Russian Tank Gun Accuracy

[rexford]

Amedeo Matteucci sent me the following web site address due to a story about 88mm Flak use against tanks during the Spanish Civil War (88mm HE demolished the tanks), but it has some good info on 45mm tank gun accuracy:

http://knox-www.army.mil/dtdd/armormag/ma99/2candil99.pdf

The 45mm accuracy tidbits are late in the article, they note that 45mm fire was very accurate beyond 1000m range, and that the gun sights for the 45mm gun provided for ranges out to 3000m!!!!!!

Jentz' books also note that T34 shots at ranges out to 1500m and beyond could be fairly accurate.

It is obvious that Russian tank optics, guns and crews could include some very good shooters, especially if a little projectile like the 45mm was able to hit beyond 1000m.

[Count Sessine]

I you have read Jentz' Panzertruppen, you read the opposite, that russian gunners (perhaps their optics too?) were really bad, and that german tank crews usually ignored russian tanks until they were 100% sure there weren't any AT guns around.

[Spook]

It's been my usual generalized view that Soviet WWII ordnance was pretty good, in fact having some of the very best in AP penetration like the 100mm AT gun. Here's what is related in the linked pdf file about the 45mm gun of the T-26B:

"The main armament of both the T-26 and BT-5 was the standard Soviet 45mm antitank gun M-1932/35, which fired an AP round with a muzzle velocity of 820 m/sec." That shot velocity seems to match well with those of the better German guns in CMBO.

(I don't know what it is comparably for the muzzle velocity of the 76mm gun on the early T-34/76 models, though.)

I'm less certain, however, as to the relative effectiveness of optics for Soviet tank guns (or even for towed AT guns). That the 45mm gun's sight provided a sight mark for 3000m doesn't tell me enough as to how accurate that sight was, or how many shells on average were needed to be fired to hit a target that far.

Of better use might be gun trial reports. In the past, Soviet gun trials have been cited here on Soviet gun penetration of German armor at some given range. Does someone here know of WWII-era trials as to indicate relative accuracies certain Soviet guns at various ranges?

[ 10-26-2001: Message edited by: Spook ]</p>

[Jeff Duquette]

Rexford:

How odd that you happened to bring this particular topic up so soon after my recent email to you .

The pdf link you provided portrays hand picked tank crews sent to Spain. Extrapolation of these Spanish Civil War crews training level, skill, and abilities should be done with some caution when applying them to the Red Army of 1941-42 as a whole.

From D. Glantz “Stumbling Colossus, The Red Army on the Eve of World War”. The book focuses on Red Army preparedness on the eve of Barbarossa. The following excerpt is derived from his chapter on Soviet Mechanized Forces.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>However, poor training and abysmal Soviet logistical and service support negated the Soviet numerical and technological advantage, as did frequent problems with the technical automotive and drive systems (engines and transmissions) on the Soviet models. Numerous archival documents indicate that, on the eve of war, many of the older Soviet model tanks had been allowed to fall into disrepair and the new Soviet tanks often were not even bore-sighted and, hence, could not fire accurately. Furthermore, many tank crews had not received requisite driver and crew training. All of this, together with the surprise nature of the German offensive, negated any Soviet numerical or qualitative advantages. Numerous German combat reports verified this fact. In the end, superior German training, organization, and logistics negated these Soviet advantages. So successful and overconfident were the Germans that they did not fully appreciate the new Soviet armored vehicles and begin developing countermeasures against them until fall 1941.<hr></blockquote>

It should also be realized that there were some well-trained crews as well as seasoned crews in the Red Army of 1941. However, as the Army contained some 23,000 tank crews on the eve of Barbarossa, the few hundred crews sent to Spain in the late 30’s represent a tiny fraction of the Red Army tank crews. Throw in a couple hundred more combat experienced crews in the Siberian Army Group (from the Kalkin Gol rampage) and that’s about it for crews that have been involved in tank vs tank combat.

[ 10-26-2001: Message edited by: Jeff Duquette ]</p>

[PzKpfw 1]

I believe Rex was refering to an German AA report from Pz Truppen where an T-34 sat at 1200ms outside a German tank bivouac & picked off PzKpfw III's at will, because the PzKpfw III's 5.cm tank guns were useless vs the T-34 at that range. The signifigance of this, is the engagement range, Ie, most old articles on Soviet optics, as well as German comments, basicly put max shot fall visible range at 800m etc.

