Artom Drabkin interviews Otto Carius

[DMS]

I checked RKKA field manual. (13 February 1944)

БОЕВОЙ УСТАВ БРОНЕТАНКОВЫХ И МЕХАНИЗИРОВАННЫХ ВОЙСК КРАСНОЙ АРМИИ

154. В боевых порядках наблюдение за полем боя ведут все экипажи машин и боевые разведывательные дозоры. Командиры взводов, действующих на флангах, особое внимание уделяют наблюдению за открытым флангом. До встречи с противником наблюдение ведётся через открытые люки. Обо всём замеченном наблюдатели немедленно докладывают командиру машины.

До встречи с противником наблюдение ведётся через открытые люки.

Before contact with enemy spotting is conducted through opened hatches.

250. Весь состав экипажа должен внимательно наблюдать за полем боя, постоянно ориентироваться, отыскивать цели, не терять их из виду и чётко докладывать о них командиру танка. При потере ориентировки допускается, соблюдая меры предосторожности, осматривать местность через открытый люк. При движении в боевом порядке взвода экипаж обязан непрерывно наблюдать за танком командира взвода и за его сигналами.

При потере ориентировки допускается, соблюдая меры предосторожности, осматривать местность через открытый люк.

In case of losing orientation opening hatch with care is alowed for looking at area. (sorry, bad translation, I know)

[Vergeltungswaffe]

How about a translation of that for the lazy?

[poesel]

Google:

Field Manual of armored and mechanized forces RED ARMY

154 in order of battle battlefield surveillance are all crew vehicles and combat reconnaissance patrols. Platoon commanders acting on the flanks, paying special attention to monitoring the open flank. Before meeting with the enemy observation is carried out through the open hatches. Everything an observed observers immediately report to the commander of the machine.

Before meeting with the enemy observation is carried out through the open hatches.

Before contact with enemy spotting is conducted through opened hatches.

All 250 crew shall closely monitor the battlefield, constantly navigate to look for goals, do not lose sight of them and report them clearly tank commander. With the loss of orientation allowed observing precautions to inspect the area through the open hatch. When driving in the order of battle platoon crew must continuously observe the tank platoon commander and his signals.

With the loss of orientation allowed observing precautions to inspect the area through the open hatch.

[DMS]

I translated. Where hatches are mentioned. Other is not applicable, about spotting e.t.c..

P.S. Damn, google translates better than me.

[John Kettler]

DMS,

Than you for this.

poesel71,

Thanks also. Reading between the lines, what it appears to say is that hatches are to be opened before meeting with the enemy. Once that occurs, the hatches are closed. That's why the reg talks about the "loss of orientation" when no longer able observe from the open hatch. I conclude this hatch is the TC's and that the reference to observing the platoon commander and his signals refers to the difficulty to do so while buttoned.

Regards,

John Kettler

[DMS]

Thanks also. Reading between the lines, what it appears to say is that hatches are to be opened before meeting with the enemy. Once that occurs, the hatches are closed.

Nothing is sayed about closing. I had searched text by keyword "hatch", only citated above is suitable.

Intersting question.

[John Kettler]

DMS et al.,

Got an E-mail from Tank Archives, the webmaster and content guy at Archive Awareness. He found something similar/the same as (presented only gist of the gist, so I couldn't tell)/similar to what you found. I've provided him with the link to our discussion and asked him to please look into this matter further and do a post on his site regarding this important issue.

Regards,

John Kettler

[DMS]

DMS et al.,

Got an E-mail from Tank Archives, the webmaster and content guy at Archive Awareness. He found something similar/the same as (presented only gist of the gist, so I couldn't tell)/similar to what you found. I've provided him with the link to our discussion and asked him to please look into this matter further and do a post on his site regarding this important issue.

Regards,

John Kettler

Would be great!

I asked russian WoT/War thunder community, nobody gave any links to documents, but common opinion was that main reason was construction of hatches. And that commander was also a gunner in T-34-76. And Carius dealt with T-34-76 mainly.

