tss

About Swedish military: 191 actually. Didn't you have some clash with Denmark after losing us to Russia? Or did it happen also in 1809? The full weight of the entire Swedish Armed forces (3 and a half platoons and a trawler) has just hit Vaasa and are asking for directions. At Korsnäs, I presume... Well, they should have taken Earl Birger's memoirs with them. Of course, Tavastehus is nowadays easier to find because you can just walk East until you hit the railroad and then turn South following it. (For those who don't know Finnish medieval history: Hämäläiset (= Finns living at Tavasteland) revolted in 1248 against Swedes the were taxing them. Next year the Swedes sent a punitive expedition that was led by Earl Birger. The Finns started the revolt with the traditional Finnish way of starting revolutions: kill all tax collectors, get drunk, and try to find something to burn down (not necessarily in that order).) - Tommi [This message has been edited by tss (edited 05-30-2000).]

Mannheim Tanker wrote: Kurtz: the main gun rounds and the coax MG rounds are not ballistically matched. In fact, the ballistics of different types of main gun rounds are even quite different from each other. That holds for long ranges. I'm not certain where the cut-off point is, but I'd say that up to some 500 meters the behavior is almost identical. Yesterday I stumbled upon an interesting reference about AT gun accuracy. During Winter War Finns used two models of 37mm Bofors AT gun. One model imported from Sweden and one model that was built with licence in Finland. Both guns were identical but their sights were not. Swedish-made guns had proper telescopic sights while Finnish-made guns had open sights (because of severe shortage of material). Initially, Finns thought that Finnish-made guns would be much more inaccurate. However, after a couple weeks of battles it was noticed that both guns were precisely as accurate up to ranges of 500-600 meters. In fact, the open sight was _more_ accurate than the telescopic one when firing at dusk. I think this is again one interesting data point on the debate whether German tanks should be more accurate than American tanks because they had better optics. Kind of like firing your pistol at the approaching Tiger, ala SPR? LOL! There is actually one documented case where a Soviet tank (T-26, IIRC) was turned back with pistol fire. It happened at Kollaa on February 1940. I don't remember the details right now. Also, a short while back I read about one German batallion commander who turned a Soviet T-34back with a thrown Cognac bottle... - Tommi

Still his description of a non-penertrating hit must have some basis in fact - imagine the shock & noise of a round stricking the armour next to your head.... Sure, it does. I just wanted to point out that all correlations with reality and Hassel's work are purely coincidental. In fact, I can give two practical examples on what may happen with non-penetrating hits and near missess. (The long-time readers of this forum may remember that I've posted these once before, in October, IIRC). During the battle of Kuuterselkä (14.6.1944) a HE-shell (probably a 152 howitzer round) landed few meters front of a Finnish StuG-IIIG. The crew thought that they were hit and they abandoned the tank in hurry. It took about half an hour before anybody realized that the tank was still intact and in perfect fighting condition but at that time Soviet counter-counterattack had advanced so much that it was impossible to retrieve (or destroy) the vehicle. Another example happened during battle of Portinhoikka (25.6.1944). A Finnish KV-1E advanced as a point tank along a narrow and windy forest road. The Finnish column (one Klim, one T-34/76, 2 T-28s, and a T-50) met a detachment of 6-7 T-34/85s. One of the Soviet T-34s got out a shot first and it hit the front hull armor of the Klim. The shot didn't penetrate but the crew abandoned the tank and run to the cover of forest with their ears ringing. There's a picture of this Klim at http://www.pp.htv.fi/jveijala/tankit/tank8.html and the impact mark is still visible. - Tommi

Well, that seems to be the first military victory for Sweden in, what, about 180 years. - Tommi

I remember Sven Hassel's book 'Wheels of terror' often describing the shock, fear & confusion of the crew when a shot crashes against the armour. Note that Hassel's memoirs are just about as accurate as the memoirs baron Hieronymus von Münchausen, with the notable exception that the good old baron was (probably) a real person. I lost my respect to Hassel when I noticed that he had copied parts of "Good Soldier Svejk" and "All Quiet on Western Front" in verbatim. After that I have found literal copies from "The Unknown Soldier" and, believe or not, "Kelly's Heroes". His books may be entertaining but they surely don't have any basis on real events. Well, not on events that happened to him, anyway. - Tommi

