Soviet Armor List in CM2

[Guest KwazyDog]

Tiger, thanks for the info on the IS-1, it is pretty much the same as what I have found thus far, though I am still looking for more

Dan

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

Independent question someone here might know the answer to - does anyone know a good URL or three for figures on AFV production by type, for all the different countries in WW II? There are lots of places with pretty pictures and a number with reasonable spec sheets, but the number of each made is not so easily found for all types...

[Mattias]

Eh, Kwazy, head right over to http://history.vif2.ru/ they have got what you need.

I think the man in charge of the site would be very interested to hear about CM's move into Russian.

M.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Tiger:

Anything to add?

BT-xx light tank series etc.

What about the Stuart? Or would that properly be on the armour list?

I'm glad someone else caught the PzKpfw III variant SU 76i.

What about Italian armour?

[Guest KwazyDog]

Hehe, I think he would too Mattias, especially considering he is part of the beta team

It is a great site with lots of good information there. There is an interesting report about the IS-1, and some combat actions where it took place. This is the only source where I have found such reports though, and would love to be able to back it up with other sources. The problem is in combat I think that the IS-1 and IS-2 would be easily mis-identified, so the more sources we can find on this, the better.

Dan

[Snake Eyes]

Originally posted by KwazyDog:

I thought it best to expand on my comment about the T-35 as Im sure its one everyone would like to take for a run, but it also unfortunately not one that is simply to put in due to its unique nature.

Let me suggest that Charles start with the T28. It has ONLY three turrets.

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

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

[Tiger]

Off the top of my head: IS-1, T-50, T-80, Tetrarch, T48, M-10, & M-18.

hunh, I have never heard whether the US shipped M-10s and M-18s to Russia. I imagine they would come to think about it.

forty-eight T-50's were produced in 1941, fifteen in 1942, none after that. Not sure about pre-1941 numbers.

T-80, 120 produced in 1943.

T-48 ??

IS-1, 107 total produced oct44 to dec44

[This message has been edited by Tiger (edited 01-23-2001).]

[Snake Eyes]

Originally posted by Tiger:

hunh, I have never heard whether the US shipped M-10s and M-18s to Russia. I imagine they would come to think about it??

Lend Lease M18: 5

Lend Lease M10: 52

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

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

[Guest KwazyDog]

Tiger, I think there were a few M-10's, though under 50 if I recall. I think there were very few M-18's...if I recall maybe only a couple that were used for testing, though I could be wrong, Id have to check.

Dan

[Tiger]

Yeah the Soviets did not like the lend-lease equipment too much, as it was considerably behind their tank technology. Poor armor, poor weapons mainly. The M-3 Lee nickname translates to "a coffin for seven brothers".

The 75mm and 76mm M-4 Shermans seem to have been received as "ok".

[Guest Mr. Johnson-<THC>-]

Didn't one of the Marders have a 76.2mm Russian gun but BTS decided to go with 75mm just to make things easier? I think the SU-76i is not needed as the 76M fullfills the role just fine.

[This message has been edited by Mr. Johnson-<THC>- (edited 01-24-2001).]

[109 Gustav]

Originally posted by KwazyDog:

Snake, its not that we are overlooking certain vehicles, but we do need to prioritise. The problem with the T-35 is that it would require significant coding to get it to function accurately and properly, which would take coding time away from more important tasks such as more detailed building representation.

Dan

What about the M3 then? That also had two main guns, and if the tank was in different degrees of hull down, the 75mm gun might be blocked. BTS will have to tackle this problem sooner or later if they want to do Africa, so why not solve the difficulty of multiple main guns now, and include the T-35?

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

Well my skiff's a twenty dollar boat, And I hope to God she stays afloat.

But if somehow my skiff goes down, I'll freeze to death before I drown.

And pray my body will be found, Alaska salmon fishing, boys, Alaska salmon fishing.

-Commercial fishing in Kodiak, Alaska

[PzKpfw 1]

Originally posted by Tiger:

hunh, I have never heard whether the US shipped M-10s and M-18s to Russia. I imagine they would come to think about it.

T-48 ??

Yes they did in the numbers someone else supplied. Yes the production numbers you give are correct. The T48 was a 57mm US TD. The T48 is more commonly refered to by its Soviet designation, the SU-57 US Lend Lease provided 650 T48's.

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 01-24-2001).]

[PzKpfw 1]

Well the Soviet's were alot more pleased with L*L equiptment then they ever let on publicly. Ie, the Sherman 76 was superior to thew T-34-85 in several areas, British Valantines & Matilidas which were light tanks by Soviet standards, were better armed & armored then their Soviet counter parts.

