CM2 topic: turret speeds & the T-34

[PzKpfw 1]

The T-34-76 crew consisted of :

-Commander/gunner

-Loader

-MG/Radio operator

-Driver/Mechanic

Due to crew shortages the MG/radio operator position was often omitted. The chronic crew shortage also affected the KV-1

As we know not all Soviet tanks had radio's but Company commanders tanks did have a radio, an 71-TK-3 set, which was later replaced by the 9R set every effort was also made to supply Plt commanders with an 71-TK-3 set in 1941 & 1942 and with the appearance of the 9R set, radio's became much more available in 43 & 44 then they had been as well. As to an intercom yes the T-34-76 had an TPU-3 system which was plugged into each crewmen helmet which also had a throat mike.

Concerning the tank losses in 1941 the majority was from mechanical breakdowns, Soviet reports from June thru July cite mechanical losses of over 50% on road marches, for most major formations mostly from clutch and gearbox failures, Only 30% of all T-34 losses in 1941 were from combat losses, over 60% were from mechanical failures due in part to Soviet tank drivers inexperience.

A typical report gives an indication of how severely the mechanical failures affected Soviet operations, as with the 10th Tank Div report from August 1941, it lost 56 out of it's 63 KV-1's, 34 were due to mechanical breakdowns, 11 to combat, 11, just disappeared. T-34 reports read almost the same as well.

Regards, John Waters

------------------

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[IntelWeenie]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

11, just disappeared.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Boy, I love the Ostfront!!

------------------

Cats aren't clean, they're covered with cat spit.

[Grisha]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 109 Gustav:

Actually, no. The T34 had a crew of a driver, hull gunner, loader, and an overworked commander/gunner. The commander was responsible for picking out targets, shooting them and yelling instructions to the driver (Not positive, but I don't think many T34s had intercoms). If the turret traverse motor was damaged, which happened frequently, he also had to crank the turret around with a very poorly positioned crank.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All T-34s had internal comms between commander/gunner and driver. So the commander would be yelling at the loader to hurry

[Slapdragon]

Or yelling at the mechanic to fix the damn transmission right next time, or yelling at the driver to turn the map right side up....

[Snake Eyes]

Here's an interesting photo, taken in the summer of 1941, of a captured T34 with a spare transmission strapped to its rear deck.

------------------

It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop

[KiwiJoe]

Would I be safe in saying that that MIGHTY turret hatch opens forward???? That would mean it would be immpossable to travel unbuttoned in that tank and see anything.

[Snake Eyes]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KiwiJoe:

Would I be safe in saying that that MIGHTY turret hatch opens forward???? That would mean it would be immpossable to travel unbuttoned in that tank and see anything.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

U B absolutely right!! Something of a handicap isn't it?

------------------

It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop

[Gregory Deych]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snake Eyes:

U B absolutely right!! Something of a handicap isn't it?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, that turns out not to be the case. Check out this photo:

It clearly shows the tank commander standing in the turret, peering over the hatch. Also, the hatch would actually act as a shield against the small arms and shell fragments, making it quite usefull.

[Snake Eyes]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gregory Deych:

It clearly shows the tank commander standing in the turret, peering over the hatch. Also, the hatch would actually act as a shield against the small arms and shell fragments, making it quite usefull. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But notice how exposed he is to the flanks and rear. Would you want to be in that situation in a hostile environment?

------------------

It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop

[KiwiJoe]

I dont think those tanks are actually moving. They seem to be standing still... almost in an indirect fire role on those banks. Peering over that hatch doing 20+mph cross-country would be difficult at best.

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KiwiJoe:

I dont think those tanks are actually moving. They seem to be standing still... almost in an indirect fire role on those banks. Peering over that hatch doing 20+mph cross-country would be difficult at best.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gun elevation and the place the TCs are looking at (the sky) would make me concur with KiwiJoe in this. The pictures I saw of captured T-34 in service with the Axis, they always had the hatch open, and a black Swastika on red ground there, for ID purposes. Looks like a Nazi Minnie Mouse.

------------------

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a>

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[Snake Eyes]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KiwiJoe:

I dont think those tanks are actually moving. They seem to be standing still... almost in an indirect fire role on those banks. Peering over that hatch doing 20+mph cross-country would be difficult at best.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree that these tanks are stationary, but consider the consequence of incoming mortar fire.