Recently released material in both German & Russian seem to refute that Soviet optics were as poor, as we have previously been led to believe also remeber the Soviet's were copying the British Mk.4 optics as well.

Regards, John Waters

[Jeff Duquette]

I think he is implying several things here John. But thanks for providing us with your own interpretation of Rexfords thoughts.

[Jeff Duquette]

John Said: "Recently released material in both German & Russian seem to refute that Soviet optics were as poor, as we have previously been led to believe also remeber the Soviet's were copying the British Mk.4 optics as well."

British Army Foreign Equipment Reports generated after the war make no special comment on the superior quality of Soviet tank optics. So presumably they weren't anything special. Average perhaps. Or do these newly surfaced "Soviet Reports" imply a superior quality in Soviet WWII tank optics? What sort of test data is presented regarding their quality? Were the gunners optics tested against German, American or British optics for a gunners ability to quickly and accurately lay on his target…time taken for lay, accuracy of lay, deviation of lay.

[Amedeo]

Just a quick note (after all I'm indirectly responsable for the starting of this thread ):

you all know of the evaluation of T-34 and KV tanks at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds during WW2.

http://history.vif2.ru/library/archives/stat/stat7.html

You will notice that the Americans were positively impressed from the Soviet tank optics (whathever this means).

For what concernes the 'long' range of the 45mm gun, I would like to point out that the main reason, for the Soviets, to choose a 45mm weapon instead of a 37mm one was the ability to fire effective HE shells (after all the T-26 was an infantry support tank). So those ranges are not so amazing if referred to direct fire against soft massed targets.

Regards,

Amedeo

[Iron Chef Sakai]

in 1941, the soviets had the best tanks in the world, hands down, i would take a t-34 over a pzIII anyday. the Soviets main problem not only stemmed from a less then battle hardened tank corps, was the fact that the Sovets, as with the rest of the world lacked the organazation and sophistication that the german army had. Panzer crews had radios, where tanks could communicate, and make adjustmejnts on the battle field, where the only way soviet tankers could get a good look at the battle field was if the tank commander popped his head out of the hatch and flashed some garbled hand singnals to the tank next to him, wich often ended up in a bad way. i would also like to add that the T-34 tank design was made by chriostie, an american,by the name of CHristie, hence the christie suspensionon the t-34, wide tracks and sloped armor inovations. the american army was too cheap to buy his designb so he sold it to the russians i beleive in the very late 20's or early 30's. the manuverability and the ability to adjust, as well as the superb manuevering tactics developed by the german high command made it impossible for the soviets to stop the blitz across their country. the harsh winter of 41 allowed the soviets time to rethink their strategies and make the adjustments necessary to hold out, and build up their forces in the east at relocated factories which was made possible by the rest of the allies, and vice versa

[Iron Chef Sakai]

i forgot to add the BT series tanks also used the christie suspension, they wer ehte first equiped with it

[Vergeltungswaffe]

All of the above being why it will be just as much fun and challenge to take Pzkw III's against T-34/KV-1 as it is to take M4's against Tiger I/II.

[Skipper]

Harsh winter was the last thing responsible for the failure of Barbarossa. By the late October Barbarossa was already a certainly doomed enterprise. The only reason somebody could have thought otherwise was fog of war.

Because the same reserves that were used to mount a counteroffensive at the battle for Moscow could have been committed within and around Moscow.

Besides, really low temperatures (lower than -20C) were happening in December. That's when the german offensive was already stalled as it was.

[Andrew H.]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

i would also like to add that the T-34 tank design was made by chriostie, an american,by the name of CHristie, hence the christie suspensionon the t-34, wide tracks and sloped armor inovations. the american army was too cheap to buy his designb so he sold it to the russians i beleive in the very late 20's or early 30's. <hr></blockquote>

Christie did not design the T-34. The T-34 did use a (modified)Christie suspension, but the rest of the tank was Soviet design. The reason the T-34 was revolutionary is not because of its suspension, but because of its combination of thick sloped armor and a 76mm gun that was an effective AT and anti-personnel weapon. By contrast, the Germans -- indeed, most combatants at this time -- had separate ground support (Pz IV w/short 75) and anti-tank (38(t), Pz III w/37 or short 50) AFVs, in a sort of tank-destroyer pattern. Sometime countries tried to make dual purpose tanks, but ended up with cumbersome things like the Grant (37mm gun in turret plus 75mm gun in sponson mount) or the Char B, with a 47mm (I think) gun in a turret and a hull mounted 75.

