Russian AFV AT Capabilities

[dsf]

Despite the presence of some big guns, I think the Russians will sit somewhere between the Americans and British for AT capability. The tanks with the big cat killing guns (IS2, ISU-122) are simply too rare at this point to see them in game in any real numbers, the I/SU-155 is not really designed to kill enemy tanks (low velocity gun, low rate of fire), nor will it be effective at long range to compensate for the lack of a long range tank killer. Even then, as far as Russian standards go it was not a machine built in large numbers (~6000). Except in specific situations where these things are attached to Soviet tank units, they won't be seen often.

The bread and butter of Soviet forces are still T-34/76's with about a third T-34/85s. The 85mm is not really better in the AT department then the American 76mm (better HE shell), nor is the SU-85 going to be better than say the M10 at killing enemy tanks. The APCR will help, but unlike HVAP, it loses velocity rapidly and is only really useful within 1000 yards. Terrain in Russia allowed for longer range fighting and the Soviets don't have any real capability to accommodate that fact. 85mm not really comparable to the 17 pounder though obviously a much better HE shell.

For all intents and purposes, they will be better off than American units in this time frame for killing panzers (very few 76mm Shermans, nothing with 90mm guns), but worse than the Brits who have relatively high numbers of 17 pounder guns, and even 57mm guns with APDS.

You haven't included the IS-2s! There were quite a few of them around, eh? There were even more SU-76s, which were not tasked with destroying enemy tanks but were quite capable of doing so from most angles. The ZIS-3 was a pretty good weapon, especially with sub-calber ammunition.

The Red Army also had numerous anti-tank formations, most of them motorized, with a variety of weapons ranging from 45mm to 100mm. By 1944 the 57mm ZIS-2 was abundant, light and mobile, and had much better penetration ability than the 75mm F-34. The ZIS-3 was even more abundant and still quite effective against the majority of German AFVs.

It should be noted that despite their legend, there were not that many Panthers and Tigers around. The most common enemy armour encountered was still the StuG and Pz.IV, which were tough enough targets in their own right. When the German heavies were around, they were dealt with in much the same way as the Western Allies did --- from ambush or with careful maneuver to outflank them and get close enough for a kill.

Regards

Scott Fraser

[Bastables]

You haven't included the IS-2s! There were quite a few of them around, eh? There were even more SU-76s, which were not tasked with destroying enemy tanks but were quite capable of doing so from most angles. The ZIS-3 was a pretty good weapon, especially with sub-calber ammunition.

The Red Army also had numerous anti-tank formations, most of them motorized, with a variety of weapons ranging from 45mm to 100mm. By 1944 the 57mm ZIS-2 was abundant, light and mobile, and had much better penetration ability than the 75mm F-34. The ZIS-3 was even more abundant and still quite effective against the majority of German AFVs.

It should be noted that despite their legend, there were not that many Panthers and Tigers around. The most common enemy armour encountered was still the StuG and Pz.IV, which were tough enough targets in their own right. When the German heavies were around, they were dealt with in much the same way as the Western Allies did --- from ambush or with careful maneuver to outflank them and get close enough for a kill.

Regards

Scott Fraser

Not so sure about this free and easy painting "not that many heavies around."

Totals from Jentz 31 may 1944 (and replacements 30june)

StuG 176 (92)

PIV 603 (123)

Panther 313 (265)

Tiger 298 (32)

Half the turreted tanks were "heavies" in 44, by 1945 PIV battalion were being usually seen with mixed PIV and PIV/70 A/V (jadg panzers) partnered with larger PzV battalions. Note the larger share of replacements were Panther's, this was continued as the war drew to a close.

