaving it near Reshetnikovo to where Red Army forces were deployed.

Near Turginovo, the tank commanded by Senior Political Officer Gnyrii entered the Volokolamsk highway at the moment when a large column of enemy motor vehicles were passing. For a distance of 2 or 3, Gnyrii flattened the column and then rushed onto an aerodrome near Kalinin where there were up to 50 aircraft. One bomber was rammed and a second was destroyed by gunfire. Then, under fire from aircraft that had scrambled, Gnyrii’s tank was knocked out, but he himself and Sergeant Ishchenko were able to leave the battle and return to our troops.

Over 4 days the brigade destroyed 3 headquarters, up to 1000 soldiers, 34 tanks, 210 motor vehicles, 25 anti-tank guns, 6 incendiary weapons…

Over the course of the battles reconnaissance functioned poorly, and there was no cooperation with other troops. This led to large losses: 90 killed and 154 wounded over three days. The commander of the Regiment, Hero of the Soviet Union Major Lukin and the commander of the 1st Battalion, Hero of the Soviet Union Captain Agibalov were lost in the battle. Losses of equipment were 21 T-34s, 7 BTs, one T-60 and one ZiS-30 (ZiS-2 57mm gun mounted on the Komsomolets tractor).

Since then, with 8 to 10 tanks on hand, the brigade has been constantly in combat, with periodic one or two day withdrawl.”

All of the T-34s with the 57mm gun were lost in the fighting for Kalinin. This information can be gathered from the loss certificates submitted by the 21st Tank Brigade on November 16 and 26, 1941. In these there is data on losses of the ten 57mm tank guns with identifying numbers of the tanks and the reason for their loss. However, these documents are made by hand, and some factory numbers are indistinct. It is not possible to pick out the tanks armed with the 57mm gun in the documents for tanks written off, as they are not separated in any way. Below is a table of losses compiled by the author of the T-34s with the ZiS-4 gun that were lost in the fighting for Kalinin. Nine of the ten tanks were irrevocably. The fate of the one sent to the brigade repair company for recovery is unknown to the author.

Today there are only three photos of T-34 tanks with the 57mm gun from the complement of the 21st Brigade, all taken of the same tank with hull number 20. Study of documents has established that this particular tank was the one in which Hero of the Soviet Union Major Lukin was lost. Commander of the 21st Tank Brigade’s regiment, Lukin received the HSU for bravery in battle during the fighting at Khalkhin-Gol in 1939. The works number of Lukin’s T-34 in not known exactly, but it is known to be one of four tanks with radios ( 609-96, 875-14, 609-15, 609-95). Proceeding from available data, it is possible to assume that it is tank T-34 № 609-95.

Documentation on losses of T-34s with 57mm ZiS-4 gun

(Per documents filed by the staff of the 21st Tank Brigade for 10.26.41 to 11.16.41 to report property written off.)

Date of loss: Location: Serial number: Cause of loss:

17 October Troyanovo № 609-96 Set on fire by a thermite round and fell off bridge

18 October Benovino, Simonovo № 11 (hull number) Rammed by another T-34, remained on enemy territory

19 October Naprudnovo № 609-15

(requires confirmation) Artillery fire blew off the turret and destroyed the fighting compartment, remained on enemy territory

19 October 1 km west of Anashkino № 875-17

(requires confirmation) Destroyed by artillery, engine burned up, remained on enemy territory

17 October Naprudnovo № 875-14

(requires confirmation) Turret and engine destroyed by direct hit of aerial bomb, remained on enemy territory

17 October Naprudnovo № 609-95

(Lukin’s tank) Direct hit destroyed engine compartment, remained on enemy territory

20 October Kalinin, Elevator region № 609-20 Shot up and sent off to Repair Depot

20 October Kalinin, Elevator region № 085-96 Shot up in combat and remained on enemy territory

16 October Kalinin area № 9 (hull number) Shot up in combat and remained on enemy territory

30 October Chupriyanovo area № 553-06 Set afire and burned near Chupriyanovo

Regards

Scott Fraser

[John Kettler]

dsf/Scott,

Outstanding! Haven't had this sort of Russian AFV grog fun since before Valera Potapov's site crashed, wiping out most of the considerable translated English content.