The T-34, of course, made things much simpler.

Christie did design some tanks, but his tanks were much more similar to the soviet BT series -- fast, lightly armored, with the peculiar ability to drive on roads without treads. The BT tanks were good for light scouting tanks, but they weren't revolutionary.

I don't mean to downplay the importance of suspension: the T-34 had a very good suspension, which gave it good cross country flotation. Much of this is due to Christie's ssupension; some of it is due to the soviet designers being smart enough to choose a wide track width. The Sherman would have been better off with a Christie style suspension than with the horizontal volute suspension they started off with.

But Christie didn't design the T-34.

[Spook]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

I don't mean to downplay the importance of suspension: the T-34 had a very good suspension, which gave it good cross country flotation. Much of this is due to Christie's ssupension; some of it is due to the soviet designers being smart enough to choose a wide track width. The Sherman would have been better off with a Christie style suspension than with the horizontal volute suspension they started off with.

<hr></blockquote>

On that note, I returned to Amedeo's linked article relating Aberdeen trials of the T-34. (BTW, Amedeo, good link for the overall site. I gotta bookmark that one before CMBB rolls out.)

This is what was claimed to be said of the optics:

"The general opinion: the best construction (please notice - the best construction doesn't mean the best at all - Valera) in the world. Incomparable with any existing tanks or any under development."

Interesting. Definitely fuels the fire, so to speak, as to seek out more information on relative quality of the optics for the Soviet 76mm gun. (It doesn't help a lot, though, in that specific details or quotations of test officials are not shown.)

But here is what is said of the T-34 suspension:

"On the T-34, it is poor. The Christie's suspension was tested long time ago by the Americans, and unconditionally rejected (American 'Shermans' and 'General Lees' had very poor suspension as well. At the same time the British used Christie's suspension and were quite satisfied - Valera). On our tanks, as a result of the poor steel on the springs, it very quickly (unclear word) and as a result clearance is noticeably reduced. On the KV the suspension is very good."

Hmmmm. Poor suspension? It seems to be argued so above on the premise that poor manufacturing practices would result in low vehicle ground clearance. However, this statement doesn't clarify as to if the suspension would've been sufficiently effective with better manufacturing control.

On such a note, this further calls to question as to how well assessed the added statements really are on the T-34 gun optics, in this particular article. IMO, there isn't as much "clarity" as I would prefer in describing either technical issue about what was right or wrong.

(BTW, Andrew, as a niggle, the production Shermans first used vertical-volute suspension, not horizontal or HVSS which came later.)

[ 10-26-2001: Message edited by: Spook ]</p>

[Iron Chef Sakai]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Skipper:

Harsh winter was the last thing responsible for the failure of Barbarossa. By the late October Barbarossa was already a certainly doomed enterprise. The only reason somebody could have thought otherwise was fog of war.

Because the same reserves that were used to mount a counteroffensive at the battle for Moscow could have been committed within and around Moscow.

Besides, really low temperatures (lower than -20C) were happening in December. That's when the german offensive was already stalled as it was.<hr></blockquote>

in the soviet union the climate is very harsh, winter sets in much earlier then in this country, i live in newengland and october can be quite cold, so picture being that deep into russian with summer cloths and thats all,go hang around outside with a light shirt and jeans in say 30 degree weather all day and night and tell me how you feel. the germans could ahve acheived a fast vicotry as planned if the operation was not stalled a couple months for the reason of germany bailing out mussolini in the balkans and greece. even so Hitler's order not to give up an inch of ground once the thrust stalled proved a grave mistake, wich was the case for many a senseless battle that took place in the soviets advantage because of hitlers stubborness and stupidity. the fact that the germans faired so well considering the awful decision imposed upon them by hitler himself i think is a testement to how effective a fighting force the germans were in that era

[PJungnitsch]

I did some searching on Soviet optical companies and came up with:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>LOMO® – abbreviation for Russian words Leningrad Optic and Mechanical Company.

The history of LOMO® started in 1936 when the PROGRESS factory located in the Soviet Russia began to fabricate microscopes with the aid of the ZEISS company, Jena, Germany. First microscopes were exact copies of the Zeiss microscopes but by 1938 the PROGRESS factory developed models of its own.<hr></blockquote>

Maybe wartime Soviet optics were based on German designs to some extent?