PZ brigade 103 with three battalions

January 1945:

II. Pz rgt 9

14 PzIV, 26 PIV/70V

I. Pz rgt 29

2 PzV, 14 PIV/70A, 14 Jagdpanther

I. Pz rgt 39

48 PzV

Or former western front favourite 10th SS Pz Div on a eastern tour jan 45

SS Pz rgt 10

38 PIV, 53 PzV

21 Pz Div 9th feb including replacements at the front

32 PIV, 39 PzV

Pz Gr Div Kurmark 2 Febuary

38 Jdpz 38, 45 PzV

A laborious count of replacements beginning in Jan 45-March on the Eastern front show

396 PIV's

and 537 Panthers (1996 Jentz pg226-229)

Of note is that again many PIV units had Jadgpazner IV mixed into the battalion where as Panther battalions tended to be pure and contained only Panthers. This is a reflection that the change over from PIII production was in full swing even with the effective bombing strikes. The PIV seems to have switched over at Vomag and Alkett to Jadgpanzers which were added to PIV J manufactured by Styer at their Nibelungenwerk factory, who also interrupted (at times) their last man standing place as sole producers (including leavenings of slave labour) of PIV's to make and design JdPz's and rebuild the Ferdinands.

The "Heavy" Panther was a replacement for the Light PIII and their deployment as half the various tank regt reflected that decision, tldr there were percentage wise a lot of panthers relative to PIV as the final spasms of Nazi germany occurred. StuG's actually decreased in share of replacements with the slack taken up by increasing issue of JdpzIV's and Jdpz38s.

[Bastables]

With Wiki why did I even "hand count" the figures in Jentz

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

Built

1944 Panthers: 3,777

1944 PIV: 3,126

1944 StuG III/IV: 3,849/1,006

1945 Panther: 507

1945 PIV: 385

1945 StuG III/IV: 1,038/105

There are more StuG's than Panthers, but less PIV than Panthers floating around being issued to units.

For comparison the PIII the tank the Panther replaced had a production high in 1942 with 2608 built (apparently J's L's M's and including conversions of existing PIII's to 450 N's).

[Michael Emrys]

Bigger gun = longer recoil = bigger turret ring = bigger tank.

Yep. Definitely that too.

Michael

[Skwabie]

Seems the long reload can be a factor as well, I mean early cold war era fire control doesn't really provide a sufficient first shot hit rate..

[JasonC]

There certainly weren't many heavies around in AG Center when Bagration kicked off. Almost all the armor in the Army Group was StuGs, with only a handful of panzer IVs in the weak PDs in the sector. The first unit to arrive with significant heavies was 5th Panzer, with 505 sPzAbt attached. They had 29 Tiger Is and 70 Panthers, along with 55 Pz IV longs. They had to stop a full tank army with 550 AFVs, the bulk of them T-34/85s - and they didn't fare all that well. They were pretty much spent in about 3 days.

The Russians had 400 heavy AFVs for Bagration, in the committed forces. They had 85 IS-2s, and more importantly 295 of the new ISUs on the IS chassis, split between IS-122s and IS-152s. They had a handful of the older SU-152s (on the KV chassis) to round out my 400 figure. The leading armor formation, 5th Guards Tank Army, had been refitted over the previous 3 months with the new T-34/85s. 3rd Guards Mech Corps on their right, working with a cavalry group as its spearhead, had LL Sherman M4A2 (75) were it had slots for mediums, and Valentines where it had TOE slots for lights (in place of T-70s, in other words). Besides all the heavy SU formations, there were also 100 plus SU-85s, and scads of the lighter SU-76. Other armor formations were still using T-34/76, to be sure, but the heavy end of the Russian AFV fleet was more numerous than the Germans, there sooner, and 6-12 months more recent in design.

[womble]

...Valentines...

I was watching some fellows playing FoW the other month, and one of the forces fielded had a number of british tanks (I think it was the Valentine) with a short 75mm gun fitted for anti-infantry work. Was this legit? Was it common, in Valentine-equipped formations?

[JasonC]

Womble - my understanding is that nearly all the Valentines in use for Bagration were IX models, which featured the 6 pdr gun, making them decent AT fighters. I see detailed reports showing 2 older VIIs (2 pdr normally) and 5 Xs, but no explicit XIs. The XI was the command tank version with the 75mm gun, better at HE work. The 5 Xs might conceivable have been XIs since the XI is an upgrade of a X, but my source didn't say that. Those were all in the 1st Mechanized Corps, which had 44 IXs (6 pdr) and 5 Xs (doesn't say).

