Russian Tankers in Shermans - Only M4A2's to Russia?

[JasonC]

A self-correction - it seems the A4 model also kept the 3 piece bolted front hull, which casts doubt on my M4 ID above. They might be M4 or they might be M4A4(75).

[Soddball]

So Jason, did you read the source I posted or not?

[JasonC]

What's to read? It is in Russian. Only a few captions in English and some pretty B&W pictures.

[Soddball]

So, you can find the time to write a billion paragraphs of text but not the time to look through the tables of equipment (which are understandable) and the pictures of Shermans which clearly indicate which models were in use, and when?

[JasonC]

The pictures are just action shots, not a survey. Most of them look like M4A2s, but that doesn't tell us anything about whether other types were also sent. The tables list M4A2 numbers for some units, nothing that isn't on the websites I already linked. If you read Russian, by all means translate all the relevant passages. Otherwise, manage your own time not mine, thank you very much.

[roqf77]

actualy soddbal put his up first but hey.

[JasonC]

And I read it after my own post, but hey.

[Wisbech_lad]

Andreas. It is a dead one. D'oh

[Bigduke6]

As promised I read the article and my hat is off to Sodball for one heckuva a source.

The report is a history of lend lease to SU

Put together by a Moscow military-historical club. Basically Russian grogs. Their attitude is revisionist (as opposed to the standard Soviet take on Lend Lease, which is "the Americans gave us a few trucks and offcast tanks so we could bleed not them"). Their opinion is that the Lend Lease contribution to Red Army combat capacity was not trivial.

As to which types of Shermans actually went to Russia, there is very little. At one point the report says all engines in all Shermans delivered to the SU were General Motors engines, and describes the main source of Sherman production for the SU as "Detroit." But past that, the report has very little on which particular Shermans they were, past diesel-driven.

As to when 76mm started showing up, the text makes very clear initial deliveries were in time for some 76mm Shermans to be fielded during Bagratian (June '44), and that the shift continued throughout the war. It was the norm for a Sherman tank battalion in late '44 to have both short and long-barrel Shermans. (As it was for a T-34 battalion to have the same mix of T-34s.) An isolated example as of Jan 1 '45 was a Guard Mech Corps which had 56 per cent Sherman76, 35 per cent Sherman 75, and the remainder Valentines.

I think it would be beyond even Jason's impressive skills to look at the pictures in the report to determine which particular types of Shermans made it to the SU, as the photograph quality is too poor.

It's really a cool read. In breaks into three main chapters.

1. Legal background, how Lend Lease to the SU got started and who made what decisions when.

2. Volumes and modifications of equipment

This chapter details how many and what, and to some extend how it was divied out.

Here are some of the highlights -

*2073 of the 3,600 or so Shermans sent to the SU were “with 76mm gun, among them a small quantity of HVASS(76) in June 1945, which participated in operations against Japan in the Far East.”

*52 x M10s delivered, total, and they were deployed in two anti-tank regiments

*M3A1 White armored cars went to recon units of tank and motor rifle formations, and to independent motorcycle battalions of Tank Armies. There were about 660 of them total sent, and clearly Stavka decided it was best in the hands of the highest-quality infantry.

There are two differences between a CMBB White armored car and a RL Soviet one - the Soviet one was equipped with a .50 caliber MG, and could in a pinch carry a 9-man scout squad.

*Stuarts delivered to SU were both gasoline and diesel versions; about 2/3 were gasoline.

*M2, M3, and M9 halftracks were sent “primarily to independent artillery formations where they were used as prime movers for 76mm to 122mm cannon. In tank units these vehicles were converted into command vehicles for brigade and corps commanders.

Stavka saw these vehicles first as artillery prime movers, and second as battlefield taxis for important types not rating a tank.

For instance, in 3rd Guards Tank Army the commander, Pavel Rybalko, had his own T-34 (crewed by his relatives strangely enough.)