In fact the Matilda & Valentine were so reliable that they were used to train tank drivers till the end of the war because Soviet AFVs were mechanichly unreliable etc.

All this was kept secret for years so the State could keep downplaying the importance of Lend Lease during the war.

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 01-24-2001).]

[109 Gustav]

Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

Yes they did in the numbers someone else supplied. Yes the production numbers you give are correct. The T48 was a 57mm US TD. The T48 is more commonly refered to by its Soviet designation, the SU-57 US Lend Lease provided 650 T48's.

Regards, John Waters

Was it ever used in the US? Where can I learn more about it?

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

Well my skiff's a twenty dollar boat, And I hope to God she stays afloat.

But if somehow my skiff goes down, I'll freeze to death before I drown.

And pray my body will be found, Alaska salmon fishing, boys, Alaska salmon fishing.

-Commercial fishing in Kodiak, Alaska

[Guest KwazyDog]

Originally posted by 109 Gustav:

What about the M3 then? That also had two main guns, and if the tank was in different degrees of hull down, the 75mm gun might be blocked. BTS will have to tackle this problem sooner or later if they want to do Africa, so why not solve the difficulty of multiple main guns now, and include the T-35?

Comparing the M3 and the T-35 are too totally different problems when you take it from a coding perspective

The M3 has a hull gun and a main turret which is quite a straigh forward configuration. On the other hand, T-35 had 4 turrets, each of which could fire in different directions. On top of that the main gun could fire over the top of all 3 secondary turrets. The other turrest blocked partial arcs of fire from others *plus* 3 of her guns were somewhat AT capable. Add all this up and you get a code nightmare

Like I said though, she is not off the list. We just have higher priorities as far as coding time goes...time will tell

Dan

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

Well the Soviet's were alot more pleased with U*S equiptment then they ever let on publicly. Ie, the Sherman 76 was superior to thew T-34-85 in several areas, British Valantines & Matilidas which were light tanks by Soviet standards, were better armed & armored then their Soviet counter parts.

In fact the Matilda & Valentine were so reliable that they were used to train tank drivers till the end of the war because Soviet AFVs were mechanichly unreliable etc.

All this was kept secret for years so the State could keep downplaying the importance of Lend Lease during the war.

Regards, John Waters

This fits in with a Korean war line I have been following. Experienced Korean tankers, trained by Soviet and Communist Chinese trainers, were blooded in fighting against the Nationalist Chinese forces, who for the most part were left with real dogs in terms of armour after the was (M3 Lees, Valentines -- if it was given to the Chinese nationalists, it was because it was old and used up. The Communists including the Korean contingent of the communists after WW2 got new shiney T34-85s and really kicked butt.

So their trainers, mouthing the party line, told the Koreans that the T34 was "impervious" to American made weapons, and that American weapons that the Russians got in the war were all inferior junk. The Koreans believed them. Along comes the Korean war, and these former Communist warriors for the Chinese get to go back to Korea along with their tanks. Trundling in the open they run over Allied infantry hastily thrown in their path, mostly infantry but some M24s dug in, and they start to believe what the Chinese said. US equipment sucks.

Then they meet the M4A3E8 76+ with its better cross country, more reliable systems, its tungsten firing 76mm crewed by the same people who road those tanks into Berlin. Trained in mass armoured attack, and thinking the US tanks crap (they had only fought the M24) they attack like the E8 cannot harm them. In less than a week all the veteran Korean tank formations were dead and the US tank formations, although bloody from the fighting, were still standing.

[109 Gustav]

Originally posted by KwazyDog:

Comparing the M3 and the T-35 are too totally different problems when you take it from a coding perspective

The M3 has a hull gun and a main turret which is quite a straigh forward configuration. On the other hand, T-35 had 4 turrets, each of which could fire in different directions. On top of that the main gun could fire over the top of all 3 secondary turrets. The other turrest blocked partial arcs of fire from others *plus* 3 of her guns were somewhat AT capable. Add all this up and you get a code nightmare

Like I said though, she is not off the list. We just have higher priorities as far as coding time goes...time will tell

Dan

Oh. Not being a programmer, I had assumed they would be pretty much the same, but I guess you're right. Good luck with it, anyway.

Dug in M24s? Might as well dig in an M3 past its 75mm gun or take the engine out of a hellcat if you wanted to handicap a tank.

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

Well my skiff's a twenty dollar boat, And I hope to God she stays afloat.