------------------

It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop

[Grisha]

Hmm, well based on many peoples armchair insight into the actually SOP of the T-34, I guess it comes down to this for the ol' commie tank:<UL TYPE=SQUARE>

<LI> Must remain in buttoned status always, because there's just no way anybody could look around that hatch ever. You could put your back out, you know.

<LI> Turret speed should be extremely slow, because the electric motor always broke down in seconds of being turned on, and even if it did work, you couldn't stop the traverse anyway.

<LI> Rate of fire should be extremely slow, because the two guys in the turret could never figure out who did what - "Hey, am I supposed to gun today, or you?" ... "I don't know, look at the regs."

<LI> There only should be one turn of movement, because after that you could bet there would be a mechanical breakdown. However, if tanks are carrying extra transmissions, then they can 'repair' the tank, getting another turn of movement.

Boy, good thing the Russians had enough people to human wave Germany to defeat

Come on, people! For crying out loud, get real.

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Grisha:

H<LI> There only should be one turn of movement, because after that you could bet there would be a mechanical breakdown. However, if tanks are carrying extra transmissions, then they can 'repair' the tank, getting another turn of movement.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Grisha I don't think anyone believes that, but concerning mechanical failures in Soviet tanks this is a fact. Bth the T-34 & KV-1 suffered from teething problems, the T-34-76 had severe clutch & gearbox problems. Even the T-34-85 had atrocious engine problems one report stated the M4A2 Sherman track shoes had a longer life then the T-34-85s engine.

Also their was a severe lack of trained personnel,Ie, in June 1941 tank drivers in the Baltic MD averaged 1& 1/2hrs driveling training, the District was missing 50% of its training cadre NCO & JO's, this meant that more often then not, their wasn't anyone to even train personnel. The Western, Kiev, & Odessa Military Districts reported as of 17.06.41 that tank gunnery training was '3 months' behind schedule, due mostly to the lack of training personnel.

The Soviets also did a report on the estimated reliability of their tanks in operational hours, in 1941, before the tanks would require army level workshop repair, Ie, 150hrs for the BT-2, BT-5, T-35, 200hrs for the BT-7, & T-28. Basically these tanks were expected to function for 10 -11 days operationally before requiring Maintainence outside their Div's.

Their tank force though the largest in the world was in a flux with a total of 23,106 tanks as of 06.01.41 of the 23,106 tanks on hand, only 2,611 were 100% operational, 16,080 required 'routine' Division maintance, 2,157 required army level 'medium' maintance repairs & 2,258 required shipment to 'factory' depots for major repairs.

One thing to remember tactical level sim's don't deal with breakdowns etc, so none of this should affect Soviet tanks etc, other then command radi & training modifiers etc.

Regards, John Waters

------------------

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 11-04-2000).]

[Grisha]

John,

You are absolutely right about the state of the newer Soviet armor in 1941. The T-34 and KV-1 were both fairly new, and many flaws needed to be addressed. Compounding that with lack of trained personnel, poor logistical planning, and outdated military doctrine (after the purges the Soviets re-adopted the nonmech-infantry approach to battle), and it was just one really long Soviet nightmare in 1941.

But things did get better after '41. Many of the flaws were worked out. True, engine reliability was never very high (Soviet engine technology was not on par with most other major industrialized nations at that time), but ease of repair and maintenance was very good.

I'm not saying that the T-34 was unstoppable in 1941. It definitely had some problems, a few which have been stated in this thread. But it wasn't so bad that Soviet tankers couldn't rely on it in combat. If you swiveled the turret, you would feel fairly confident it would perform as expected. If you needed to accelerate across a field to the next defilade position, you were pretty certain the engine wouldn't die midway. Any problems were usually recognized beforehand, and the T-34 in question was sent to a repair depot. So, in the scale of CM these type of problems would be a rarity.

Giving the T-34/76 a spotting handicap due to the two man turret makes sense too, but I've stated that above already. I do have trouble with giving T-34s breakdown ratings, because they just weren't as fragile as some allude to.

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Rate of fire should be extremely slow, because the two guys in the turret could never figure out who did what - "Hey, am I supposed to gun today, or you?" ... "I don't know, look at the regs."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

heh heh heh

Regarding mechanical unreliability lets talk about the Panther and Tiger

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

heh heh heh

Regarding mechanical unreliability lets talk about the Panther and Tiger <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And the T-34-85 ..

Regards, John Waters

------------------

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Grisha:

But things did get better after '41. Many of the flaws were worked out. True, engine reliability was never very high (Soviet engine technology was not on par with most other major industrialized nations at that time), but ease of repair and maintenance was very good.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, I agree the teething problems were eventualy worked out Grisha, my post concerned 1941.