I'm going to create a Hollywood-based scenario. All the Germans will have 88's and all the Tanks will be Tigers. Of course, you will also have to tweak down the German accuracy so that they can't hit the broad side of a barn from inside. Or, more precisely, not any side of the barn. - Tommi

So, tss, where did you learn about this previously unknown to most of us experimental tank? My best references had zero on it. My source was Pekka Kantakoski's "Punaiset panssarit" (literally: "Red Armour"). It's a 500-page hard-cover tome that contains just about everything about Soviet tanks from 1915 to 1950, technical details and doctrinal use. The book is not perfect, though, since Kantakoski is a soldier by profession, not a historian, and I find that he relies a bit too much on Western sources for the combat history parts. P.S. This quiz is a cakewalk compared to the murderous one Valera Potapov has up right now at the Russian Military Zone. Might even give Fionn a migraine! Just went to see it. Yup, it's pretty tough. I'm not certain about the tanks, the first one seems to be some KV variant (probably KV-1S, since it is shorter than a normal KV) and the last looks a lot like a JS, but it has one road wheel too many. I don't have any clear idea what the gun is, but if I had to guess I'd say that it was an early recoilless gun as its muzzle is similar to the 76 mm recoilles gun that was captured at Suomussalmi. My artillery books are at home and I don't remember its designation or caliber. (At the time Soviets also designed a 300 mm recoilless howitzer. I'd put that gun somewhere along Tsar's Tank as a practical weapon. Just about only worse idea that they had was a recoilless AA-gun). - Tommi

I have to know, what the hell is that thing? I guess you mean the Tsar's Tank. Russian Captain Lebedenko started in 1915 a project to build an armored combat vehicle for Tsar's army. The thing weighted 40 tons and the wheels were 10 meters high. It was steered with the back wheel. The thing was powered with two German 200hp Maybach motors that were captured from a downed Zeppelin. According to plans the thing would have had 2 guns and numerous MGs. The tank was built in 1917 and it was tested on proving grounds in August. Its speed was 20 km/h but it was extremely unreliable and after tests the project was cancelled. The tank was scrapped in 1923. - Tommi

The three first tanks have been correctly identified at least by somebody on this thread. The answers are 1) T-50. This tank was captured in late Summer 1941 by Finns and it has Finnish markings painted on it. Note that Finnish swastika is different from German one and it was used in 1919-1945. 2) SMK. Soviets field-tested three heavy tanks in mid December 1939 at Summa against the Mannerheim Line. The two other tanks were T-100 and KV-I. (T-100 and SMK were almost identical designs). The SMK and a couple of T-28s broke through Finnish lines but they were stopped. There are conflicting accounts on the fate of SMK but it probably hit an AT-mine and was immobilized. Finns tried to evacuate it but it was too heavy to pull. Later, during the February major offensive Soviets tested a couple of new models, including SU-14Br2 and SU-100U assault guns (first having a 152 mm howitzer and the other 130mm gun). It seems that KV-II tanks were actually not tested in combat, even though many sources claim so. 3) KV-II, and I already wrote above the fate of this tank. 4) T-25. This was a hybrid design that added BT-7s transmission system to a T-26. It was designed in 1939 and it seems that only one prototype was build. - Tommi

This far correct answers have been: Heinz's 1. T-50 Russian tank 3. Has to be a KV-2 and EScurlock's Tank 3 has got to be a KV-II The picture of KV-II shows what the 6th German Panzer Division should have done to the legendary KV-II that blocked its communication routes for a couple of days. The tank was destroyed by sneaking a little over 60kg explosives under it in the cover of night. The explosion detonated the ammo supply of the tank. - Tommi

