The Russian T-70 Light Tank

[JasonC]

The Russian T-70 Light Tank

This post discusses the "life cycle" of the best Russian light tank, the T-70, and some basic guides to its tactical uses.

The prewar Russian light tanks aren't very good, as most CM players have probably learned by now. The best of them is certainly the BT series, which is at least fast. But all are poorly armored, and the 45mm gun leaves something to be desired. You might think they would remain pretty effective because their German opponents of 1941 aren't heavily armored themselves. But in practice, Pz IIs and Pz 38ts of the E or G model make mincemeat out of them. The problem is that the high rate of fire, accurate light guns in the German lights can easily KO the thin Russian lights. The Pz IIs autocannon, in particular, is a terror, while its 35mm front proves tough for the Russian 45mm until the range gets close.

The T-60 of 1941 is no answer to this "light armor problem". It is as poorly protected as its predecessors and its 20mm popgun is inadequate against the German lights to boot. It is OK against half tracks and armored cars, or as a "tankette" aka moving machinegun nest against pure infantry - though its MG ammo is rather limited. But it can't handle Pz IIs and so its life expectancy remains short.

But in 1942, the Russians get a light tank that can finally stand up to the German lights - the T-70. The gun is the same old 45mm, and the MG ammo is as limited as its T-60 predecessor. But the T-70 has thick front armor for a light tank, and that makes a world of difference. The Pz II scourge can be mastered. The T-70 then remains a useful light tank until the older vehicles leave the German fleet.

First some points about availability. The T-70 shows up in March of 1942, though it has a relatively high rariety in that month. From April to December, 1942, is the first major period of T-70 availability, or which I will just call 1942 (for the T-70, mind). Rariety numbers are 10-20 in this period and the tank is perfectly afforable, coming in sizeable 5 tank platoons.

In 1943 the major change is that tungsten ammo becomes available for the 45mm main gun, starting in January of 1943. In the summer the tank is even more common. This period I call 1943 (in T-70 terms again) - meaning the M42 model, common, with T ammo available and 1943 German opponents.

In September there is a brief uptick in rariety associated with a model change, and in October the 1943 model becomes available for a minor price difference. The main change here is a thicker turret front, also higher HP to weight, at the cost of somewhat higher ground pressure. Then in December a significant change for tactical use arrives when the T-70 platoon size is reduced to 3 vehicles. Finally in January 1944, the supply of tungsten ammo increases significantly.

Leaving aside this transition period, the result is a "late" or 1944 T-70 period, with smaller platoons of M43 model tanks with abundant T ammo. Both models of T-70 continue to be available, with increasing rariety as 1944 progresses. By the latter half of the year, they are becoming scarce and not particularly useful, given the scarity premium, and reasonable use of them phases out.

So, the periods of T-70 use naturally divide into early, middle and late periods. The first means 1942 opponents, 5 tank platoons, and no tungsten. The second means 1943 opponents, 5 tank platoons, and limited tungsten. The last means late war opponents, 3 tank platoons, and abundant tungsten.

That covers the significant changes in availability and the technical capabilities of the tank itself. Despite the improvements being made, and particularly the advent of T ammo, the relative strength of the T-70 is highest closest to its time of introduction, the improvements of its opponents are more rapid after that point. When T ammo appears there is a modest uptick in relative usefulness, but it then goes on declining as the enemy fleet mix improves.

To understand this, you have to appreciate the effectiveness of the front armor against various "threat" weapons - an important item of tactical information in its own right, of course. All weapons equal to or heavier than the long 75mm easily defeat the T-70 from any aspect, any model, any range. In addition, the long 50mm is effective against the front armor of the 1942 model (which is the only one available until late 43), any plate, at ranges out to 900 meters or so - which is beyond effective range of reply by the T-70s own gun, T ammo or not. So, Pz III longs, Pz IV longs, and StuGs tend to dominate T-70s at range. The ability to withstand long 50mm fire at kilometer ranges is still useful for wider maneuvering, but not for taking up long Pz IIIs head to head.

In addition, the lower front hull of the T-70 is significantly weaker than the turret and upper hull. You want to fight hull down if at all possible, to mask this weak plate. 50L42, 75L24, and 37mm can KO from the front out to medium range if they luck into a lower hull hit. All can KO from the sides or rear, as well. But when the LH is masked by "hull down", the T-70 is a tough target for the earlier guns.