Basically, if the era is Bagration and the tank is a Valentine, it is a model IX and it has a 6 pdr gun. With probability right at 263 out of 270, to be precise...

[dsf]

With Wiki why did I even "hand count" the figures in Jentz

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

Built

1944 Panthers: 3,777

1944 PIV: 3,126

1944 StuG III/IV: 3,849/1,006

1945 Panther: 507

1945 PIV: 385

1945 StuG III/IV: 1,038/105

There are more StuG's than Panthers, but less PIV than Panthers floating around being issued to units.

For comparison the PIII the tank the Panther replaced had a production high in 1942 with 2608 built (apparently J's L's M's and including conversions of existing PIII's to 450 N's).

I appreciate what you are saying, but Pz.Kpfw.IV / StuG IV / Jagd.Pz. IV production still exceeded Panther and Tiger production right up to May 1945. Moreover the complement of individual units did not necessarily reflect production ratios. Strength returns from different units varied widely.

The essential point is that the notion that the Panzertruppen were mainly equipped with Panthers and Tigers is a myth --- the most numerous vehicles right up to the end of the war remained the StuG/Jagd.Pz IV and Pz.Kpfw.IV.

Regards

Scott Fraser

[Bastables]

I appreciate what you are saying, but Pz.Kpfw.IV / StuG IV / Jagd.Pz. IV production still exceeded Panther and Tiger production right up to May 1945. Moreover the complement of individual units did not necessarily reflect production ratios. Strength returns from different units varied widely.

The essential point is that the notion that the Panzertruppen were mainly equipped with Panthers and Tigers is a myth --- the most numerous vehicles right up to the end of the war remained the StuG/Jagd.Pz IV and Pz.Kpfw.IV.

Regards

Scott Fraser

Ignoring that StuG's and Jadgpz tended to be issued to Artillery men or infantry in the StuG units and the Pak coy of infantry units, and that as the war wound down Panthers were equipping small mono type battalions were as PIV battalions had to be adultrated with Jdpz's.

1944

PIV chassis: 6,625 (including Hummels and Whirlwinds, Mobelwagons)

Heavies chassis Including TigerI/II Panther: 5072

"Heavies" are not exactly thin on the ground here, escalating the picture does not show heavies as a minor or irrelevant part of the forces faced by the allies.

[dsf]

Ignoring that StuG's and Jadgpz tended to be issued to Artillery men or infantry in the StuG units and the Pak coy of infantry units, and that as the war wound down Panthers were equipping small mono type battalions were as PIV battalions had to be adultrated with Jdpz's.

One can only generalize. There is a timeline that runs through all of this. The composition of various armoured formations, both Soviet and German, was changing constantly to reflect operational experience. Production rates likewise changed throughout the period. Those theoretical numbers were affected by losses and production shortfalls, and more important, by serviceability rates.

Anyway, by late 1944, the Germans had several tiers of formations, with different levels of equipment. The top-heavy equipment complement that Das Reich or Grossdeutschland enjoyed was hardly typical of the situation. As late as February 1945, an example, the 21 Pz.Div. was rebuilt per the 1944 tables, with two companies of Panthers and another two of Pz.IV, with seventeen tanks in each unit, plus a Flak.Pz troop. When the StuGs and tank destroyers of the infantry regiments accompanying the PzDiv are included, the percentage of Panthers drops off. The 76mm F-34 and ZIS-3 were still extremely effective weapons against the majority of AFVs it may engage, including the Panther and Tiger from the side or rear. That weapon was very common, both towed and mounted in the SU-76 or in tanks, and should not be discounted. That was my main point.

"Heavies" are not exactly thin on the ground here, escalating the picture does not show heavies as a minor or irrelevant part of the forces faced by the allies.