However the commissar for 1st Guards Tank Army, a guy by the name of Popel', did not rate a tank, but rather rode around in an M2 halftrack.

Thus, all those CMBB scenarios we have seen with lots of Soviet line infantry aboard halftracks appear incorrect. The Soviets didn't use them that way, apparently.

*All M17 AA vehicles (quad .50) delivered to the SU were used in Red Army tank and motor rifle forces. Unsurprisingly the Red Army really liked the vehicle.

It was SOP for a tank battalion advanced guard to be a company of T-34s reinforced by a platoon of SU-76, a platoon of White armored car-mounted recon, and a section or platoon of M-17.

7th (Guard) Tank Corps’ 787th Air Defense Regiment was equipped with 16 x 37mm, and 10 x M17 halftracks. (January 1945)

3. Organization and structure of Red Army units using foreign-produced equipment

This is a chapter on how foreign equipment fit into the Red Army TOE. It is clear the Soviets were quite happy mixing foreign and Soviet vehicles down to battalion, and in rare cases even within battalions. However, companies and smaller had one vehicle type.

Training-

*The SU initially operated two school regiments to train crews to operate foreign vehicles, one for U.S. and one for British vehicles (and equipment). A third training regiment in was formed later in the war in Baku to train crews assigned to vehicles arriving via Iran.

*This system allowed the SU to train up to 1,560 crews a month on foreign vehicles; about 2/3 U.S. and 1/3 British.

*The other schools were in Ryazan and Gorkiy. Light vehicle training was concentrated in Ryazan. Note that tank commander training occurred elsewhere, including in Kazan’, Saratov, and Kiev

*Two training regiments taught motorcycle riders; in the village Tashiniu (Moldova? Estonia?) and the city Berdischev. Motorcycles sent to the SU included Indian, BSA, and Harley-Davidson.

Organization -

*A Matilda tank battalion had 21 x Matildas and 3 x T-70

* A Sherman tank battalion had 23 x Shermans; 11 x M3s and 12 x M3l. I don’t know what the difference between these two types is.

* A Brigade of either vehicle had two battalions – but the text says in reality numbers and mixes varied a lot. For instance, in 1944 “some” independent tank battalions were formed half Churchill and half KV-1S, or half Valentine and half M4A2.

*9th, 10th and 11th Tank Corps were equipped partially with foreign tanks in 1942. The only Corps equipped exclusively with foreign tanks was 5th Mechanized, and that only for its operations with SW front in 1943.

*As the war went Soviet tanks gradually replaced most foreign tanks. For instance, in 1944 foreign vehicle list for 1st Guards Tank Army included 6th Motorcycle Regiment, which was equipped with 10 x Valentine IX tanks, 13 x White scout cars, 12 x Willis Jeeps, and 204 x foreign motorcycles.

The subordinate 19th Self-Propelled Anti-Tank Battalion had 67 x Su-57 of U.S. make. (This halftrack with a gun supposedly was known in the U.S. as a T-48)

Do we have this vehicle in CMBB, I can't remember it? There were something like 300 or 600 of the SP 57s delivered to Russia, and they were arriving well in time for Kursk. Sure would be useful in CMBB battles before T-34/85 comes out.

3. Foreign Equipment in Battle

I have omitted comments on detailed reports of actions involving each vehicle type. Suffice it to say, Soviets won medals and defeated Germans, at least according to Soviet accounts, just as well aboard foreign vehicles as aboard local-produced.

Here is the "official Red Army take" on the major foreign combat vehicles delivered by lend lease. The article makes clear there were also hundreds of thousands of trucks, prime movers, and repair vehicles; I am ignoring them here as not important in CMBB combat.

Matilda

*Poor cold weather traction due to equipment with summer tracks. Immobile in deep snow.