One preliminary - use the 5 tank "platoon" as a pair of sub elements, each 2-3 tanks. A pair of T-70s has enough firepower to do something, where one is quite limited. And you need two legs to walk, use overwatch and bound, etc. Five in one area invites mass losses, and single tanks will be ineffective. Keep the HQ tank with one element or the other but trailing somewhat to stay alive.

The T-70 is a small target. Hull down makes it smaller. 20mm will bounce from the front at any range, and the same is true of the slower velocity 37mms. The better 37mms need very close ranges and particularly flat hits, with penetrations becoming possible around 250m and some "sticks" common enough at 100m. Pz 35s and "A" model Pz 38s (thin armor ones) can be dominated in frontal engagements, as can Pz IIs. Towed light Flak and "army door knocker" 37mm PAK likewise.

The better Pz 38s (E and G models, with 50mm fronts) must be treated as medium tanks. Also, as long as the LH is masked, 75L24 is marginal at best (HEAT can KO, though, if they have any), even at point blank range. 50L42 starts getting partial penetrations and flaking results around 500m, and is lethal around 300-400m. If you remain 500m from the early medium tanks - good 38s, short 75s, short IIIs - and hull down, you are well protected.

The proper tactic against these early mediums, therefore, is not to charge to point blank, but to "circle" at 500-600 meter range. You want to approach them from two sides, in 2-3 tank half-platoons. That will generate flank chances for you, which will penetrate the Panzers at such ranges. Frontally, you aren't going to get penetrations but gun damage and track hits are always possible. Stay hull down, stay more than 500m away, move if in front - those will keep enemy hits and kills rare until you find flank shots. Which aren't too hard to find at 500m ranges. If the enemy "keyholes" to present only his front aspect, go to the dead ground his "keyhole" "edgeposts" create and close the distance, setting up crossing fire if he hunts forward to re-establish LOS.

Against Pz III longs and long 75 vehicles (late Pz IVs, late StuGs) you have to change tactics, because they can hurt you before you can get close enough to find flanks. If you encounter these in the early, 1942 period they are hardest to deal with. You are outmatched, and should deny the engagement if possible by seeking cover. Especially at long range. Fast move and stay beyond 1 km until behind cover or in full defilade. You can set ambushes if they charge you by getting cross fire at close range at "crest points" or around "bends" created by your LOS blocks (houses, woods), but you will be defensive.

In the second period this changes. Such superior German AFVs become much more common in 1943. In return you have some T ammo. To kill them, you now need either flank shots or point blank range front shots with T ammo, while they no longer have earlier gun types that become effective only at close range. Therefore, the preferred tactic changes - now you have to close.

Instead of circling hull down at 500m, you want to run down to point blank, 100-200m and arriving from several directions. You fast move on diagonals from cover to cover, against anything facing you. Pairs of your T-70s with flank shots available at medium range take them, of course, but from short halts (shoot and scoot, or tophat lowski, pause and reverse, etc). Flank threats hopefully get them to "keyhole" and you then run through their dead ground to point blank.

Against infantry, they work fine provided you follow the advice to use them in pairs. The limited MG ammo is still sufficient to pin anyone in the open. The HE supply is abundant, and while the blast isn't anything to write home about (14), it is enough to pin squads and break MGs in a minute of fire, which is what your own infantry needs from tank support. You can expect a living T-70 that spent a battle firing at infantry to account for a dozen infantry, while one that focused mostly on enemy armor may get only half that - in addition to vehicle kills. They will pin far more.

They are cheap weapons, with a platoon of 5 costing about the same as 2 T-34s; in maneuvering terms you use the halfs of the platoon much as you would a lone T-34. A pair of T-70 platoons (10 tanks) costs about what a company of infantry does, and with each tank treated much like a "squad", advances much more readily, especially in open terrain. The MG and light HE firepower of the flock of them is considerable.

They can provide the covering fire against small arms and MGs that infantry needs to move. You will certainly lose some to enemy tanks or PAK, but they do not pin the instant they step into the open, like infantry. You can use the MGs to isolate areas of cover you have located enemy infantry in, and then shell those areas with FOs as well as the 45mm HE. Your infantry then wades in against broken survivors.

