Captured Russian tanks

[Gregory Deych]

I'm curious what happened to roughly 12,000 tanks the Russians lost during opening months of Operation Barbarossa? Many of them were mechanical casualties, and it seems that they would have been prime candidates for reconditioning by Germans. Even oldies like T-26s and BT-5s were still superior to Pz IIs and Pz. 35t/38ts, except for the engine on T26 which was very underpowered.

[Abbott]

Many Russian armored vehicles were pressed into service by the German army.I would rate the 38T superior to both the BT-7 and certainly the T-26 though.

[paullus]

A bunch of good reasons for not using them:

1) Friendly Fire

2) Spare Parts

3) Ammunition

The first is self-explanatory. Though some T-34's were pressed into service, and more used by Russian-allied units (such as Yazov's troops), most weren't used because other German units and the Luftwaffe would tend to try to kill them.

The second and third go hand in hand. Despite having thousands of these vehicles, the Germans had no way to procure spare parts, other than to strip existing tanks, and German and Russian tanks used different ammunition sizes.

Although I would expect that any German tanker would have loved a German T-34, the difficulties involved meant that few were ever used.

Of course, the Marder III did use captured Russian 76mm anti-tank guns.

[Gregory Deych]

How so?

Here are some pertinent stats on Pz-38t:

Gun: 3,7cm Kw.K.38(t) A7 Penetrates 31mm@30 deg at 500m

Front Armor: 25mm-50mm @ 10

Side Armor:15-30 @ 10 deg

Speed: 42 km/h road - 15 km/h crosscountry

T26:

Gun: 45 mm 20K Penetrates 35mm@39 deg at 500m.

Front Armor: 15mm @15.

Side Armor: 15@ 18

BT5:

Gun: 45 mm 20K Penetrates 35mm@39 deg at 500m.

Front Armor: 13mm@0.

Side Armor: 13@0

From this quick comparison, one things is apparent. Neither of the 3 carries enough armor to defend against the other's main gun up to about 1000-1500. The later versions of Pz.38t, with 50mm front armor were indeed better then BT5/7 & T26, but those did not enter production untill after Barbarossa.

[This message has been edited by Gregory Deych (edited 09-26-2000).]

[Monticello]

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

A bunch of good reasons for not using them:

1) Friendly Fire

2) Spare Parts

3) Ammunition

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

4) Good source for scrap metal (?)

It would make sense to scrap the tanks and send the metal back to Germany, especially if the rolling stock would normally be empty on the return trip to Poland. This would be an interesting topic to research...

[GriffinCheng+]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>2) Spare Parts<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would have a little reservations about this point. I have been reading "Villers Bocage: Through the Lens" recently and it is said that the KOed half-tracks were looted mainly because the Germans needed spare parts from them. My impression is: if this happened in WF, especially late at war, it was bigger in EF.

My 2cents.

Griffin.

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

"+" is just the beginning. Expect to see "GriffinCheng76", "GriffinCheng(105)" or "GriffinChengA3E8" more should Forum problems occur again

[This message has been edited by GriffinCheng+ (edited 09-26-2000).]

[Abbott]

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

How so?

Here are some pertinent stats on Pz-38t:

Gun: 3,7cm Kw.K.38(t) A7 Penetrates 31mm@30 deg at 500m

Front Armor: 25mm-50mm @ 10

Side Armor:15-30 @ 10 deg

Speed: 42 km/h road - 15 km/h crosscountry

T26:

Gun: 45 mm 20K Penetrates 35mm@39 deg at 500m.

Front Armor: 15mm @15.

Side Armor: 15@ 18

BT5:

Gun: 45 mm 20K Penetrates 35mm@39 deg at 500m.

Front Armor: 13mm@0.

Side Armor: 13@0

From this quick comparison, one things is apparent. Neither of the 3 carries enough armor to defend against the other's main gun up to about 1000-1500. The later versions of Pz.38t, with 50mm front armor were indeed better then BT5/7 & T26, but those did not enter production untill after Barbarossa.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When comparing armored vehicles many times you will find the main gun comparisons held up as the end all comparison of which vehicle was the better. That is not always what needs to be compared however. A tank is a weapons system. The platform the cannon resides upon is as much a factor as the cannon itself.