I'm not suggesting that. The Panther was a dangerous opponent. It was as big as an IS-2, btw, not really a "Medium" tank like the Sherman or Pz.IV or T-34. It was feared by Allied tankers, much like the Tiger, so they had an impact greater, perhaps, than their numbers warrant. That is their legend.

Anyway, to focus on "Panther vs T-34-85" denies the reality of the war. There were scads of lighter vehicles around, particularly with the Germans, who relied more and more on cheaper assault guns to replace tanks. Moreover, tanks are only the most glamorous element of ground warfare. Wars are still won by infantry.

Regards

Scott Fraser

[womble]

Womble - my understanding is that nearly all the Valentines in use for Bagration were IX models, which featured the 6 pdr gun, making them decent AT fighters. I see detailed reports showing 2 older VIIs (2 pdr normally) and 5 Xs, but no explicit XIs. The XI was the command tank version with the 75mm gun, better at HE work. The 5 Xs might conceivable have been XIs since the XI is an upgrade of a X, but my source didn't say that. Those were all in the 1st Mechanized Corps, which had 44 IXs (6 pdr) and 5 Xs (doesn't say).

Basically, if the era is Bagration and the tank is a Valentine, it is a model IX and it has a 6 pdr gun. With probability right at 263 out of 270, to be precise...

Heh. And this guy fielded 10 of those 75mm things... It was a bit earlier than Bagration, to be sure, but that sounds even cheesier than I'd thought it was, unless there was a lot of conversion to XI and then back "down" to IXs, which doesn't seem likely, given the XI was a command tank. There were a lot of cheesy forces in that FoW tourney. Thanks for the info Jason.

[Maarten]

Yes. The average FoW list should be taken with a grain of salt.

[White Phosphorus]

So on what basis did everybody suddenly decide that Zis-3 was good? Is there a penetration test from a certain year that shows that 76.2mm AP ammunition stopped being useless?

I'm going to re-post the May 1943 Soviet Tiger penetration study.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/69944650/38_11377_12.pdf

Summary:

The 76.2 mm F-34 (T34 KV) failed to penetrate anything even at 200m range. When firing at the side only the 82mm armor was targeted.

76.2 AA is also bad. Scored only one penetration at 500m on the turret from the side when the round hit the weld between the roof and the side of the turret.

45mm 1937 (T70). firing sub-caliber ammo penetrates 82mm side out to 350, and 62mm side out to 500. This thing is more effective than the F-34. The round is tiny though. Makes only a 20mm hole.

57mm Zis-2. Breaks welds at 500m shooting the front but cannot penetrate. Penetrates the side and turret out to 1000m, makes a giant 110mm hole, and breaks off a chunk of armor 110x140mm.

85mm AA is beast. Penetrates lower front 100mm at 60 degrees at 1000m.

The study also lists various artillery pieces, grenades, mines AT rifles, and LL equipment.

[JasonC]

ZIS-3 is good. Being able to penetrate a 60 ton Tiger tank is not the measure of whether or not a cannon is useful.

It was a fine artillery piece, it chucked HE, it destroyed all the common panzers from the side at any reasonable combat range, and all the lesser types from the front if the range was short enough. Ammo for it (and the similar 76L42 tank gun) improved throughout the war and extended its capabilities (capped in 1943, subcaliber in 1944). It was cheap and it was everywhere. Sure the 57mm is a better pure AT gun - and vastly outnumbered the uparmored critters it hunted - but the ZIS-3 was a solid workhorse field gun.

[MikeyD]

I believe in the Bagration sector Russian armor outnumbered the Germans roughly 10-1. Offensive operations against a static opponent is not exactly where towed anti-tank guns shine. The US fielded towed anti-tank formations by the battalion in Normandy but only accounted for a small handful of tank kills. Like in Bagration, they were facing a reduced armored force on the defensive, with few instances of German tanks pushing forward of their lines into an anti-tank gun's cross-hairs.