As for the late T-70, the extra T ammo does not make up for the improvement in the opposition. You buy only one of the "half platoons", 3 tanks instead of 5, and they can scout for you as individual tanks. But enemy heavies that even T ammo at point blank need side hits against are in the field, and just about every enemy tank outmatches you. Their ATGs all kill at range and from hiding. As a scouting vehicle and half-track or armored car stopper, the T-70 retains some utility, but it is no longer really an effective weapon in 1944. The improved turret front - while worth the tiny increase in price - is not useful, simply because all the enemy guns have become long 75s or better, which go through even the better turret front easily.

Summarizing the key points about using them, by period -

early - 1942 use - confront light armor, circle mediums at 500m, hull down

middle - 1943 use - use terrain and flank shot threats to support a charge to point blank

late - 1944 use - scout, fight halftracks and armored cars, run from full AFVs

Early and middle periods, as 2 elements of 2 and 3 tanks. Late, spread for scouting coverage and to minimize losses when ambushed. All periods, suppress MGs with your HE to help your own infantry advance, and deny open ground areas with your MG. Use the MGs over open ground to isolate individual bits of enemy infantry. Suppress such bits with HE (own and FOs), then send in the infantry.

I hope this is useful.

[ January 20, 2003, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Panzer76]

I found the T-70 very useful in a recent battle against StuGs. Since they are fast you can easily outflank them (provided there is any cover) and from both sides. Maybe you will lose one, but since they are so cheap it's no big deal. Also the ROF of their guns is vital when u try to squeeze in as many flank shots agaist the Stug while it tries to turn around.

[JasonC]

Yes, exactly. Once the 80mm front beasties with long 75s are out, the Russians are playing "close on the flanks" regardless. A T-34 can be penetrated by a long 75 at range, same as the T-70. Either can kill a StuG with a flank shot.

The T-34 can do it more reliably, at longer range or with a bigger side angle, perhaps. But the real tactical difficulty involved is getting the side shot at all. And you usually don't get them at very long range, because people don't turn broadside to your original position if they can help it.

Once they have tungsten, though, the little T-70s can actually penetrate the 80mm front beasties if they get close enough, even from the front. Pz IV turret fronts likewise, at medium range - though not as far as the T-34 does the latter.

And at the sort of ranges and side angles you usually see for flank shots, the 45mm is sufficient to get penetrations. Meanwhile, the T-70 is a smaller target.

So, all in all, there isn't a heck of a lot to choose between the two tanks for playing flank and close. The T-34 is marginally better at it, but only marginally. But the big difference is this - you can have 5 T-70s for the price of 2 T-34s!

[Bruceov]

Buy lend lease Stuarts, a much better tank overall and still cheap

[JasonC]

From late 1943 onward, the Stuarts are indeed a reasonable option. The gun is better; even without any T ammo, it does the basic things needed once the opponents are all upgunned (penetrate sides at range, Pz IV turret fronts close e.g.). MG ammo is abundant rather than scarce, which is a major plus against infantry.

In 1942, however, or early 43 against the less modern portions of the German fleet mix, the T-70 has much in its favor. It is significantly better protected than the early M3A1 Stuarts, and against the older generation of German tank guns - 50L42, 75L24 and the like - that makes a huge difference. Those kills Stuarts essentially whenever they hit them, but T-70s only at close range or against particular plates. And the T-70 is cheaper as well.

[mididoctors]

check out the head on JC

SPOILERS

Finished playing a CMBB game Heart of stalingrad from the SD.....this has T-70s

I posted a few thoughts on how effective they were and in retrospect they fall into a definate role... and as JC has so fully described in detail how good they are...

was the T-70s success the precursor to the PT range of post war lt tanks..a doctrine of lt tank deployment...the term "force mix "comes to mind

Boris

london

[Salkin]

If the area provides enough cover , you can easily swarm and damage heavier tanks such as Panzer IV, Stugs and even panthers.

T-70 is a really cool weapon.

It may be gamey but using them as decoys is also a fairly good option.

Great post JasonC....I have failed to read many of your earlier posts but my friend says you are the nr1 grog .

Isn't this a great game !

//Salkin

Swede that loves his T-70

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by mididoctors:

[snips]

was the T-70s success the precursor to the PT range of post war lt tanks..a doctrine of lt tank deployment...the term "force mix "comes to mind

The precursor to the PT-76 was the K-90, designed at the end of the war.