[Bil Hardenberger]

I think you are grasping at straws John... I don't think, even if you find a manual that does specifically say to "close hatches in combat", that you can prove it was done that way even most of the time.

I would say that it is a matter of experience and training.. the more experienced and savvy TCs would fight with hatches open to increase visibility and situational awareness (probably rare in the Russian army), while the less trained (probably legion in the Russian army) would probably seek the security of the closed hatch. I say that survival would be more important to these tank commanders than following the book (which so far does not even exist).

The manual extract posted above does not say that tanks are to fight with hatches closed, but it does mention opening them... interesting distinction no? In fact it seems to stress operating through the open hatch... so it must have been enough of a problem that it needed spelling out in the manual.

[John Kettler]

Bil,

I disagree. If there wasn't a reg preventing opening the hatches in battle, then why mention opening the hatch and saying doing so violated the regulation? Why is it that gobs of imagery exists showing Russian tanks in combat fighting buttoned up, including the iconic photo series showing the tankodesantniki loaded T-34/85s rolling across the plain, with not a TC in sight? Why is it that a Russian tanker memoir makes a big deal about opening the hatch (a crack, not all the way with TC head out or more) in order to see out? Some samples supporting my argument taken from Russian war photography.

Buttoned KV-1 passes utterly smashed, flaming and upended German AFV.

http://nailyaalexandergallery.com/photo/untitled-1940s-7

T-34/76s attacking south of Stalingrad.

http://nailyaalexandergallery.com/node/180/3

Buttoned T-34/76 and disembarked tankodesantniki pass flaming ruin of Panzer IV. Kharkov.

http://www.ww2incolor.com/soviet-union/6b92863011a5991995254c82a04f6e43.html

T-26s on the attack. 1941.

http://www.ww2incolor.com/soviet-union/aAttack.html

T-34/85s, as described in top paragraph above, tank riders off. Not a TC visible on a single tank.

http://www.ww2incolor.com/soviet-union/aSovTank.html

Stalin tank about to enter battle. No TC visible, but driver's port is still open.

http://www.ww2incolor.com/soviet-union/IMG_5854.html

T-34/76 passes behind burning Tiger 1 in winter of '42-'43. Tank's buttoned.

http://www.ww2incolor.com/soviet-union/ontheroad.html

Russian footage only!

BT-7 attacking buttoned at 1:04 below. T-34/76 attacking buttoned at 1:09. Buttoned T-34/76s moving into the attack, with tank riders aboard, at 1:29. T-34/76s firing on the move and debarking tank riders at 1:34 close-in shot. Positively no TCs to be seen. 1:40 another close-in sequence. No TC visible. 1:50, a T-34/76 herd. No TCs. 1:53, no TCs observable, but foreground tank has cracked hatch, it appears. 1:56 no TCs, close-in shot. KV-1s roll through dead Germans at 2:21. 2:51, tank riders only, no TCs. 2:58, T-34/76 at spitting range. Buttoned up tight. Close rear view of T-34s at 3:03. No TCs. 4:24, late model T-34/76 with cupola. Unambiguously buttoned. And the icing on the cake? 4:26 et seq in which the tank and mostly dismounted tank riders start to come out of the trees and we can watch the TC button up!

)

I've shown it in stills. I've shown it in film. I've shown it via memoirs which clearly indicate that fighting hatch opened was extraordinary. I've shown it in German descriptions of how Russian tanks operated buttoned. I think I've more than made my case that fighting buttoned was the norm, not the exception. From what I can tell, Fadim was a Six Sigma exception to the general rule.

