multi-turret tanks please

[Wol]

I have to ask... Please since you can include multi-turreted tanks in a modded cmbb engine (as in CMAK), please please consider putting the T-28 and T35 in CMBB, otherwise we will have to wait years for them. Would you consider it if enough people thought it was important?

Wol

[Sublime]

damn... give it up. Just let em finish with the bugs and move on, it's not going to happen.

[Baron von Beergut]

Whether it will happen or not, no need to shoot down his wishes. Must be Oddball's tank driver -- "always with the negative waves!"

Maybe once CMAK is out maybe someone will make a mod to hold him over till CM2 finishes... BvB

[Amedeo]

Wol,

if this can be of any consolation to you, I second your request.

But I know that this is not going to happen simply because is perfectly right for a game company to realize that they cannot go on indefinitely with improving a given game, and then act accordingly.

I miss the multiturreted tanks in CMBB, but BFC stance is perfectly legitimate and logical.

Regards,

A.

[Wol]

I think that a patch near or soon after the release of CMAK might be possible. I really missed the M3s too. I used Valentines for my Kerch landing campaign, (although T34 might have been better!)

Some people worry about trivial things like Tigers and Panthers, I worry about the important stuff!

[CombinedArms]

While we're on to multi-turret tanks--just how useful--tactically, was the second turret.

The obvious assumptions would be: not too useful because:

1) it was such a shortlived experiment

2) the 37mm on the Grant/Lee seems too wimpy to do much by the time it was introduced.

But were there any positive outcomes for the multiturret AFVs?

[CombinedArms]

While we're on to multi-turret tanks--just how useful--tactically, was the second turret.

The obvious assumptions would be: not too useful because:

1) it was such a shortlived experiment

2) the 37mm on the Grant/Lee seems too wimpy to do much by the time it was introduced.

But were there any positive outcomes for the multiturret AFVs?

[Sergei]

French Char B1 and American M3 Lee had a 37mm gun turret and a 75mm gun in a side sponson. At least with the M3 it was just an interim solution: the structure was found unsuitable to support a big turret with a heavy gun, while a 37mm AT gun alone was too wimpy at that time. M4 came into production later, making M3 obsolete.

Russians followed the British land battleship concept with their T-28 and T-35 tanks. T-28 had a 76.2mm gun in the main turret and two MG turrets. T-35 had a crew of 12, read about their duties from here (Battlefield.ru). It had three gun turrets and two MG turrets and was very impractical.

My judgment is, T-28 and M3 Lee were okay. They were not superb, but that was not just because of being multi-turreted. T-28 came into production in 1930 so by 1941 it was just out-dated. And M3 just was the best the US had at a time, unless you take Stuart with its 37mm gun. Char B1 had more problems, maybe a better engine could have helped it. Then again, most French designs proved catastrophic in 1940. T-35 was IMO the worst out of these. It was based on WWI thinking and I just can't think of any good things to say about it or its performance in 1941.

[Doghouse Reily]

If the 37mm is nearly as good as it is in AH's

Tobruk it prove highly effective againist German

MkIII's in the desert.

[Wol]

A few thoughts ... (raves really)

The Char B1bis had a highly effective 47mm gun for AT defence, and a nasty 75mm gun for attacking infantry. Its main drawbacks were short range (87 miles on a good day) hopelessly overburdended commander, and high silhouette.

Early Churchills had a 3" howitzer in the bow, and the T100 soviet prototypes had two turrets, one with a 45 mm gun and one 76 mm gun.

Many tanks had machine gun turrets (consider early cruiser and crusader tanks. Their chief advantage was wider arcs of independent fire. Their disadvantage was that they were very cramped (Oh what a joy in the desert!),- required a whole extra crew member for only 1 extra mg firepower, and the sub-turrets were usually thinly armoured (and hand traveresed). When armour needed improving they also represented weak points in the armour and served as shot traps. (Mind you the T-28E had additional armour on its sub turrets!).

"Russians followed the British land battleship concept with their T-28 and T-35 tanks."

There is no evidence that this is the case as far as I know.