[Bastables]

One can only generalize. There is a timeline that runs through all of this. The composition of various armoured formations, both Soviet and German, was changing constantly to reflect operational experience. Production rates likewise changed throughout the period. Those theoretical numbers were affected by losses and production shortfalls, and more important, by serviceability rates.

Anyway, by late 1944, the Germans had several tiers of formations, with different levels of equipment. The top-heavy equipment complement that Das Reich or Grossdeutschland enjoyed was hardly typical of the situation. As late as February 1945, an example, the 21 Pz.Div. was rebuilt per the 1944 tables, with two companies of Panthers and another two of Pz.IV, with seventeen tanks in each unit, plus a Flak.Pz troop. When the StuGs and tank destroyers of the infantry regiments accompanying the PzDiv are included, the percentage of Panthers drops off. The 76mm F-34 and ZIS-3 were still extremely effective weapons against the majority of AFVs it may engage, including the Panther and Tiger from the side or rear. That weapon was very common, both towed and mounted in the SU-76 or in tanks, and should not be discounted. That was my main point.

I'm not suggesting that. The Panther was a dangerous opponent. It was as big as an IS-2, btw, not really a "Medium" tank like the Sherman or Pz.IV or T-34. It was feared by Allied tankers, much like the Tiger, so they had an impact greater, perhaps, than their numbers warrant. That is their legend.

Anyway, to focus on "Panther vs T-34-85" denies the reality of the war. There were scads of lighter vehicles around, particularly with the Germans, who relied more and more on cheaper assault guns to replace tanks. Moreover, tanks are only the most glamorous element of ground warfare. Wars are still won by infantry.

Regards

Scott Fraser

Serviceability rates for Panther's and PIV were comparable as by 44 the main weak point was the poor quality metal in final drives which affected both veh's. Check Jentz, his books show Operational rate are similar between the so called reliable Medium PIV and the so called unreliable Heavy Panther.

What is all this bull**** about changing production rates, I've posted the produced tank figures that show more Panthers in 44 and 45 were built than PIV's, the changing production rates was PIV being downgraded in favour of self propelled guns while Panther production rose.

Saying heavy vehicles are not comparable to lighter ones due to their weight which are heavier due to larger guns, ammunition and armour seems to be a specious argument.

One could argue that the Germans were silly in comparing their lighter PIII and P38T verses the heavier T34's and KV. Or that the T34-85 with it's weight increase to 32 tons due to additional armour, larger turret and gun is no longer a valid medium comparison to the 24t PIV. The UK did keep up this asinine weight classification pendetry by calling their 28t Cromwell a Heavy Cruiser as opposed to 19t Crusader Cruiser, they still used it as a "medium" cruiser though. Yeah heavier tanks with more armour and bigger guns are more effective at combating lighter tanks with smaller guns and thiner armour, surprise! It's why you see 50ton M48s and 36 ton T54 and not variants of T26's or wippet tanks post war. Or why we now have 50 ton T90s and 70 ton M1A2.

Panthers were seen a lot as they tended to comprise half the Panzer Div regt because they were envisioned to replace the PIII, which they did on the assembly lines. And the Panzer divisions were the attacking force of the German army, being mobile and with greater motorisation they were also the first units sent in to aid in the defence.

Your argument is fallacious as it can be used to prove there were not many PIV as a percentage as all the other german AFV out numbered them. Or LMG's are not that great an effect as there are more bolt action rifles floating around in a infantry battalion.

Because here's the thing they made more Panther's in 44 and 45 than PIV's which logically means there are more of them being used and operated by Panzer Truppen.

And infantry win battles?? Soviet offensive operations were predicated in 44 on using their armoured tank units vs german infantry units lacking the backstop of "tanks". Artillery corps around the world highlight how much more effective they are at actually causing casualties. Infantrymen in the rifle coy/battalions tend to show up more as casualties.

[dsf]

Serviceability rates for Panther's and PIV were comparable as by 44 the main weak point was the poor quality metal in final drives which affected both veh's. Check Jentz, his books show Operational rate are similar between the so called reliable Medium PIV and the so called unreliable Heavy Panther.