I heard back from the Archive Awareness guy. He put up, at my request, a brief post in which he translates two short passages from the regs for the armored forces, but, I believe, developed target fixation on the negative, basically treating hatches closed as a strawman, while providing no evidence of this practice at all and zeroing in on the hatches open requirement PRIOR to battle and totally not getting the quite obvious inference that thereafter they must be closed. I would like to invite those of you with well-stocked bookcases covering this issue in accounts and photos to enter the lists there. I argue 250 at the link indicates, since it specifies it is permissible to open the hatch and observe from it to regain the if the target is lost, that it is otherwise impermissible to open that hatch!

http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2014/10/hatches.html

Again, this hatch issue is important because if the Russians are allowed to freely fight unbuttoned in CMRT, it provides huge tactical leverage the Russians, as a default case, simply didn't historically have. US Army studies of tank effectiveness found the performance drop from open hatch, head out, to buttoned was a full 50%. How could a 50% improvement in Russian tank combat effectiveness NOT negatively affect CMRT game outcomes, particularly with the Germans already severely crimped on antiarmor weapons? Guess what dies even faster than was the historical case (in a game in which ATGs, historically quite hard to spot, engage and kill, already die much faster than history shows), and what does that do to the combat stability of the defense?

Regards,

John Kettler

[76mm]

I'm having a hard time accepting your arguments and evidence of some kind of prohibition on opening hatches, for a couple of reasons:

1) The text in the link that you cited explicitly allows, if not requires, crews to observe through open hatches under certain circumstances.

First, "Before contact with the enemy is made, observation is to be performed from open hatches." This would cover many instances in CMRT, when Russian tanks are awaiting the approach of the enemy, and thus would spot them.

Second, even during combat, it says that "if the target is lost, it is permissable to carefully observe through an open hatch".

Even if Soviet doctrine favored opening buttoned-up, it seems very clear that there was no prohibition on opening the hatches.

2) What would be the rationale behind a Soviet regulation prohibiting opening of hatches? To prevent needless casualties among tank commanders? haha, yeah, right. While there is some argument that unnecessary exposure of the TC would put the whole tank at risk, as we have seen in game you are also putting the tank at risk if you stay buttoned up...

3) The handful of pictures are not particularly convincing to show that Sov tankers were not allowed to open their hatches, only that for some reason (compliance with general doctrine?), in their staged photos the Sovs often showed tanks buttoned up. A casual google search reveals many photos of Sov tanks with TCs in the hatch, although admittedly many of these (like many of yours) show tanks on the march rather than "in battle."

4) The only book I've read which explicitly addresses this issue is "Panzer Destroyer: Memoirs of a Red Army Tank Commander" (actually SU commander...) by Vasily Krysov. In his account, they often fight with the hatches closed, but are constantly opening and closing hatches, rather as you'd expect. First, it seems that during active combat, they tried to leave the hatches open, because otherwise the fumes from the main gun could be overpowering. But they closed the hatches when they felt they needed to. Here are several quotes:

"On the morning of 7 July, enemy bombers appeared, and in their wake an artillery barrage began. The crewmen were in their positions, the hatch covers were battened down, but sometimes the explosions were so close that we could see nothing but flames through the optical devices – it seemed that the self-propelled gun was on fire! The ensuing terrible drumbeat of rocks and dirt clods falling on the armour from the geysers of earth blown high into the sky by the explosions nearly deafened us. As the dirt and dust settled, they covered the machine with a thick, impenetrable layer of soil, and it was becoming as dark as night in the fighting compartment.

Fearing that we’d miss the start of the enemy attack, we frequently opened the upper hatch cover briefly to have a better look around and to wipe clean the optical lenses. Once when looking out of the hatch, I saw a terrible scene: three nearby villages were burning, enveloped in thick clouds of black smoke, and just in front of us one could see the infantry positions – there men were frantically trying to dig out comrades who d been buried under piles of dirt and logs, collapsed trench walls and bunkers.

‘Comrade Lieutenant, get back into the machine.’ Fearing for my life, Emelyan Ivanovich was pulling me down by my belt. Through the semi-opened hatch cover, we were hearing the artillery cannonade that had erupted in our rear – hundreds of our guns and mortars had opened return fire at the enemy! Then we heard the buzz of low-flying aircraft and we rejoiced to see squadrons of our Il-2s flying towards the enemy lines in waves."

****

"The Germans ferociously returned fire, but kept retreating to prevent being caught in a pocket. They were concealing their combat formations with some powerful smoke device. Glimpsing through the curtain of smoke a silhouette of a tank moving towards us, I ordered the gunlayer: ‘Valeriy! At the tank, continuous aim! Fire!’