[Jeff Duquette]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Amedeo Said: just a quick note (after all I'm indirectly responsable for the starting of this thread ): you all know of the evaluation of T-34 and KV tanks at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds during WW2.

http://history.vif2.ru/library/archives/stat/stat7.html

You will notice that the Americans were positively impressed from the Soviet tank optics (whatever this means).<hr></blockquote>

Oh no…not this report rearing its ugly head…yet again. This thing has been kicked around on this forum as well as other forums since it was first posted at The Russian Battlefield". You realize of course that a T34 was also sent to England at the same time as the Aberdeen T34 and pulled apart by folks at Bovington. And again referring to their rather voluminous report on WWII Soviet Equipment (obtainable from Bovington) there is no special comments regarding how great Soviet optics were. Neither is there any "gee Russian Optics sucked" either. Compare this with reports from both British and American Sources commenting on how great German optics were.

The references to the T34's Armor metallurgy in the Russian Battlefield Report make little sense, as Aberdeen did not conduct metallurgical testing during this time period. Samples of the T34 armor (as well as armor samples from a KV-1 that was obtained at the same time) were shipped to Watertown Arsenal for evaluation. I have a copy of this original report and it bears little resemblance to the Russian Battlefield's "Aberdeen Report". I suspect there are translation errors present in this report…leading one to believe that this thing was translated from English to Russian sent over to the Soviets during the war. Some how Valera Potapov obtained an archival copy of this report and subsequently translated it back from Russian to English.

As has already been stated by Spook, there is no indication as to how these conclusions regarding how amazing Soviet optics were arrived at. Nor is there even an indication as to what "optics expert" may have made these comments. Finally there is no data supporting the statement. Were side-by-side tests conducted with a Sherman and T34. Were live fire tests conducted to determine speed of lay, accuracy of lay and deviation of lay using both a T34 and Sherman's optics?

But regardless of whether we believe Soviet Optics were the best thing since sliced bread or not, if a tank crew has not been trained or his weapons properly calibrated, the best optics in the world will have little impact on gunnery.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

i didn'nt mean to omply that he designed the t-34, i just meant that he had a major inluence on the bt series, and the bt series led ot the development of the T-34, he far from developed the t-34 but he got the ball rolling

[Jeff Duquette]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>The history of LOMO® started in 1936 when the PROGRESS factory located in the Soviet Russia began to fabricate microscopes with the aid of the ZEISS company, Jena, Germany. First microscopes were exact copies of the Zeiss microscopes but by 1938 the PROGRESS factory developed models of its own.<hr></blockquote>

Interesting. Easy to believe as well. Other Soviet industry ala tractor factors were basically pre-fabs sent to the USSR by the United States during 30's. Factory construction seemed to have been conducted under the supervision of American Engineers as well American contractors. Tractor works are only a hope skip and a jump away from a tank works.

However it is also fairly common to find references to the crudity of Soviet War Time equipment. See Dmitriy Loza's assessment of the Sherman Tank relative to his experience with the T34. This crudity was no doubt a reflection of the extreme conditions the Soviets were facing during the war. The Soviets lost over 30,000 artillery pieces in the first 6 months of the war. Another 20,000 tanks were lost in the first six months of the war. Combine these huge losses with critical industry either being over-run, or being picked up and moved via railroad to the Urals. War material output was stretched to the limit. Quality no doubt suffered in order to meet the unremitting hunger of the front for more tanks, more artillery pieces, more anti-tank guns, more anti-aircraft guns. All of those weapons require optics. Crudity and the construction of high quality optical instruments are perhaps mutually exclusive?

Ziess had a 93 year history of manufacturing quality optics prior to the outbreak of WWII. Soviet Ziess -LOMO -- had a history of 3 yrs? How much of that 3 yr experience involved construction of Military Optics? If I recall correctly Ziess had been manufacturing rangefinders and binoculars for the German Army since at least the 1880's.

[Skipper]

AFAIK, LOMO was not the first, or the best quality, or the biggest volume optics plant in the country. But I do agree that, all factors in mind, soviet optics could not possibly be better than german. Just as obviously, they were not drastically worse, and on the outcome of the whole story - good enough.

> in the soviet union the climate is very harsh,

pray, tell me. BUt while uyou ae enlightening me, plse keep in mind that I lived there for the better part of my life, most of the time - in really harsh climate, but for almost 10 years in Moscow, too.