Serviceability rates are what they are. Both the Germans and Soviets struggled with production quality at different times and in each case it had an adverse affect on their combat capabilities. Why are you defending the Panther? It was just another German tank, complete with its own set of strengths and weaknesses.

What is all this bull**** about changing production rates, I've posted the produced tank figures that show more Panthers in 44 and 45 were built than PIV's, the changing production rates was PIV being downgraded in favour of self propelled guns while Panther production rose.

What about production rates? In the beginning, they built more Pz.IV than Panthers, because they didn't build Panthers. By the end of the war, they were building more Panthers than Panzer IVs, by a small margin. So what? Now Panthers are the main enemy on the battlefield? I think not, since all the StuGs and JgPz. are also around.

My point, you may recall, was that equipment on the battlefield did not necessarily mirror production, unless you assume 100% losses every time you build a division. That's not how it happened. By mid-1944, the Soviets were building more T-34-85s than T-34-76s, by a large margin, but there were still thousands of T-34-76s on the battlefield.

Saying heavy vehicles are not comparable to lighter ones due to their weight which are heavier due to larger guns, ammunition and armour seems to be a specious argument.

ROFLMAO! No disrespect,, but any argument based on classifying tanks as "light", "medium" and "heavy" is specious. The definitions changed as the war went on and there is no common criteria in how they are labelled. Consider the IS-2, the Panther and the M26. They are each very close to the same size and weight. One is a "medium", one is a "heavy" and the last started out classed as a "heavy" and then became a "medium". Go figger.

One could argue that the Germans were silly in comparing their lighter PIII and P38T verses the heavier T34's and KV.

Exactly. In 1939, both the Pz.38 and Pz.35 were perfectly acceptable "medium" tanks, by the Wehrmacht definitions of the time, but by 1943 they lightweghts. The goalposts had changed, and they kept changing throughout the war. Making it more problematic, not everyone was using the same terms for various tanks. Where does a "cruiser" or "cavalry" tank fit in?

Your argument is fallacious...

My argument, you may recall, was that to focus on how awesome the Panther was ignores the reality of the situation vis-a-vis how well the Red Army was able to dispatch enemy armour, and vice versa. My point was that the ZIS-3 was a very capable weapon, and should not be ignored. There were thousands of them in Red Army regiments: organic, in AT brigades and on SU-76s, as well as the guns in T-34s and KV-1s. To think that only large-caliber guns mattered, that the Panther was the only German tank around, or that German infantry all rode in halftracks is pure fantasy. I suppose that's okay on a gaming forum, but I am an historian, and that's not how it was.

For those who read Russian, seek out Shirokorad's opus on Soviet Artillery, Энциклопедия Отечественной Артиллерии ("Harvest", Minsk 2000) There are descriptions of each weapon as well as tables for performance with different ranges, angles and ammunition. Red Army made rather a science from studying holes in tanks, and the results are included. So is everything else you ever wanted to know about Russian artillery, 1400 pages. It is definitive.

Regards

Scott Fraser

[John Kettler]

White Phosphorous,

The ZIS-3 is the exact same gun as is on the SU-76M. The picture painted by the data presented on RussianBattlefield.ru, Valeriy Potapov's site (Potapov was a key contributor to CMBB), is hardly that of an ineffective weapon. Remember, by the time of CMRT, the days of crummy Russian ammo are over. Arrowhead/APCR/HVAP/PzGr40 is available, but the real surprise is that there may also be APDS! The latter is reported in German firing trials below the tables and is clearly distinguished from the Arrowhead type projectiles. Since there's very little information online, my current best guess is that UBR-354V is Arrowhead and UBR-354SP may well be APDS. I strongly suspect "SP" is an acronym for something like "special projectile," which APDS would assuredly be.