While the gunlayer was searching through the smoke for the target, I looked out of the hatch and saw with my naked eye that it was a ... T-34 moving towards us! ‘Belay that order!’ I yelled, and having fired a green recognition flare, I wiped the cold sweat from my brow with my sleeve."

********

"There was one assault gun commander from Ivanovo Oblast among us – a former teacher, but a bit of a coward. He came up with a certain peculiar way of acting when in combat: his hatch cover would be raised, yet he’d not be standing in the hatch, but instead crouched behind the armoured superstructure, giving directions to his driver by prodding him with a long stick. If he smacked the driver on the head, that meant ‘stop’; if he poked him in the back – ‘forward’; tapped him on the left shoulder – ‘turn left’; on the right shoulder – ‘turn right’. His surname was Abramov. Of course, not everyone knew about this – when the action starts, who’s going to keep an eye on him? However, those directly around him knew, and guys like him were shunned by the rest."

************

"As if to confirm my fears, German infantry began to approach in short rushes, attempting to bypass an area illuminated by the fire of a burning house. The enemy tanks and assault guns intensified their fire – so strongly that it seemed that they were on the verge of attacking! Although shells and bullets were flying overhead, I nevertheless decided to open the hatch in an effort to get a better view of what was going on. I had barely unlatched the hatch cover, when I saw dozens of multi-coloured flares overhead, fading as they fell on the eastern side of the village."

************

[DMS]

Staying in ambush or moving on the marsh soviet tank would be 100% with opened hatches. There a lot of such photos:

Just because sitting inside is exhausting.

By the way, consider that T-34-76 is absolutely blind now with closed hatches. Even in facing direction. That seems wrong. Narrow field of view would be realisitc, but in this FOV it should spot well.

[Bil Hardenberger]

Bil,

I disagree. If there wasn't a reg preventing opening the hatches in battle, then why mention opening the hatch and saying doing so violated the regulation?

Point to where the regulation states opening the hatch is not allowed? I only see where it consistently encourages opening the hatch in order to maintain awareness and visibility. This tells me that there might have been a real problem with tank crews refusing to open the hatch during combat, otherwise why mention it at all?

Why is it that gobs of imagery exists showing Russian tanks in combat fighting buttoned up, including the iconic photo series showing the tankodesantniki loaded T-34/85s rolling across the plain, with not a TC in sight? Why is it that a Russian tanker memoir makes a big deal about opening the hatch (a crack, not all the way with TC head out or more) in order to see out? Some samples supporting my argument taken from Russian war photography....

Russian footage only!

Showing propaganda footage proves nothing.

... From what I can tell, Fadim was a Six Sigma exception to the general rule.

I think 76mm's posted quotes show this is not the case at all.

I heard back from the Archive Awareness guy. He put up, at my request, a brief post in which he translates two short passages from the regs for the armored forces, but, I believe, developed target fixation on the negative, basically treating hatches closed as a strawman, while providing no evidence of this practice at all and zeroing in on the hatches open requirement PRIOR to battle and totally not getting the quite obvious inference that thereafter they must be closed.

So.. even the tank archive expert thinks your conjecture is BS.

I would like to invite those of you with well-stocked bookcases covering this issue in accounts and photos to enter the lists there. I argue 250 at the link indicates, since it specifies it is permissible to open the hatch and observe from it to regain the if the target is lost, that it is otherwise impermissible to open that hatch!

John, you are jumping to a conclusion here.. you know what they say happens when you assume something?

Again, this hatch issue is important because if the Russians are allowed to freely fight unbuttoned in CMRT, it provides huge tactical leverage the Russians, as a default case, simply didn't historically have.

Huh... so... the German tactical advantage was purely due to the Russians operating with hatches closed during action? I suppose better leadership, training, superior tactical doctrine, and German tank individual initiative had nothing to do with it... sorry John I think you are operating with blinders on in respect to this issue.

Bil