"T-28 had a 76.2mm gun in the main turret and two MG turrets."

Later models also had the longer L10 gun 26 calibres long, rather nasty!, and more had applique armour added to the front bringing it up to 80mm thick.

" T-35 had a crew of 12, read about their duties from here ... It had three gun turrets and two MG turrets and was very impractical."

The T-35 also had a 3 speed powered main turret with 4 (yes 4) man crew. The commander actually commanded, the others were gunner, loader, and radio operator. he had intercom with seven of the other crew members, There was a proper turret basket, and the 45mm gun sub-turrets were also powered. The vehicle was not fatigueing to drive because of its hydroneumatic assisted steering. It was well armoured for its day, and well liked. For an internal tour try here.[http://www.kithobbyist.com/AFVInteriors/t35/t35a.html]

In many ways it was far more spohisticated than the KV tank which replaced it. For a distant action tank intended (experimentally) for deep battle it was about as good as you could get in the mid 1930s. It's main problems were its high track length which made turning dificult, it's lack of power reserve and poor obstacle crossing ability, and great height, poor access (all hatches being on top), and general unreliability (although no worse than other contemporary soviet tanks). By 1941 it's armour was not up to that required of a tank of it's role, although, at 35mm or so it was better arnmoured than the pz III and IV.

"T-35 was IMO the worst out of these. It was based on WWI thinking and I just can't think of any good things to say about it or its performance in 1941."

Its role has nothing whatsoever to do with WWI, it was the product of theorists such as Tuchachevskii, Triandfilov and others, and represented the highest development of operational theory coming out of the 1930s. Arguably, deep battle endures, blitzkreig (whatever that means) does not.

There were too few, and they had to make long approach marches under hostile air attack. They were hard to recover when disabled. It is remarkable that 8MK had the impact it did! More remarkable is their continued use through the defense of moscow and the winter counter offensive.

"...Char B1 had more problems, maybe a better engine could have helped it. Then again, most French designs proved catastrophic in 1940."

The char Lourd 2C were too old, and they were all destroyed enroute to the front in an air attack. The B1 bis suffered more from poor deployment, dispersion and lack of fuel than anything else. French tanks were not designed primarily for use against tanks (and indeed most tanks were not), Problems with being on the strategic defensive were as much a problem as German tanks. The French counter attack at Stonne was a pretty good effort in the circumstances. The performance of the DLMs on the fron of 1st army was fair given their orgamistaion and strategic role.

[MikeyD]

WOL writes "...otherwise we will have to wait years".

I'm even more of a pessimist. I'd be genuinely surprised if BFC ever decided to return to already covered territory. Unless you can think of another theater of operation to place the T28 and T38 in, I'd say your wait for those vehicles to show up will be INFINITELY long!

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Wol:

A few thoughts ... (raves really)

The Char B1bis had a highly effective 47mm gun

Oh yes, 47mm. But was it really that effective? From wargames I have a feeling that it's not on par with the British 2 pounder, but I have no real idea.

"Russians followed the British land battleship concept with their T-28 and T-35 tanks."

There is no evidence that this is the case as far as I know.

True. Should maybe say, used a concept similar to that.

The T-35 also had a 3 speed powered main turret with 4 (yes 4) man crew. The commander actually commanded, the others were gunner, loader, and radio operator. he had intercom with seven of the other crew members, There was a proper turret basket, and the 45mm gun sub-turrets were also powered. The vehicle was not fatigueing to drive because of its hydroneumatic assisted steering. It was well armoured for its day, and well liked.

You make it sound almost like if it was good...

"T-35 was IMO the worst out of these. It was based on WWI thinking and I just can't think of any good things to say about it or its performance in 1941."

Its role has nothing whatsoever to do with WWI, it was the product of theorists such as Tuchachevskii, Triandfilov and others, and represented the highest development of operational theory coming out of the 1930s.

But just how was a T-35 supposed to help in that? Okay, so I can see it penetrating the enemy lines (not really), and then it going deep with all those turrets shooting at everything... or maybe it gets stuck to a gradient/rock/tree stump/dead hedgehog on the way.