Specification and Armor Penetration of the Soviet Tank Guns

http://english.battlefield.ru/specification-and-armor-penetration.html

(goes off to do some digging)

It turns out that my conclusion re UBR-354V is correct. According to Watertown Arsenal Report METALLURGICAL EXAMINATION OF SOVIET 76MM APHE PROJECTILE, MOD. BR-354B, last page before distro, there is indeed an HVAP round, designated BR-354P. I believe this "P" is a typo. Therefore, the complete round should be designated, per Potapov's specs, as UBR-354V. This item is over on Scribd. 33860621.

Confusing the situation is a translated Albanian pub, The Munitions Handbook: Specifications and Informations for the Use of Munitions Albania 1983. On Scribd as 118025517.

Page 81 has the rundown on 76mm ammo for the ZIS-3 type weapons. There, UBR-354SP is listed as "round with solid AP," yet mysteriously weighs the same as the equivalent APHE projectile, while the UBR-354P (there it is again, not Potapov's "V") is listed as AP shell, sub-caliber; it is both significantly lighter and somewhat shorter UBR-354B.

Having hacked my way through a lot of material, I think either Potapov made a mistake, or we're looking at incomplete data. This ammo table for Soviet divisional guns shows both rounds, there's not a "V" suffix to be seen, and it also shows the UBR-354SP to be solid shot. I see no APDS at all. I believe the UBR-354SP is what we'd fully term SHOT,APCBC-T, featuring a square nose under the cap to bite into the armor and prevent ricochet.

It's late, and that's about all the damage I can do right now.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

White Phosphorous,

According to Monyushko (under Artillery at IRemeber.ru), open fire range for the ZIS-3 was 800 meters. Monyushko was a ZIS-3 gunner in an IPTAP (Antitank Regiment) at Sandomiercz, Poland. According to Litvin (800 Days), cited in Clark (The Battle of the Tanks), a 45mm gunner at Kursk, open fire range for guns like his was 500 meters, a range at which he could aim at, and hit, specific parts of the enemy tank. If the Russians set ZIS-3 open fire range per the same criterion (45mm was renowned for its accuracy), then 800 meter range allows the ZIS-3 gunner to do the same.

I think we'd both agree that 800 meter range is tactically significant and that surprise fire, from well-camouflaged, dug-in positions, by massed ZIS-3 batteries, could be very hurtful to attacking armor, and that's what the history of the battle there shows us. Further, Russian antitank tactics were structured to provide devastating fire at the flanks and rears of attacking armor, the fire sack defense (armor in an ATG cul de sac), so it therefore isn't an absolute requirement to be able to take on a well-protected Panzer frontally. Nice, to be sure, but not an absolute necessity. As we've seen in CMBN, you can chew a tank apart with repeated hits, rendering it combat ineffective even without killing it. For the attacker, facing a strong antitank defense, an immobilized tank is a lost tank, because some other piece of the defense will see to it in due course.

Regards,

John Kettler

[dsf]

White Phosphorous,

The ZIS-3 is the exact same gun as is on the SU-76M. The picture painted by the data presented on RussianBattlefield.ru, Valeriy Potapov's site (Potapov was a key contributor to CMBB), is hardly that of an ineffective weapon. Remember, by the time of CMRT, the days of crummy Russian ammo are over. Arrowhead/APCR/HVAP/PzGr40 is available, but the real surprise is that there may also be APDS! The latter is reported in German firing trials below the tables and is clearly distinguished from the Arrowhead type projectiles. Since there's very little information online, my current best guess is that UBR-354V is Arrowhead and UBR-354SP may well be APDS. I strongly suspect "SP" is an acronym for something like "special projectile," which APDS would assuredly be.

Specification and Armor Penetration of the Soviet Tank Guns

http://english.battlefield.ru/specification-and-armor-penetration.html

(goes off to do some digging)

It turns out that my conclusion re UBR-354V is correct. According to Watertown Arsenal Report METALLURGICAL EXAMINATION OF SOVIET 76MM APHE PROJECTILE, MOD. BR-354B, last page before distro, there is indeed an HVAP round, designated BR-354P. I believe this "P" is a typo. Therefore, the complete round should be designated, per Potapov's specs, as UBR-354V. This item is over on Scribd. 33860621.