Radey and Sharp's The Defense of Moscow, p. 182 was my first encounter with Mr. Kolomiets (who needs to put those books of his out in English). Radey and Sharp cited Kolomiet's book T-34. Pervaia polnaia Entsiklopediia (T-34 First Complete Encyclopedia), Moscow: Eksmo, 2009. Is this your book under another title or a separate book. Had planned on telling you about it, but I see you already have one of his books on that subject. Those books must be incredible, and that's relative to what used to be the gold standard of Russian sourced English language tank books, John Milsom's Soviet Tanks 1917-1970! As for Nizhni Tagil, I didn't know of it until I became a threat analyst. Back then, I used to shudder at satellite pics showing the huge array of tanks on the delivery side of the monster tank factory there.

It would appear the Russians are at least as anal as the Germans when it comes to documentation. Which is an achievement.

I used to have a Triumph TR-7 sport car, and it had a strong hydraulic clutch, so much so that my left thigh is still markedly larger than the right--20 years and change later. I guarantee it was nowhere close to the 60-65 kg for the trigger pressure the ZIS-2 gun had in the first T-34/57. If they had an L/73, then I can well believe that barrel whip might've been a problem, not least because their precision manufacturing capabilities were nowhere near what either the Germans or the other Allies had.

But if you go to the Lend Lease thread on the Red Thunder Forum and find my post, you can link over and read From Major Jordan's Diaries, which shows the incredible materiel and technology transfer we sent to Russia, never mind what their spies stole. Also, I provide the HyperWar link for the official list of Lend Lease supplied by the U.S. But it wasn't just the Russians who were plagued by barrel whip.

The British built a new high velocity 15" gun for their battleships, only to find in trials that accuracy wasn't as good as earlier gun. You guessed it. Barrel whip. By reducing the propellant charge, they got a better, harder hitting gun, but still had accuracy at least as good as before. Going back to the T-34/57, did I understand correctly that they went from an L/73 gun with what we'd call 1 in 24 twist to 1 in 30 twist (much easier in torsion loading on the barrel)? Or does this mean something else? "1. The 57mm tank gun with new the barrel, having the modified rifling with a constant slope of rifling of 30 calibres." Finally, I'm dying to know about this hitherto unknown to me German thermite round. I've never seen such a round listed anywhere, let alone with lethal combat effect. My guess? Engine hit which ignited the magnesium (alloy) engine block. I recall reading somewhere the T-34 engine was derived from an airship engine, so the lightweight design I envision may be correct. T-34 engine data.

http://www.kampfpanzer.de/propulsion/v-2

Even more fun (if you haven't already seen it) Engines of the Red Army in WW2

http://www.o5m6.de

Let's do this again!

Regards,

John Kettler

[dsf]

It's the same book. The same material is also in several issues of Frontovaya Illustratsiya and the book itself has been reprinted under a different title, "Proslavlennii T-34" (Прославленный Т-34) on much better paper. I have quite a bit of information on the T-34 as I've been researching it for several years. The books published in Russia over the last eight years really supersede anything available in English, with one excpetion: Ian Allen (UK) published four books by Mikhail Baryatinsky, including one on the T-34-76. to my mind, that is the best resource in English, although it is far from being a complete history of the tank.

The V-2 diesel used in the T-34 and KV was a new design originating from Zavod No.75 in Kharkov. You may be thinking of the M-17T, developed from the BMW VI and Liberty aircraft engines and used in the BT series, the T-28 and T-35. A few of these were fitted to Y-34s at STZ and (especially) Krasnoe Sormovo at the start of 1942, but many of these were replaced once diesel production resumed.

Anyway, the T-34 is an interesting subject, one not well documented in popular literature. Much of what is bandied about is from German sourced, revised and repeated by Western authors thirty-odd years ago. Now that Soviet documents are available to Russian researchers, there is a much more complete history of the tank available in that language.

Regards

Scott Fraser

[Der Alte Fritz]

Hello John and Scott,

I think a lot of us moved over to the RKKA forum over at Armchair General.

Major Lukin appeared in at least two CMBB scenarios based on the Kalinin Raid, one featuring a U shaped road round round a lake and the other was simple a very long narrow map with a road through the forest.

[dsf]

Hello John and Scott,

I think a lot of us moved over to the RKKA forum over at Armchair General.

Major Lukin appeared in at least two CMBB scenarios based on the Kalinin Raid, one featuring a U shaped road round round a lake and the other was simple a very long narrow map with a road through the forest.

Greetings. BTW, I found another photo ( a fourth) of Lukin's tank, too late for Charles' book, but useful nonetheless. See you there.

Regards

Scott Fraser