OZ77 Posted May 1, 2003 Share Posted May 1, 2003 10,11,18,37,38,39 guards corps. 32, 33, 34, 35, 36,37,38,39,40,41 guards divisions 8 airbone corps 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted May 1, 2003 Share Posted May 1, 2003 OZ77 is only giving 1/2 pf the story. June 1941 there were 5 Airborne Corps, 1st through the 5th. Each was short people and the infamous light tanks due to a MANPOWER and TANK shortage. originally each corp was to have 32 tanks per company, due to the shortage, they had 10. By September 1941, these units were wiped out in the fighting, and the Russians ordered 5 more Corps formed. A few small drops around Moscow took place, but in June 1942, these formations were changed to regular infantry divisions, and designated Guards due to the fighting around Stalingrad. Autumn of 1942, the order went out to train paratroops again, and 3 Brigades were formed, but again converted to regular infantry, altho they kept their "paratroop" name, they were in name only. May 1943 again the Russians had to rebuild their paratroops, 20 Brigades were formed, only 3 stayed paratroops due to the rest being changed to Guards Divisions. The Russians gave up on Airbourne operations in 1943, after the diaster of landing troops near Dnestr. They Russians did not even have parachutes for heavy equipment until 1943! Their idea was to drop lightly armed troops onto an airfield where the heavy equipment would be flown in by tb-3. Obviously, this never happened. The bottom line, the figures shown by the revisionists are off by a small factor of 10! The Guards designations did not go to all the airborne troops from June 1941, but the troops that were tried to be formed afterwards! The troops that formed had to be trained, so much for the Million men ready to go. Sources: Red Army Handbook By the way, on page 1944, they mention the LACK of transport for airborne troops in June 1941. Soviet Night Operations in World War II Zhukov, Georgiy K. Vospominaniya i razmyshleniya Rune 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted May 1, 2003 Author Share Posted May 1, 2003 I just double-checked the 37mm gun stats in the game. The game's BT-2 is given a 37mm gun with a 'standard' 45 caliber length and a wimpy 30mm penetration at 100m -- not much better than its 29mm penetration at 500m (why are the numbers so close?)! But the 'Russian Battlefield' website says the BT-2 mounted a longer 60 cal length weapon -- the site's gun stats has a 66.7 cal length (measured to include the chamber to the breech face?) with an observed 58mm of 90 degree homogeneous armor penetrated at 100m. That's almost TWICE what's in the game! Still, if we agree the BT-2 should have the same 45 cal length barrel as the anti-tank gun the game's 29mm penetration at 500m is still less than the Russian Battlefield website stats with an (admitedly estimated) 35mm penetration at 500m. This number is very much more in line with the in-game German 37mm/L45 Pak with its 38mm at 500m penetration. As for Russian 45mm AP tendency to shatter, one shell type's problems don't automatically translate into another shell's problems. Perhaps we haven't heard about Russian 37mm shattering because of the dearth of reference matrial on the subject, or maybe we haven't heard about it because the Russian 37mm didn't HAVE a shatter problem. The more I dig the more I think the BT-2 should at least match the Stuart for penetration values, and the anti-tank gun should be nudged closer to the 37mm Pak weapon. If you're worried about unbalancing the game, perhaps the accuracy of these guns could be dropped further to reflect (theoretically) crappy optics. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted May 1, 2003 Share Posted May 1, 2003 MikeyD, I have been burning through all my books and doing major searches, but amazingly there is little to no information on the Russian 37mm at-gun. I will continue to search.... Only information I have found so far, is conflicting. The Russian 37mm AP round is marked as a UBR-167, but I also saw it marked as a 25mm Shell. Not sure which one is correct. Rune [ May 01, 2003, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: rune ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted May 1, 2003 Author Share Posted May 1, 2003 Yup, I just stumbled across this obscure corner of the 'Russian Battlefield' site yesterday: http://www.battlefield.ru/guns/defin_4.html That's ALL the Russian 37mm gun info I've ben able to locate, except for the gun overview in my rattly old 1970's hobby book. Amazing, ain't it, we can find so little on this gun when we can probably find the 10 sites cataloging thread diameter to the screws that held down the Tiger I's hull deck! [ May 01, 2003, 02:39 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meach Posted May 1, 2003 Share Posted May 1, 2003 Can BTS make the 37mm gun better or change anything with the new patch cos MikeyD has went to an awful lot of bother to try and make it more realistic. I hope that his searching pays off and the changes are made. Good luck. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted May 1, 2003 Author Share Posted May 1, 2003 *But then again, I might be wrong. I think I may have read too many of Rexford's posts. H'es having a bad influence on me! [ May 01, 2003, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 Actually I found a comment in Red Army Handbook and a web site that say the same thing. "The Red Army on the outset of the war in 1941 was armed primarily with a single type of anti-tank gun, the 45mm Model 1937. This was a derivative of the German Rheinmetall 37mm Pak 36, the standard German Anti-tank gun of the period, which had been manufactured in the Soviet Union under license since 1931 as the 37mm anti-tank model 1930. The Red Army desired a calibre both to improve anti-armour performance and so as to have a which could fire a useful high explosive projectile. The German 37mm was too small for a good high explosive round. It [the 37mm gun] was modified to use the tube of the standard Soviet 45mm Model 1934 tank gun, with suitable strengthening of the trunnion and trails." So it appears the Soviets modified most of the 37mm to 45mm guns. Rune [ May 02, 2003, 08:25 AM: Message edited by: rune ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted May 2, 2003 Author Share Posted May 2, 2003 That's why the 45mm gun's shield looks so darned much like the German 37mm Pak's gun shield! I read the quote as the Russian gun WAS the Rheinmetall gun and should have similar specs. And it shouldn't be a surprise the 45mm gun doesn't have more hole-punching ability (which it doesn't) because the redesign had been an effort to get a decent HE shell for the gun. So 30mm penetration at 100m is just too low for the Ruskie 37mm gun. -- I almost forgot to mention. There's now some controversy (duelling references) as to whether the BT-2 fast tank mounted the standard L/45 caliber length gun or the longer L/60 gun. Who said there were no more unresolved issues in WWII armor research?! [ May 02, 2003, 09:55 AM: Message edited by: MikeyD ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 Which takes us back to the low quality of Soviet ammo. Any gun is severly limited if what comes out of it is sub par. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted May 2, 2003 Author Share Posted May 2, 2003 This debate should be scored to a waltz tune! Round-and-round we go! Latest word is production BT-2 did use the P-3 L/45 37mm gun. The L/60 37mm (my sources not withstanding) may have just made it onto the prototype. So the good new is the in-game BT-2 has the right type gun. Still haven't seen evidence 37mm ammo had the same troubles as 45mm ammo. Ah well, considering the gun's such a small part of the game I'll accept whichever side of the fence BFC want to fall on the subject. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.