> winter sets in much earlier then in this

> country,

In 1941, October was mild (iirc, never colder than -10), and even November was not that harsh. December and January were rather cold (hitting -35 on a few occasions).

> hang around outside with a light shirt and

> jeans in say 30 degree weather all day and

> night and tell me how you feel.

Oh, come on! German uniform was not "light short and jeans", of course. In fact, anything upto -15C should be quite livable in that uniform.

> the germans could ahve acheived a fast vicotry

> as planned if the operation was not stalled a

> couple months for the reason of germany bailing

> out mussolini in the balkans and greece.

They couldn't. Starting in May would help, but hardly help enough. That's the whole point of argument. When they were stopped, they were not anywhere as close to the victory as they thought they were. Soviets had an ace up their sleeve (reserves) and even loss of Moscow would not be fatal, IMHO.

> the fact that the germans faired so well

> considering the awful decision imposed upon

> them by hitler himself i think is a testement

> to how effective a fighting force the germans

> were in that era

On that we can agree

[Iron Chef Sakai]

the only soviet ace up their sleeve was yes reserves, wich would not have mattered if Hitler allowed his gernals to do their jobs. Stalin learned the hard way, fortunatly for us, Hitler did not. the germans had summer uniforms, no they could not sustain themselves in those temperatures outfitted in the cloths they were wearing, and yes somehow they lasted the winter fighting off one russian counter attack after another. if barbaross was not delayed, it is speculation, but facts point to the complete collapse of the soviet union. though moscow would have been a hard fought victory, it could have been achieved if they made it there earlier. vehicles and artillary got bogged down just miles from moscow, you need to read more up on how much the elements factored in on the barbarossa in 41-42

[Iron Chef Sakai]

a loss of the soviet capital would have been very fatal, also if hitler did not order death squads behind the advancing front lines to murder ukranians, the ukranians were willing to fight for germany and saw them as liberators early on, this would have helped germany a great deal. if moscow was lost and stalingrad and leningrad, the russians would be living in trees, central asia was like the stone age back then, heck there were'nt even paved roads in the soviet union in the populated areas.

[PJungnitsch]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Ziess had a 93 year history of manufacturing quality optics prior to the outbreak of WWII. Soviet Ziess -LOMO -- had a history of 3 yrs? How much of that 3 yr experience involved construction of Military Optics? If I recall correctly Ziess had been manufacturing rangefinders and binoculars for the German Army since at least the 1880's.[/QB]<hr></blockquote>

Good point. Thinking about it, this was also interesting:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>In 1945 Russia captured Jena, and the Zeiss factory, and in 1946 transported the equipment, technicians, and engineers to Leningrad...... The German captives were repatriated in 1953 and 1954 (some stayed in Russia). In those eight years they trained an entire work-force. The present workers like to brag that their teachers were taught by Germans. And they are quick to point out that they have learned not only skills, but an entire work ethic. They consider the quality of their workmanship to be as important as their wages and other rewards. Cooperation continued with the East German Zeiss (or Aus Jena) factory until recently.<hr></blockquote>

If the Soviets optical industry would have been so good during the war there would have been no need to use so much German technology and skills post-war. The plant built in the 30's may have been more of a 'taster' that whetted their appetite.

[PJungnitsch]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>However it is also fairly common to find references to the crudity of Soviet War Time equipment. See Dmitriy Loza's assessment of the Sherman Tank relative to his experience with the T34. This crudity was no doubt a reflection of the extreme conditions the Soviets were facing during the war.<hr></blockquote>

This I've heard a lot and only buy up to a point. Communism is just not good at a)innovation, and b)quality stuff.

Just look at what they built during peace time. Lada cars, Belarus tractors, Ural motorcycles.... all crudely made, poorly designed and unreliable, and usually based on some old Western plan they got hold of somehow.

Not saying they were not capable of some brillant designs, but the system itself did not favor them.

[Jeff Duquette]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>In 1945 Russia captured Jena, and the Zeiss factory, and in 1946 transported the equipment, technicians, and engineers to Leningrad...... The German captives were repatriated in 1953 and 1954 (some stayed in Russia). In those eight years they trained an entire work-force. The present workers like to brag that their teachers were taught by Germans. And they are quick to point out that they have learned not only skills, but an entire work ethic. They consider the quality of their workmanship to be as important as their wages and other rewards. Cooperation continued with the East German Zeiss (or Aus Jena) factory until recently.<hr></blockquote>

Another interesting bit Machine...thanks for posting it.