The T-70/M can hardly be regarded as a "success", as the Soviets gave up manufacturing light tanks (only a few T-80s were produced) and used the T-70/M components for SU-76/Ms instead. Lend-lease vehicles such as the Valentine were used in the recce role until the end of the war.

All the best,

John.

[Juju]

Wow, must have fallen asleep the last couple of weeks! Good to see you back, Jason.

[mididoctors]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

[

The T-70/M can hardly be regarded as a "success", as the Soviets gave up manufacturing light tanks (only a few T-80s were produced) and used the T-70/M components for SU-76/Ms instead. Lend-lease vehicles such as the Valentine were used in the recce role until the end of the war.

In CMBB the T-70 seems very effective for a lt tank..is this out of kilter with reality or was soviet deployment tactics incorreect for this vechile......why did the Soviets regard it as a failer..or cease its production?

Boris

London

[mididoctors]

Originally posted by mididoctors:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John D Salt:

[

The T-70/M can hardly be regarded as a "success", as the Soviets gave up manufacturing light tanks (only a few T-80s were produced) and used the T-70/M components for SU-76/Ms instead. Lend-lease vehicles such as the Valentine were used in the recce role until the end of the war.

In CMBB the T-70 seems very effective for a lt tank..is this out of kilter with reality or was soviet deployment tactics incorreect for this vechile......why did the Soviets regard it as a failer..or cease its production?

Boris

London</font>

[Andreas]

Because in reality the German setup was often quite different from a CMBB game. E.g. while you maybe able to handle the scout platoon of Panzer IIs coming right at you (that would be the CMBB battle), it is usually followed by a bunch of Panzer III 50L60 shortly behind (which you won't see in that particular CMBB battle).

Another issue is that your world is not just limited in time, but also in space. You can circle at 500-600m, because there is little danger in a CMBB game that there is an 88, or a platoon of IV 75L43 in overwatch about a 1,000m further back.

If you don't play with historical OOBs, and in historical map settings, particular vehicles can shine. Once you do, that usually stops. Jason's post appears to me to be clearly about in-game use, and does not appear to be referring to any real-life 'success' of these light tanks.

[demoss]

In CMBB the T-70 seems very effective for a Lt tank..is this out of kilter with reality or was soviet tactics incorrect for this AFV......why did the Soviets regard it as a failure..or cease its production?

Well, the main advantage of a light tank is speed. I suspect that the main reason the Russians didn't really like it is that they already HAD a fast tank - the T-34 - which could do anything the T-70 could. I don't know how costly it was to produce a T-70 vs. a T-34 (and I suspect nobody living does), but I strongly doubt the differential was nearly as great as the purchase point differential in CMBB.

As I understand it, the ONLY reason T-70 chassis continued to be produced was that it was considered better to be cranking out something mediocre than to have factories down for months to retool to something better.

[manchildstein (ii)]

Originally posted by demoss:

the notes for the t-70 in either cross of iron or asl say something along those lines... something like, "the t-70 was designed as a recon tank but when it was realized that the t34 could do everything the t70 could - and better - production of the t70 was phased out..."

[Andreas]

Originally posted by manchildstein II:

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

the notes for the t-70 in either cross of iron or asl say something along those lines... something like, "the t-70 was designed as a recon tank but when it was realized that the t34 could do everything the t70 could - and better - production of the t70 was phased out..."</font>

I am almost certain that should refer to the T50. There was never an alternative of either T34 or T60/70. The T60/70 were produced in automotive factories that could not produce T34s. So when they were abandoned from 12/42, the production at these plants switched to the SU76, an open-topped SP 76.2 gun. (see e.g. Zaloga 'Red Army Handbook')

[Redwolf]

Boris, you can edit your postings, you don't have to post again.

As for the T-70 and T-34: the T-34 could do all they wanted, however there is the matter of cost.

The cost of a medium versus a light tank depend on factors which are not constant for different nations. In the case of the T-70 versus the early T-34 it is safe to assume that the skilled manpower required to build them is not much different. The amount of steel and otherra material (copper etc) needed is definitivly different. The amount of fuel consumed will be different as well, although the T-34 is pretty good in that respect already.

So, for the Soviets the situation is entirely different than it would have been for the Germans who had less steel and less fuel. The cost of a light versus a T034-class tank was probably almost the same for the Soviets. But for the Germans the heavier design would have been much more expensive. I see that reflected in the actual AFVs built by both nations during WW2.