*Engine and fuel system could freeze in cold weather

*Tracks could jam due to mud/dirt accumulation in bogies

*Engine, armor, and gun excellent for its day

*Considered best as infantry support tank

Valentine

*Good speed, excellent mobility in winter conditions, provided winter tracks available.

*Most reports of Soviet crew complaints can be traced back to German propaganda

*The gun demanded a lot of maintenance attention, could jam in initial shots in cold weather due to lubricant gumming. Also it had no HE.

*Engine runs great for first 200 hours, then starts losing power. Hard to start engine in cold.

*Most Valentines delivered to the SU (70 per cent) wound up fighting in the Caucasus. A goodly number of the remainder were in the Baltic or Finnish regions.

Churchill

*Gun, armor, and engine make the tank very effective against German opponents of day (1942)

*Suspension weak considering high vehicle weight

*Suspension and engine system are “soft” and require excessive maintenance and spare parts

*Tank is inferior to KV in gun power, but superior in armor.

*Almost all Churchills were deployed in 21-vehicle independent breakthrough regiments

M3 General Lee/Grant

*”Grave for seven brothers,” archaic gun spontoon

*Big target

*Gasoline engine burns easily

*Strong engine, good mobility, powerful main gun

M3 Stuart

*Outstanding maneuverability

*Somewhat large

*Aviation engine burns easily

*Often equipped with Thompson SMGs for crew

*In early to mid war often deployed in brigades with Sherman, similar to T-70 brigaded with T-34.

*In general no longer in field by end of 1943 – “Did not find a tactical niche in the Red Army”

Sherman

*Popular in Red Army, especially with tank riders because of tank’s smooth ride.

*Excellent mobility

*Effective gun; both cannon and MGs work without jamming under all conditions

*Height makes it a large target. Some quality problems with armor – can be penetrated by German 20mm and ATR under some conditions. Armor improved in later deliveries.

*Considered the best vehicle in Red Army inventory for dealing with Panzerfaust ambushes. Six or seven infantrymen would rope themselves to the Sherman’s hull, and then tank and infantry would move out, and blast probable hiding places at ranges of 100 – 150 meters.

This technique was not nearly as effective with T-34, due to T-34’s rough ride.

*The tank was fielded in practically all types of armor formations, with the exception of independent tank battalions and regiments.

*By January 1 the breakdown of foreign armored vehicles in 3rd Guard Mech Corps looked like this: 108 Shermans with 76mm, 68 Shermans with 75mm, and 23 Valentines. However, in most cases where there were Shermans, you could find Shermans and T-34 within the same tank corps, albeit in separate battalions.

*Red Army Shermans captured Vienna. The vehicle also was used in quantity in the Manchurian campaign.

There are a ton of other really interesting information that does not have a direct application to CMBB.

For instance, the Soviets thought Harley-Davidson was the best motorcycle of the war – better than BMW. Though the Harley rode low and its mobility could be improved. They hated Indian, describing its maintainability as worse than anything Soviet industry produced.

Among other uses for a Red Army Harley: mounting an 82mm mortar on the vehicle; to fire all you have to do is to hook up the base plate. I want a platoon of those!

The vehicle counts throughout the report are vehicles assigned lists from selected Soviet formations ranging from front through corps, for the duration of the war.

The bibliography is mostly post-1991 books and magazine articles, but it also cites the central military archive of Russia, which is the equivalent of Carlisle.

My impression is that the article is very well researched and detailed. I have been reading Russian reports on Lend Lease for years, and this treatment is by far the most thorough and fair I have come across.

[ August 29, 2005, 06:49 AM: Message edited by: Bigduke6 ]

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Wisbech_lad:

Andreas. It is a dead one. D'oh

Thank you for that piece of unfathomable wisdom.

Say, you are not in Bangkok in mid-September by any chance, so that you can buy me a drink?

[Andreas]

Stefan

Great job in translating this stuff - very interesting!

All the best

Andreas

[Soddball]

Thanks for all the hard work translating it! If I get any more stuff like it I know where to come.