The Czech. Designed 38T’s were one of the most durable, reliable and fuel efficient light/medium tank designs of the war. It’s combination of mobility, armor and firepower was an excellent mix for its day. The chassis was so robust the 38T continued into service (reserves) until 1944 with the German army as well as being chosen to carry the 75/L43, 75/L48, the 15cm Howitzer, a Flamm version and also being worked into a Bergepanzer (recovery vehicle). After the war ended a prototype 38T chassis was even found mounting an 88mm cannon. A widened and strengthened chassis was also chosen to replace the Marder series with the Hetzer which saw service with the Swiss and Soviet armies into the mid 1950’s.

While the BT-7 has an argument with its speed its reliability is still in doubt. The T-26 was a dredge however with its chassis originally coming from a design for a agricultural tractor, its extremely slow rate of speed and its terrible rate of fire.

As an ex-tanker I based my opinion on reliability as much as cannon/armor combination. If you can not reach the battle you can not fire your cannon.

References:

Panzer Leader

Heinz Guderian

ISBN-0-306-80689-4

German Tanks of WW II

Dr. S. Hart and Dr. R. Hart

ISBN-1-86227-033-3

[This message has been edited by Abbott (edited 09-26-2000).]

[Pham911]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GriffinCheng+:

I would have a little reservations about this point. I have been reading "Villers Bocage: Through the Lens" recently and it is said that the KOed half-tracks were looted mainly because the Germans needed spare parts from them. My impression is: if this happened in WF, especially late at war, it was bigger in EF.

My 2cents.

Griffin.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bigger because the war was larger in the East? But, by the time the Allies invaded France, German industry, while no where near destroyed, was producing fewer goods(like parts for halftracks).

In the East, if you used captured armor and needed parts, you couldn't use German machined ones and had to canibalize. I can't picture any situation where you could maintain a functional force of armor by having to not only kill the right tanks, but not have any more damage-in-need-of-repair occur to your tanks while you do so. And, from what I understand, certain tank parts wore out pretty quickly. I don't think you could support a captured tank for long.

[Abbott]

There are written accounts and photographic evidence of Russian armor pressed into service with the German army.

T-34's were well liked because of their speed, protection and armament. Parts were scavenged as many were disabled and abandoned during operation Barbarossa.

BT-7's and T-26's were also pressed into service with police companies of the German Army to ward off partisan assaults at key points in the rear areas. However neither vehicle was considered combat worthy and frontline service was avoided for both vehicles.

I do not have the figures of how many captured vehicles were used but their numbers were never that significant probably for the above stated issues.

[This message has been edited by Abbott (edited 09-26-2000).]

[Gregory Deych]

In so far as captured tanks go, Russians reworked captured PzIIIs and IVs into Su-76i and SU-122s (122s were later switched to T34 chassis). Clearly, the possibility was there.

[GriffinCheng+]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In the East, if you used captured armor and needed parts, you couldn't use German machined ones and had to canibalize.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My point is, with reference to the original poster, they needed the parts for their captured equipment, not their standard-issued ones. I don't think the captured equipment intended to hold for long either. They could be used for surprise and confuse the enemy or infiltrate behind the enemy lines.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I can't picture any situation where you could maintain a functional force of armor by having to not only kill the right tanks, but not have any more damage-in-need-of-repair occur to your tanks while you do so.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for pointing that out.

Griffin.

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

"+" is just the beginning. Expect to see "GriffinCheng76", "GriffinCheng(105)" or "GriffinChengA3E8" more should Forum problems occur again

[Pham911]

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

In so far as captured tanks go, Russians reworked captured PzIIIs and IVs into Su-76i and SU-122s (122s were later switched to T34 chassis). Clearly, the possibility was there.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but the Russians had a damn good reason to. They needed them after being hit well before Stalin was expecting(he wanted to be the attacker when the inevitable came, remember). Germany at this time still had good production and supply capabilities and wasn't exactly in dire need of scavanged tanks.

[Abbott]

Jeez, I can't wait for 1941 combat on the Eastern front with this TREMENDOUS game engine!!!!

[paullus]

I was reading "SS-Hell on the Eastern Front" last night and they did state that Das Reich was able to scavenge enough T-34's after the failed Russian Offensive Spring '42 to equip an entire battalion for a short period of time.

The unit performed well for a few months, but by October 1942 too many of the tanks were out of commission due to a lack of spare parts and regular wear and tear.

I also did some more research of scavenging and found that German artillery batteries were notorious for pressing captured Russian pieces into action, particularly 122 & 152mm guns. They had the advantage of being throw-away pieces, they used them until the ammo stock was expended, then spiked the guns and moved on. A real shoot and scoot operation.

Front line units, including a lot of recon battalions, used T-26's for patrols, to avoid arousing too much suspicion with the Russians that were being reconned.