I just got an email from Fionn and he got 3 out of 4. (Initially he got the first one wrong but he corrected it in a later email). I'd guess that he has seen the picture #2 before since he even got the unit right. The only one that he didn't know was the #3, but he had a pretty good guess for that. I'd say that it was a pretty impressive result. - Tommi

There have been a few close answers but not any correct ones, yet. The closest is: 2) T-35, Finland '39/'40 Yes, many sources claim that the tank in the picture is T-35/A but in fact, it is not. The tank is based on T-35 chassis, but if you look more carefully you see that the main turret is is the middle of the tank over 4th to 6th roadwheels while T-35's turret is over 3th--5th roadwheels. You are correct about the time frame, though. The picture is taken some time between 19--21 December 1939 at Summa. - Tommi

#2 does that thing have 2 turrets ? Yes. - Tommi

Zulu 1 wrote: I don't have the stats infront of me, but IIRC, hundreds of thousands of strecks/fausts were produced and tens of thousands were fired. The actual numbers of kills by these weapons was quite small. True, but in right circumstances fausts and schrecks could do terrible damage. For example, at the battle of Ihantala Finns destroyed 48 tanks in 48 hours using fausts and shrecks. (In addition, Soviets lost 1 tank to a 75 mm AT gun and 1 tank to three German StuGs). This was enough to stop the Soviet advance for good. However, one has to remember that Ihantala area was ideal to shreck use. The whole area was covered with a forest and there was only few narrow roads. - Tommi

Here are pictures of four tanks. The question is, can you identify them? I suppose that most of you can name the countries but it'll take a true expert to identify all models. (Hopefully the urls will come through intact). Let's start with an easy (and relatively common) tank: Tank 1: The second picture is a very rare one, as far as I know there exists only three pictures of this model (all taken from this specimen). Note that even most printed sources (at least, most of those that I've seen) get this tank wrong. For extra credit name the place and date. Also, you could try to identify the tank on the left behind the standing soldier. Tank 2: The next one is a familiar model, but this particular specimen is in quite poor condition. For extra credit, guess what destroyed it. Tank 3 The final tank is probably the most difficult one as it didn't see any combat. Tank 4 - Tommi

I think it dated back much further to the 1700's where a 9 pound cannon shot a 9 pound ball of iron. Even further back. I think that the standardization of gun sizes started in early 16th Century (at least Charles V of Holy Roman Empire used fixed size guns). - Tommi

Hunter asked: Is it true that the 42 had particular recoil problems? Yes. In soc.history.war.world-war-ii one German veteran once stated that he was physically too light to be a MG-42 gunner; when he had to shoot one in training he was actually pushed back by the recoil. - Tommi

Not certain, but the two guys on the sides certainly wear their EKs in a non-standard way. (Supposing that they are Iron Crosses and not some other similar decoration). - Tommi

The following rule applies only if you are in a war movie: If you dream about your future, you will die in the next combat scene. - Tommi

Steve wrote: Second, they got lucky It happens and happens more frequently than you might think in real war. Lately I have been reading a book on Finnish volunteers in Waffen-SS and strangely each time something like this comes on the board just after I've read a diary quote that applies to the situation. Namely, I just read a diary entry describing an occurrence where Soviets managed to land a shell (probably 76 mm, I'm not sure) _into_ a full dugout. (That is, the shell exploded inside the walls of the dugout). By laws of probability all those inside should have either died or been heavily wounded. However, no one died and only seven (out of some twenty) were really wounded and the rest were only slightly concussed. - Tommi

