(CM2) 4 crewmen in T34

[Guest ciks]

At first, i want to suggest for moderators of this board to make a separate CM2 forum, because i see increasing number of messages covering possible aspects of CM2, as does this post.

But the question is:

T34 up until late 1943, when T34/85 came into service, had a 4 men crew: a driver, a machinegunner/radiooperator, a loader, AND a tank commander who was also a gunner.

I'm not a tank expert, however i think that this lack of one man can make a noticeable difference in T34 performance in the game (and battle):

1. spotting ability is greatly reduced, if buttoned up.

2. a tank cannot fire main gun when unbuttoned, because gunner/tank commander is in the hatch (looking for possible enemy contact).

3. tank cannot fire turret MG when firing main gun, because TC/gunner is busy with bigger things.

I'd like to know, why Soviets decided to go with 4 men, despite all (most?) german and allied tanks had 5 men crews. Was this an ill-advised saving of man-power (not very typical to Red Army, ha?), or maybe some technical drawbacks, for example, turret was too small to accommodate 3 men (due to sloped sides)?

And how would this issue influence CM2 T34?

[Stefan Fredriksson]

Visit: http://www.tanknet.org

And pose the question there, on the AFV forum.

[Los]

Ciks,

Thanks. We are already aware of that issue and have been discussing its effect on efficiency. The Russians themselves noticed the same thing in 1940 when they bought two Panzer IIIs from Germany and put them through a series of head to head tests against the T34-76. The found the Pzkfw III to be superior to the T34 in all aspects except gun power and armor. It was alarming enough that they ordered a halt in production of all T34-76 until the problems could be rectified in particular a new 3-man turret to address the crew issue. The redesign was completed but never made it into production due most likely to a combination of beaureacratic inefficiencies and the fact that war with Germany was around the corner and they needed something now rather than the perfect solutuion later (obviously mpost of these issues were rectified in the T34-85).

SO yes turret crew efficiency is an issue in the T34-76 and was recognized by the Russians themselves even before the war started.

Los

p.s We just had this whole conversation on here last week

[Guest ciks]

OK, a bit late post

But it's rather odd that a tank who had so much amired mechanical advantages, may have had a big tactical disadvantage.

[tss]

ciks wrote:

But it's rather odd that a tank who had so much amired mechanical advantages, may have had a big tactical disadvantage.

I don't think it is so odd. Compare that, for example, with King Tiger. A King Tiger could cause serious troubles to enemy tanks in a battlefield. However, it would cause equally big troubles to Germans if it had to move 25 kilometers by its own power.

- Tommi

[Los]

Yes we could spend all day either debunking, or more apporpriately "modifying downwards or upwards", currently held beliefs on a number of historical issues. That's why the study of any historical event is a continual process.

Los

[Jeff Duquette]

Four crewman is not any kind of disadvantage in and of it self. Most modern Armies employ MBT's with 4 man crews quite successfully. In fact I would argue that a five man crew is a waste of a man.

The "disadvantage" that the T34/76 might have lies in the ergonomics of crewmen duties...specifically the TC also functioned as the gunner.

And yes there is already another thread on this subject. T34 Turret Rotation I think.

[Doug Beman]

Jeff, I think you're forgetting that the duties of a WW2 5-man tank crew were, for lack of a better word, "harder," in that things like radio use meant having a person just to run the radio, whereas today's radios are pushbutton affairs, and if they break you pop out a bad component and pop a new one in. Also, the crewman responsible for the hull MG and radio was often called "assistant driver," meaning he would take shifts at the wheel during non-combat movement because steering a WW2 tank was a very laborious process, even with the advanced steering of later German tanks. Compare this with an M1 (for example) whose driver position is designed specifically for one man to be able to drive long periods. This means you don't need a crewman to give the driver a break.

Djb

[Jeff Duquette]

Doug:

I think your forgetting that the majority of Soviet AFV's didnt have radios in WWII.

[K_Tiger]

The turret was to small to put 5 men into the tank...if they made a bigger turret, the t43 would be heavier=slower, and need more full.

Another aspect is...the T34 must allways follow his target with turning the turret. And could not avoid a dangerous situation behind it or from the side.

The russians like the other allied`s uses mostly tanks for inf support..and believed, they didnd need a radio...biggest disadvantage of all..IMO

[vimes]

Another aspect is...the T34 must allways follow his target with turning the turret. And could not avoid a dangerous situation behind it or from the side.[\QUOTE]

I suspect that the T-34 wasn’t the only thank in existence to use its turret to track targets, and was vulnerable from the sides and behind.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

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

Four crewman is not any kind of disadvantage in and of it self. Most modern Armies employ MBT's with 4 man crews quite successfully. In fact I would argue that a five man crew is a waste of a man.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What I think you may be overlooking Jeff is that all modern tanks have auto loaders so the need for a loader has been eliminated. Clearly, in WWII this was not an option!

Regards

Jim R.

[Jeff Duquette]

heh heh...I was the "auto loader" in my 4 man crew. M60A1's and M48A5's. A thankless job being an "auto-loader"...but somebody had to do it

I think the crew position you are searching for is the assistant driver. Most 5-man crews had an extra fellow in the hull that would operate the hull MG. Many modern MBT's have eliminated the hull MG and thus removed the necessity of the assistant driver position.

[Jeff Duquette]

Speaking of 4 man crews, isn’t the Firefly supposed to have a 5 man crew? I’m playing the Villiers Boccage Scenario of CM and all three of my Fireflys show up with 4 crew members??

[Kanonier Reichmann]

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

Speaking of 4 man crews, isn’t the Firefly supposed to have a 5 man crew? I’m playing the Villiers Boccage Scenario of CM and all three of my Fireflys show up with 4 crew members??<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is from memory Jeff but I can recall reading somewhere that it was such a task to shoehorn the 17 pdr. gun into the turret of a Sherman that it meant there was no room for a third crewmember in the turret. Any grognards want to shot me down?

Regards

Jim R.

[Formerly Babra]

The bow machine gun on the Firefly was also removed (at least on the VC).

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

Sounds like 100% weapons-grade Balonium to me.

[Jeff Duquette]

sounds reasonable to me...I searched the net and saw something saying it had a crew of 5...but that may not be an accurate source.

[Jeff Duquette]

Another Shocking experiance with the Villers Boccage Scenario was that at least two Sherman III's start the scenario with no main gun ammo. Presumably these two tanks represent British command tanks who's main guns had been removed to make room for additional radio gear?