[Bigduke6]

Glad to help you guys, even if some of the guys I wind up helping have an unfortunate penchant for sticky white wine and Wagnerian opera!

The text certainly wasn't hard to read, just standard Russian. Try reading Popel's memoirs (commissar of 1st Guards Tank Army) now that's heavy going. But this was straightforward and informative.

Actually what I posted is far from a translation, but just the notes I thought were interesting in a first read-through. There were dozens of descriptions of engagements where western equipment driven by Soviets kicked foreign invader tail - typical Hero of Soviet Union write-ups - plus motorcycles, prime movers, recovery vehicles, even mobile repair shops. Overall the Western contribution to the Soviet war effort may have been dwarfed by what the Soviets did themselves, but reading that report it certainly becomes clear the West by 1944 was not screwing around in sending the SU automotive stuff. It wasn't just tanks but pretty much everything that rolled, plus a fair helping of parts and equipment to keep it rolling.

Like I said, it's the most detailed single work I've read on the subject, so if one of you grogs out there has a sudden yearning to learn about Soviet motorcycle battalion organization and tactics, drop me a line and I'll translate what's pertinant chapter and verse.

Sodball, wherever did you find this thing, just trolling the Internet?

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

Glad to help you guys, even if some of the guys I wind up helping have an unfortunate penchant for sticky white wine and Wagnerian opera!

Those Brits are suckers for 'tis true, but I never pictured Soddy as an opera-goer.

[Soddball]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

Sodball, wherever did you find this thing, just trolling the Internet?

I could tell you, but I'd have to kill you.

Seriously, I was searching for some tank-based stuff on EMule and this one came up.

[ August 29, 2005, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: Soddball ]

[Soddball]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bigduke6:

Glad to help you guys, even if some of the guys I wind up helping have an unfortunate penchant for sticky white wine and Wagnerian opera!

Those Brits are suckers for 'tis true, but I never pictured Soddy as an opera-goer. </font>

[Bigduke6]

Ick. Doesn't it violate one of those ancient Reinheitsgebot laws, just to mention syrup like that in public? If not, it should.

Me, I'll stick to honest vodka, which if distilled properly will run a T-34 right well it will.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

Ick. Doesn't it violate one of those ancient Reinheitsgebot laws, just to mention syrup like that in public? If not, it should.

Which is why the whole production gets transported.

[Wisbech_lad]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wisbech_lad:

Andreas. It is a dead one. D'oh

Thank you for that piece of unfathomable wisdom.

Say, you are not in Bangkok in mid-September by any chance, so that you can buy me a drink? </font>

[AMVAS]

I have to say that Russian archival records very often operates with general specifications of tanks, i.e. "M3M", "M3L" and similar, without any details for their modifications. the same picture is with Soviet tanks - T-34, KVs et. al. You always can see its type, but not modification.

The only way to trace modifications seems to check, for example, archival records which describes from which plant were this or that specific vehicle received.

IMHO, too hard work to do..

Regards,

Alex

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Wisbech_lad:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wisbech_lad:

Andreas. It is a dead one. D'oh

Thank you for that piece of unfathomable wisdom.

Say, you are not in Bangkok in mid-September by any chance, so that you can buy me a drink? </font>

[mako88sb]

I know this is an old thread but I stumbled across it while trying to track down some info on lend-lease Sherman's. I found BigDuke6's summary of the article Sodball provided to be very interesting and would love to see the actual report as the link provided no longer seems to exist.

That brief bit about the Harley's was really interesting and got me curious to see if I could find a picture of one with the mortar setup. Managed to find one here:

http://www.theliberator.be/liberator8.htm

It's about a third of the way down.

[JasonC]

AMVAS - M3M means a Grant, the M3 medium tank. M3L means a Stuart, the M3 light tank. Similarly, M4S means a short 75 armed Sherman, M4L means a long 76 armed Sherman. FWIW...