But if somehow my skiff goes down, I'll freeze to death before I drown.

And pray my body will be found, Alaska salmon fishing, boys, Alaska salmon fishing.

-Commercial fishing in Kodiak, Alaska

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by 109 Gustav:

Oh. Not being a programmer, I had assumed they would be pretty much the same, but I guess you're right. Good luck with it, anyway.

Dug in M24s? Might as well dig in an M3 past its 75mm gun or take the engine out of a hellcat if you wanted to handicap a tank.

The allies dug in the M24s in the retreat to Pusan because while a good support tank, it was being chopped up trying to act like a medium prior to the E8 coming (and later, the Centurion and Pershing). It was also a way to force these tankers to stay and fight with the infantry who could not run away -- this was the same time that MP units were assigned what was euphemistically called "barrage" duty, which meant shooting fleeing US soldiers who ran before the order had been given to fall back. Digging in the tank also made them less vulnerable to the recoiless rifles being used by the Koreans, which were blowing sunlight through the M24 when it could not, because of the mountains, use its speed, or when it was assigned to the task of a medium instead of a screening task.

[Marco Bergman]

M3 Scout Car (lend lease)

STZ-3 Komsomolets armoured tractor

[Porajkl]

How about ZiS-57? With very potent 57mm gun the only vehicle to counter Tigers at longer ranges, when they start showing up in 42?

[Mattias]

Great to hear you have the people from "Russian Military Zone" with you Kwazy!

Hopefully their dedication to the subject will do a lot to maintain and further sharpen the edge of CM as it moves east.

M.

[109 Gustav]

Originally posted by Slapdragon:

It was also a way to force these tankers to stay and fight with the infantry who could not run away.

I figured this one was true. Only fair, I guess.

Digging in the tank also made them less vulnerable to the recoiless rifles being used by the Koreans, which were blowing sunlight through the M24 when it could not, because of the mountains, use its speed, or when it was assigned to the task of a medium instead of a screening task.

Good point. The M24 would be just as vulnerable to a reckless rifle as it would be to a T34, and there would be more rifles in Korea. I hadn't counted on the reduced mobility in the mountains. The M24 sure was the wrong tank for the wrong job then. Plus, with only old 2.5 inch bazookas, T34 commanders would have gotten really overconfident against infantry as well as tanks in the early days of Korea.

Anyone know where I can learn more about the SU-57/T48? Was it ever used in the US, or was it lend lease only?

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

Well my skiff's a twenty dollar boat, And I hope to God she stays afloat.

But if somehow my skiff goes down, I'll freeze to death before I drown.

And pray my body will be found, Alaska salmon fishing, boys, Alaska salmon fishing.

-Commercial fishing in Kodiak, Alaska

[Gregory Deych]

Originally posted by Bastables:

I'd prefer if the 41 and 42 were on there own and the diffrent cast and welded turret of the 41s were modeled. Another pretty please would be the 1940 version with the L11 7,62cm gun.

As you have mentioned, there were several variants of T34-76.

1) T34 M1940 - welded turret, L11 76.2L30.5 gun , with a vulnerable spot on the back of the turret. This was the spot through which the gun was installed in the bustle, and proved to be too weak. Other weak spots included the bow machinegun and the ivers hatch.

2) T34 M1941 - with F-32 76.2L31.5 gun. The track width was narrowed from 55 cm to 50 cm, but traction improved due to grooved track surfaces.

3) T34 M1942 - with either F32 of F34 76.2L41.3 gun. Cast , hexagonal turret. New transmission and air filters improved the performance, while radios were installed on all tanks for the first time. There were some modifications specific to the factory producing T34s. For example, the Leningrad T34s were produced with extra 15mm armor

4)T34 M1943 - no major changes, though the shape of the turret changed on some models.

There were also a small number of T34-57s manufactured (certainly less 50), and somewhat larger number of OT-34s (about 400).

[Gregory Deych]

Originally posted by KwazyDog:

Not sure about the T-35 guys, it appears it saw little combat if any. Some sources say it did around Moscow, and others say no, it was only used for internal security. I also have reference of the Germans never officially recording one knocked out.

Dan

Actually, according to the records of the 68th tank regiment by July 18,1941 they lost at least 7 tanks in battle. Most of the others were lost due to equipment breakdown, especially transmission and steering.

67th tank regiment does not list any battle losses, but for the same period most of their maintenance breakdowns occured in the neighborhood of Lvov. It's likely that they saw combat, unless they lost all their tanks before encountering Germans (unlikely, but not impossible).