Russian tanks suck?

[Hellas]

Anyway that response it too obvious.

a rhetorical question

If not even the most basic military question about op. Citadel can be answered, but instead obvious cover ups with bad style of discussion are practized then a discussion is moot.

[76mm]

If not even the most basic military question about op. Citadel can be answered, but instead obvious cover ups with bad style of discussion are practized then a discussion is moot.

Ha ha, great stuff. Several people have attempted answers to your rather cryptic question, but you allege a "cover up".

Why don't you tell us what you think rather than having every guess what your brilliant insights into the battle might be? And then maybe we can have a better style of discussion...

[Vanir Ausf B]

Sources for that claim?

"Hitler... delayed the attack on Kursk, which would give German industry more time to produce additional Tiger and Panther tanks. The Germans did increase their tank strength significantly in April, May and June, but Hitler's decision to wait until more tanks were available also gave the Soviets the opportunity to build tanks as a faster rate than the Germans. Given the mechanical problems of the early production models of the Tiger and Panther, the Germans lost ground in the comparable tank numbers by delaying from April to July 1943."

-- Kursk: Hitler's Gamble, 1943 by Walter Scott Dunn

[JasonC]

It is not worth debating Nazi fanboys. Just smack them so hard their noses bleed buttermilk. Works every time it is tried.

[John Kettler]

MikeyD,

I think you've overstated your case regarding the blindness of a buttoned T-34/76. The gizmo near the left front quarter of the turret in the pic is a periscope and was commonly fitted to the T-34/76.

http://legion-afv.narod.ru/T-34-76_Velykye_Luky.html

It is clearly shown in this pic.

http://legion-afv.narod.ru/T-34-76_Ostrov.html

Regards,

John Kettler

[Michael Emrys]

If not even the most basic military question about op. Citadel can be answered, but instead obvious cover ups with bad style of discussion are practized then a discussion is moot.

Okay, since you intend to be coy about the whole issue, I will give you my assessment FWIW. And that is: There is *nothing* that the Germans could have done to make the success of the stated goals of the operation even reasonably likely. At this point in the war, the best strategy for the Germans would be to stand on the defensive, be willing to trade ground for time and husband their declining resources as best they could while wearing the Soviets down to the maximum extent possible. The Germans placed too much reliance on the offensive, particularly when the demands of the offensive were beyond their means. This started at the top with Hitler, but with exceptions permeated the entire upper echelons of their officer corps.

Michael

[Sgt Joch]

At this point in the war, the best strategy for the Germans would be to stand on the defensive, be willing to trade ground for time and husband their declining resources as best they could while wearing the Soviets down to the maximum extent possible.

Obviously true, but as I understand it, Hitler felt that, politically, he had to go on the offensive, if only to reassure his allies. For those who have read "The Wages of Destruction", it was apparently obvious to Hitler and the top Nazis that they had to knock Russia out of the war in 1941 or 1942, otherwise the war was lost.

Hitler knew what the army was going up against since Model had made a point of cornering Hitler and giving him a detailed briefing complete with aerial recon photos of the Russian defences.

[wadepm]

John, as I understand it the the problem with the T34/76 wasn't so much the vision of the commander but that he had two jobs to do (he was also the gunner) which required him to take his eye off the periscope.

[wadepm]

It is not worth debating Nazi fanboys. Just smack them so hard their noses bleed buttermilk. Works every time it is tried.

Is there such a thing as a "Soviet fanboy?"

[Fizou]

Is there such a thing as a "Soviet fanboy?"

Communist fanboy if you please..

[JasonC]

wadepm - it is metaphysically possible, but at least outside of Putin's Russia I think the set is empty.

[76mm]

wadepm - it is metaphysically possible, but at least outside of Putin's Russia I think the set is empty.

Strange response...I would think that anyone who knows as much as you do about the eastern front would have immense respect for what the Red Army accomplished during the war-I know that I do.

[JasonC]

I do have respect for what they accomplished. I also have disrespect for some of their callousness about losses and unwillingness to learn tactical skills that might have saved many lives of their men, and similar. But none of that means I cheerlead for Russians the way Nazi fanboys cheerlead for the Germans. Also, there is no political component in my judgment of their military skills or weaknesses (I have utter contempt for the politics of both regimes). Nazi fanboys can't all say that (without lying, at least) - alas.

[76mm]

But none of that means I cheerlead for Russians the way Nazi fanboys cheerlead for the Germans. Also, there is no political component in my judgment of their military skills or weaknesses (I have utter contempt for the politics of both regimes). Nazi fanboys can't all say that (without lying, at least) - alas.

Fair enough, although frankly I think that puncturing a few German fanboy bubbles automatically makes you an honorary Sov fanboy, at least in their eyes.

[Cuirassier]

Is there such a thing as a "Soviet fanboy?"

I recall at least one on the Feldgrau forums.