Confusing the situation is a translated Albanian pub, The Munitions Handbook: Specifications and Informations for the Use of Munitions Albania 1983. On Scribd as 118025517.

Page 81 has the rundown on 76mm ammo for the ZIS-3 type weapons. There, UBR-354SP is listed as "round with solid AP," yet mysteriously weighs the same as the equivalent APHE projectile, while the UBR-354P (there it is again, not Potapov's "V") is listed as AP shell, sub-caliber; it is both significantly lighter and somewhat shorter UBR-354B.

Having hacked my way through a lot of material, I think either Potapov made a mistake, or we're looking at incomplete data. This ammo table for Soviet divisional guns shows both rounds, there's not a "V" suffix to be seen, and it also shows the UBR-354SP to be solid shot. I see no APDS at all. I believe the UBR-354SP is what we'd fully term SHOT,APCBC-T, featuring a square nose under the cap to bite into the armor and prevent ricochet.

It's late, and that's about all the damage I can do right now.

Regards,

John Kettler

The rounds available for the ZIS-3 were:

UOF-354M (УОФ-354М) - steel HE fragmentation round OF-350; 6.2kg, 680m/s, direct range 820m, (indirect 13,290m).

OU-354AM (УО-354АМ) - cast iron HE fragmentation round O-350A

UBR-354A (УБР-354А) - a/p tracer round BR-350A; 6.5 kg, 655 m/s, eff. range 780m.

UBR-354B (УБР-354Б) - a/p tracer round BR-350B

UBR-354P (УБР-354П) - sub-caliber HVAPDS a/p tracer round BP-354P (arrowhead form); 3.2 kg, 950m/s, eff. range 940m.

UBR-354N (УБР-354Н) - sub-caliber HVAPDS a/p tracer round BR-354N (aerodynamic form)

UBR-354 (УБР-354) - a/ tracer round BR-354 (improved armour-piercing)

UD-354 (УД-354) - smoke round

ROF: to 25 shots/minute.

There are tables in Shirokorad's book for effective distances and thickness of armour. Suffice to say, there are also many photos of Panthers and Tigers with holes in the side and turret from the ZIS-3.

There are also photos of holes caused by the 57mm ZIS-2, which had better a/p characteristics than the F-34 of the T-34-76. Effective range against the side or turret of a Tiger I was 500m for the 57mm, 800m for the 76mm.

The bottom line is that the Red Army had tens of thousands of guns that were capable of taking out German tanks, even the Panther and Tiger. It is wrong to think the only effective counter they had to the Panther and Tiger were the heavy assault guns.

Regards

Scott Fraser

[Sequoia]

I've never been sure if AFV guns in CMX2 were considered to be loaded at scenario start or only loaded when they saw a target and decided whether to use AP or HE. Judging by the reaction speed I've always assumed it to be preloaded but that would mean sometimes firing the wrong projo at a target or taking the time to unload and reload. What does the game actually do?

[John Kettler]

dsf,

Good stuff! Are you aware of any Russian WW II work on or fielding of APDS? If not, I wonder where the data came from below the penetration tables for Russian tank guns I cited?

I note you show no round with "SP" as the suffix, yet I've shown clear evidence of such nomenclature from what I deem credible sources. Am interested in your thoughts on this.

Speaking of your tome's author, he apparently wrote an earlier book on German guns called The God of the Third Reich War (2002). (Digs some) Never mind that. This guy's a prolific writer on military subjects.

http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Shirokorad

Regards,

John Kettler

[womble]

What does the game actually do?

It assumes the gun is loaded. It decides what it's loaded with at the moment it fires at its first target. I'm sure tankers wish they had "Schroedinger's shell"...

[Sequoia]

It assumes the gun is loaded. It decides what it's loaded with at the moment it fires at its first target. I'm sure tankers wish they had "Schroedinger's shell"...

I had a suspicion that might be the case. Off hand I'm thinking it would be nice to fix that someday, but then would players really want another level of micro-management and have to decide what each round being loaded should be?