Regards, John Waters

------------------

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 11-04-2000).]

[Guest Andrew Hedges]

Remember that some of the T-34's most common adversaries in '41 also had a two-man turrets -- the Pzkw 38(t) did, for example.

[Tiger]

Here's another pic of the t-43 hatch. Imagine trying to peer around that

[Gregory Deych]

I've asked around, and the consensus seems to be that for early model T34s, it was difficult (though not impossible) for a commander to observe the battle unbuttoned. Here is one wily individual, illustrating how it could be done.

I'm not sure if it's a T34 or T70, but the principle is sound.

[This message has been edited by Gregory Deych (edited 11-07-2000).]

[Jeff Duquette]

I thought this was kind of interesting. Found it on the Russian Military Zone by accident while looking for information on Soviet WWII Tank Optics.

URL to the most excellent Russian Military Zone: http://history.vif2.ru/library/army7.html

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

From: EVALUATION OF THE T-34 AND KV TANKS BY ENGINEERS OF THE ABERDEEN PROVING GROUNDS, SUBMITTED BY FIRMS, OFFICERS AND MEMBERS OF MILITARY COMMISSIONS RESPONSIBLE FOR TESTING TANKS

The tanks were given to the U.S. by the Soviets at the end of 1942 for familiarization.

Regarding the T34/76 Turret

The main weakness is that it is very tight. The Americans couldn't understand how our tankers could fit inside during a winter, when they wear sheepskin jackets (Americans tested the T-34 with a two-men turret - Valera). The electrical mechanism for rotating the turret is very bad. The motor is weak, very overloaded and sparks horribly, as a result of which the device regulating the speed of the rotation burns out, and the teeth of the cogwheels break into pieces. They recommend replace it with a hydraulic or simply manual system.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Grisha]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

I thought this was kind of interesting. Found it on the Russian Military Zone by accident while looking for information on Soviet WWII Tank Optics.

{snip}

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jeff,

While the tests were done in 1942 the T-34 used was a model 1940-41. You can tell this from the turret shape. By 1942 the hexagonal turret had been made with its numerous improvements.

[Tiger]

Gregory, not impossible, but that tank is not moving. It's in a static defensive position covered with branches. It looks like the commander is using the length of his forearm to prop the hatch open near the bottom. Not sure how well this would work in a moving tank or having to shift around to look round the other side. Don't forget the commander has to aim and fire the gun, rotate the turrent with a foot pedal (if the power is working), and direct the driver, all at the same time. No doubt it can be done (and was), but not very efficient/effective as a 3-man turrent crew.

In later models I believe they added a cupola to the T-34/85.

-john

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Grisha:

Jeff,While the tests were done in 1942 the T-34 used was a model 1940-41. You can tell this from the turret shape. By 1942 the hexagonal turret had been made with its numerous improvements.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Grisha, the US received what was identified by the Soviet's as an T-34-76 'model 1942'. Various plants made changes to the T-34 that were not standardized in the other factories Ie, the STZ plant in Stalingrad used an interlocking glacis plate, the Barrikady plant changed the gun housing and turret front, the Krasnoye Sormovo plant used a diferent shaped turret with 60mm armor compared to the 'standard' 52mm turret etc, so basically we have T-34-76's with differing turret shapes, armor thicknesses etc, running about in 1942 which should be interesting if BTS attempts to model all the variations .

Concerning Soviet designation's in general they did not follow any specific pattren Ie, the Soviets refer to the T-34-76 as the 'T-34-76 Model 1939' while also refrering to it at the T-34-76 Model 1940,as do most refrences. Again the problem in the difrences was due mainly to the fact, difrent plants were makeing difrent modifications during production which were not standardized.

The T-34-76 Model 1943 was built in small nunbers in the Spring of 1942 with the hexagonal turret, but here again the factories continued producing difrent turrets Ie, the Gorkii plant continued producing the original 1942 turret into 1943 while both the Uralmash & Chelyabinsk were producing their own variations of the turret.

It's also interesting that the oldest surviving example of the T-34-76 is an T-34-76 Model 1941 at Aberdeen Proving grounds that was captured by US forces in 1944.

I also have the armor report from Watertown Arsenal on the T-34-76 & KV-1 model 1942 that was shipped, as both were cut up so the armor composition could be examined as well as the parts of the UK report on both's armor.

Regards, John Waters

------------------

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 11-08-2000).]