[Sergei]

Without doubt there are believers in the omnipotency of any historical army you name, it's the internet after all. It's just that the further into history you go, the more likely the debaters will base their opinions on serious studies rather than a Hitler Channel documentary. Even then you're bound to find deranged freaks vouching for the supremacy of Korean Empire, Confederate States of America, Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth and so on, mostly fueled by nationalism.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I don't have objections to T-34-76 spotting difficulties, I do object to Hetzer being an efficient spotter, though. The commander literally has no forward optics with the exception of a little hatch to poke his scissors binocs through. There was no way to observe to his right at all!

But like all German tank destroyers (and StuGs), they were typically issued Scherenfernrohr (scissors periscope).

I was just reminded of this while researching the Jagdpanther's blindness.

[JasonC]

76mm - so much the worse for "their eyes", which are the standard of precisely nothing...

[Doug Williams]

That unfortunately is probably unavoidable. With the player in control certain aspects of c2 issues can only be truly duplicated if the player refrains from moving units utilizing info they don't yet have. Same issue with infantry really but more noticeable with armor.

Spotting and lack of radios should be in, but it doesn't much matter if you already moved the unit into a good position based on info it doesn't have.

The bolded section describes a player with more self control than I am capable of. ;-)

Generally, if the game lets me do it, I'm gonna do it, with the exception of certain mortal sins such as setup area bombardment, which would cause me to be ostracized.

I do pretty well with the T34-85s....not so much with the T34-76s. My biggest gripe with playing the Soviets is their lack of infantry AT weapons. Their SMG squads are fun though, especially in urban battles.

[Cuirassier]

"the nearly 350 tanks under his command became hopelessly tangled in swampy terrain and Soviet minefields, and then were then badly shot up by Soviet defences"

First point to notice - there is a direct connection between trying to use 350 tanks on a single divisions frontage and becoming "hopelessly tangled".

QUOTE]

Indeed. Goodwood comes to mind. There comes a point where one can reach too high a force density (even with armor), and all the extra vehicles create far more problems than they actually solve.

[JasonC]

Cuirasser - indeed. GD's attack sector for those 350 tanks was only 3 kilometers wide. One regiment of the infantry attacked with a single battalion up (the rest in column behind it) with 250 tanks in its sector. This certainly ensured there was no density of defending ATGs that could possibly stop the whole armored force, but it multiplied the effective impact of every mine and every obstacle in that narrow sector to an absurd degree. And the armor to infantry ratio was just certifiable. In the first wave, there were more men inside the tanks than outside, in the attack sector. And yet, once the leading Panthers got stuck in a bog and had to wait for pioneers to create a route for them, the infantry actually wound up attacking without effective armor support. The rest of the panzers were blocked by the stalled Panthers ahead of them; the infantry pushed on ahead with just artillery support. So you had ridiculous armor to infantry before the bog bottleneck, then none to very limited infantry beyond that bottleneck.

[Hessian deserter]

While I was playing a Red Thunder, real time, large scenario mission, as the Germans about a month ago.I was able to put several HMG teams in a 4 story farm tower. I had good LOS on a bunch of attacking T-34,85's My HMG teams destroyed most of the T-34's I know MG's are not supposed to destroy tank's. But that's what happen's when you strap fuel tank's on both sides of the T-34,85! That was the only factor I could attribute to their absolute destruction. Good job BFC.

Later in that same scenario Russian FO's called in IL2's that Destroyed some of my Panthers that were trying to reach a Russian supply dump. I did gain a victory in the mission, which turned out to be, Major "FUN."

I have not had the opportunity to put HMG fire on T-34,85's since that mission, but I will always remember to do so in the future!

[c3k]

Those external fuel tanks would have been emptied before any planned action. The mg destroying T34's should not have happened...

[Hessian deserter]

I tried to find that scenario,but I must have deleted it after I completed the mission? I think it was from the repository. It also had Panthers and Tiger's,but they did not get within range of the T34's until most of them had been destroyed???

[John Kettler]

c3k,

I strongly disagree with your argument. The external fuel tanks are there to considerably extend the operational range of the tank carrying them. They are of particular importance to a force which has broken through and is driving pell mell toward deep objectives. Sounds like Op Bagration to me. There is an iconic photograph of T-34/85s and embarked tankdesantniki attacking in what I believe is Byelorussia. The external fuel tanks, which are not connected to the main fuel system, weren't until the T-54/55, are clearly in evidence. The primary pic is at 1:33 here. There are subsequent images in that series in which the some tank riders have already debarked, while others are still in the process. The vid shows numerous instances of tanks and SUs in combat and post combat scenes which also have the external fuel tanks fitted.

I would further point out that a drained fuel tank is in many ways more dangerous than a full one. Since vapors ignite far more readily than do liquids (see carburetors and fuel injectors), a so-called drained tank is a matter of great concern if hit.

Regards,

John Kettler