[mididoctors]

Originally posted by redwolf:

Boris, you can edit your postings, you don't have to post again.

I must apologise . I basicly do not know what I am doing ...!

Boris

London

[Grisha]

Originally posted by redwolf:

Boris, you can edit your postings, you don't have to post again.

As for the T-70 and T-34: the T-34 could do all they wanted, however there is the matter of cost.

The cost of a medium versus a light tank depend on factors which are not constant for different nations. In the case of the T-70 versus the early T-34 it is safe to assume that the skilled manpower required to build them is not much different. The amount of steel and otherra material (copper etc) needed is definitivly different. The amount of fuel consumed will be different as well, although the T-34 is pretty good in that respect already.

So, for the Soviets the situation is entirely different than it would have been for the Germans who had less steel and less fuel. The cost of a light versus a T034-class tank was probably almost the same for the Soviets. But for the Germans the heavier design would have been much more expensive. I see that reflected in the actual AFVs built by both nations during WW2.

redwolf,

You're aware that with heavy industry the Germans had the Soviets outproduced in terms of steel, aluminum, and coal, right? It was only in oil that the Soviets had greater production. For example, in 1943 the Germans produced 340mt (mt = million tonnes) of coal, 30mt of steel, 250mt of aluminum, and 7mt of oil. For the Soviets, the quantities were 93mt, 8mt, 62mt, and 18mt, respectively.

[Ex Bellator]

I really like the T-70 on the Attack/Assault. The Germans will have to unveil a substantial AT asset to take care of it thanks to it's good armour. Then my mediums, assault guns, or on map mortars can dispose of the threat which usually will have cost the Germans much more to purchase than a T-70.

BTW another good post Jason.

[RSColonel_131st]

A bit off topic, but since we're talking about light tanks...

Would you guys prefer light tanks or armored cars?

I took a BT-7 out with a PSW 222 recently in the PBEM against Boo. I guess it's a bit lucky when the BT-7 can't hit with two shots, but after all it happened.

So, are light tanks really worth the extra points?

[MikeyD]

I was going to comment on uparmored Pz38(t)E models being impervious to the BT's 45mm cannon, as mentioned at the top.

I was working on my one scenario 'A Warm place to Sleep' (BTs vs Pz38s) while the game was still in Beta form. I finished the scenario, then BFC went and updated all the armor models in the game. Suddenly my Pz38s were unbeatable ubertanks! I had to replace the E models with A models to rebalance the scenario.

[ January 21, 2003, 05:47 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[manchildstein (ii)]

from the asl vehicle notes:

"3. T-50: This Maly Klim was an infantry support tank somewhat resembling a midget T-34, and was intended as a replacement for the T-26 series. Only 63 were built, as they were found to be very cost-ineffective compared to the T-34. All were used in a single brigade on the Finnish front."

"5. T-70: Another attempt to create the right combination of firepower, mobility, and protection in a light tank. However, by this time it was seen that the T-34 could do anything the T-70 could, and a lot more that the T-70 couldn't. So with ever increasing numbers of T-34 tanks obviating the need for light tanks, the T-70 was withdrawm from tank brigades in early 1944 (although it remained in use with other formation and Soviet allied forces). More than 8,200 T-70 were built."

[Marlow]

I read somewhere (don't remember where) that aside from the fact that the T34 could do everything the T70 could and more (remember that cost in CM terms is intended to reflect battlefield value, not actual relative production cost) the reason that the T70 production went down was that the chassis and/or the production lines were needed for tank destroyer (SU-76 and friends) production.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Marlow:

I read somewhere (don't remember where) that aside from the fact that the T34 could do everything the T70 could and more (remember that cost in CM terms is intended to reflect battlefield value, not actual relative production cost) the reason that the T70 production went down was that the chassis and/or the production lines were needed for tank destroyer (SU-76 and friends) production.

Probably further up this thread

The T70 was the best solution for use of the automotive factories when it was designed. When something better came along, in the form of the SU-76, the Soviets very sensibly switched over to that. The SU-76 worked much better in the Soviet doctrine of direct fire use of medium artillery, giving the infantry very good mobile fire support. You don't want to go up against a Panzer in it, or even a Stug (and I think Marders are borderline), but for assaults on infantry positions they beat the T-70 hands-down.

[Marlow]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Probably further up this thread

Guess I should read every post. Opps.