To me it represents more of the WWI kind of "hey let's pack everything we've got in the arsenal and the kitchen sink into one giant tank and see if can move" thinking. It is impressive for early 1930's, but bad mobility makes it useless and certainly not worth the price (which I don't know but can estimate to be rather high, including all the crew necessitated). T-28 proved to be a far more succesful design, which must have been acknowledged considering the very low production figures for T-35.

Speaking of prices, is there any information available on the relative production costs of T-26's, BT's, T-28's and other pre-war Soviet tanks?

[Priest]

Originally posted by Wol:

"Russians followed the British land battleship concept with their T-28 and T-35 tanks."

There is no evidence that this is the case as far as I know.

"At the beginning of the 1930's, when widespread investigation into the field of AFVs ws being carried out in the Soviet Union, the Red Army staff intended vehicles of the heavy, multi-turreted type to operate as a shock force when breaking through enemy defensive positions. This required the use of the "Bronenoster" (Ironclads) of immense dimensions and having extraordinary firepower. Based on the general philosophy of the British A-1 "Independent" tank (a speciman was never actually purchased), the 36.4 ton (37,000kg) prototype of the T-35 was manufactured."

- Tanks of the World - MBI Publishing - David Miller - 2000

[Wol]

Originally posted by Sergei:

"...was it [47mm gun]really that effective? From wargames I have a feeling that it's not on par with the British 2 pounder, but I have no real idea."

Off the cuff (really off the cuff CMBB gives

2pdr 75mm @ 100m

50/L42 71mm @ 100m

47mm 67mm @ 100m

Not bad, and better than short 75 or 37mm

"But just how was a T-35 supposed to help in that? Okay, so I can see it penetrating the enemy lines (not really), and then it going deep with all those turrets shooting at everything... or maybe it gets stuck to a gradient/rock/tree stump/dead hedgehog on the way."

I think the biggest obstacle are the hedgehogs.

It is not designed as a a sort of predecessor to the Elefant. It is optimized for use in what now would be called the Operation Manouver Group. And would most likely be part of the exploitation echeleon. From a tactical point of view, In the early 1930s it was part of the distant action group,

'DD (distant action)tank groups of at least two companies has the mission of operating against enemy artillery and other distant tragets and disorganizing the enemy rear.' D.M.Glantz The Soviet Conduct of Tacticl Maneuver .

They might later (post 1936) have formed part of forward detachments, and might have attacked first, but their role was to keep going and aim for distant targets. The idea was to attack the enemy over the whole depth of the tactical zone with air artillery, and infantry and tanks. Not attack each position in temporal succesion. When this had been accomplished, the exploitation forces with their own missions, with their own distant action groups convert tactical success into operational success. Clear as mud?

It did not work that way in practice in 1941 because of the well known shortcoming in the soviet army. In any case AT defences had improved from ATRs and field guns firing HE to something much more dangerous. Not the end, but the value in such costly vehicles was greatly diminished.

" It is impressive for early 1930's, but bad mobility makes it useless and certainly not worth the price (which I don't know but can estimate to be rather high, including all the crew necessitated). T-28 proved to be a far more succesful design, which must have been acknowledged considering the very low production figures for T-35."

Absoloutely. Battlefield .ru states "The production of the T-35A was extremely expensive: a single tank cost 525,000 rubles - as much as nine BT-5 light tanks. This was definitive reason why its manufacture was cancelled."

Oh and yes some people do claim it was a copy of, or inspired by the Vickers Independent. This is, as far as I can tell presumption.

[Priest]

Originally posted by Wol:

Oh and yes some people do claim it was a copy of, or inspired by the Vickers Independent. This is, as far as I can tell presumption.

Well seeing as how the Russians used the FT-17 for their MS tanks and the Christie tank as the basis for their BT tanks it would make a logical sense if they used the British concept and basic designs for their own "Landships". The concept was originally British, going as far as the department responsible with tank design and production being more similiar to it's naval counterpart than it's army counterpart in many ways. If you have information that proves otherwise please share, I am always interested in free knowledge.