PanzerLeader asked: Tommi, I'm curious, where did you find those WW2 diaries? In a book, or are they originals? In a book ("Panttipataljoona" by Jokipii). The book details the history of Finnish Waffen-SS volunteers. The author collected a vast amount of primary sources: diaries, letters, and memoirs. About 1/3 of the whole book is composed of quotes. The diaries are particularly interesting. One long quote (too long to be written here) tells of battle of Zemeljanka (6.11.1941) when Soviet 132. Armored Brigade counterattacked against the Westland regiment of SS-Div Wiking. The writer (2nd Lieuteneant Ahti Paikkala) describes his first encounter with both T-34s and Katjushas on the same day. It was interesting to note that Germans didn't initially believe that Soviets could have designed Katjusha themselves and thought that they were imported from USA. The book has also some interesting evaluations of SS performance. In particular, a long quote from a report that Captain Y.P. Kaila wrote during Summer '42 to Finnish government. I will post that quote when I have time to write it, but it can be summarized to following points: 1) SS-troops have very high morale and excellent equipment; but 2) SS-troops are poorly trained and they have to resort wasteful human-wave tactics in combat. When writing his evaluation, Kaila had served in Wiking from the start of the campaign. It was his third war as he had fought in Spain and in Winter War. - Tommi

Anyway, it sounds like your diary writer was the observer in this situation. It is possible, the text doesn't say it. The writer was a corporal in Finnish army but I don't know what his rank was in SS. The Finnish volunteers were promised that they would have the same military rank as they had in Finland but because of some mistake many of them had to go to war as privates. In any case, the writer mentions that the gun leader, the assistant gunner, and a third man died so that rules out quite many positions. - Tommi

I'm curious to hear more about Heinz' real world tank gunnery experience. (even if it is not from WW 11, sorry for the incorrect assumption and implication earlier) Of course, one has to remember that modern tanks are much more accurate than WWII tanks. - Tommi

I just (5 minutes ago) came across two quotes that give some light to AT-gun accuracy. (The translations are mine) Veikko Hallavo (who served in 2./Pz.J. Abt 5./SS-Div Wiking) wrote the following text in his diary on 18.11.1941: "... An enemy tank at 2 o'clock, range 400 meters, so be careful, Teufel [= nickname of corporal Toivo Kruuna]! First round misses the tank slightly from right. Second round, short. That's enough for tank and it starts to retreat behind a hillock. Third shot, a hit! The tank stops still. Now the "little-paks" [= 37mm AT guns"] notice it and start heavy firing. We heard tank noices from right. I ordered to change the gun position and the manouver was very slow. We started shooting right away and again third shot hit its mark." A short while later an infantry attack forced Hallavo to abandon his 50mm AT gun and they had to run away to a nearby village. Another diary source mentions that the second tank was 50 meters away when it was destroyed but the writer was not present and was telling what he had heard. Note that during the same battle Major Plöw (commander of III/Nordland/SS-Div Wiking) stopped a Soviet tank using a quite extraordinary weapon: a cognac bottle. A tank surprised him when he was in his car and he grabbed the first thing that he could lay his hands on and threw it at the tank. Apparently the tank commander thought that they were hit by a Molotov's coctail that hadn't ignited and decided to retreat to safety. The second quote comes from Martti Leppälä's diary who served in 1./Pz.J.Abt 5. This entry is for 22.11.1941: "... two tanks advanced from left to right, that is, they were passing us. We manhandled the gun to the right end of a shed and shot 3-4 rounds. The range was about 800 meters and all shots were short. The Russkie was shooting at us with the tank gun even as we pushed our gun but all his shots went behind the shed, though quite near us. Now that we shot back he started shooting even more. He even shot our truck but no one was in it. We pushed the gun again to firing position and shot another salvo but again all were short. I said to the gunner that he should aim higher but he didn't believe me. After we had fired five shots without hitting we again pushed the gun in cover behind the shed." Later the gun was damaged by a near miss that also killed two men and wounded one of the five man crew. Leppälä was one of the men who were not wounded but during the same time he was hit by a schrapnell during an artillery barrage. - Tommi

Sorry, I forgot perhaps the most important item from my list: 4) The wire-crushing wasn't done during an attack. It was done either before an attack to prepare for it, or after an attack when the infantry had been thrown back and the tankers didn't want to return to their own lines, yet. The tanks would then drive around the no-man's land firing their guns at Finnish trenches and crushing all obstacles they would find. (And blowing up all AT-mines, too...) - Tommi