The Russian T-70 Light Tank

[MikeyD]

Ah, I do enjoy it when the occassional old post is resurrected from the grave (this one being more than 4 months old). Like the joy of leafing through a faded old hobby magazine while on the... in the... well, you know.

[c3k]

MikeyD,

"A Warm Place to Sleep" was my first CMBB scenario. I played it about half a dozen times, both sides, trying to learn the way CMBB differs from CMBO. It was a fun scenario. (Even after all the playings!)

Thanks for the work!

Ken

[ParaBellum]

In a current PBEM I killed a PzIV and some light armour with them. That was just after I complained about "those useless T-70s" to my opponent...

A platoon of 5 can execute some very nice ambushs.

[JasonC]

Redwolf said "The cost of a light versus a T34 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"

I don't think this is accurate. The costs were not fungible for either nation. Producing fewer light tanks would not make possible increased heavy tank production for either one. The production capacity was not set by raw material inputs but by the existing assemby line capacity, which had limited adaptable uses.

Both nations continued to make use of their existing light tank production capacity throughout the war. They both shifted from using that capacity to make turreted light tanks, to making SP guns instead, around mid war.

In the case of the Russians, they produced T-60s and then mixed T-60s and T-70s from previous automotive factories. They phased out the 20mm T-60 a little after the Germans phased out the Pz II. The T-70 remained in production until a little after the Germans phased out production of turreted Pz IIIs. The Germans dropped 37mm Czech types in between.

German Pz II chassis production switched first to Marders, and then to Wespes. Czech 38 chassis production switched to Marders, some SP sIGs (Bison, Cricket), and ended mostly as Hezters. They thus went from turreted and armored, to thin SP ATGs, thin SP arty, and for the best of them late in the war, sloped SP TD.

Russian T-60 and T-70 production all switched to SU-76 models. The Russian 76mm performed the same roles as both the German 75mm PAK and the Germans 105mm howitzer. Where the Germans would have dedicated 75mm towed PAK on the organization chart, the Russians had 76mm towed arty. Where the Germans had 105mm howitzers, the Russians had more 76mm towed arty.

So, SP versions of the Russian 76mm - the SU-76 - had similar roles to Marders and Wespes, as SP versions of 75mm PAK and 105mm howitzers. German Pz III chassis production went from turreted to StuG to get a gun as good, but being larger could do so while remaining armored enough to act as a "full" AFV. None of these types was abandoned, however.

What is true about Redwolf's comment is that the Russians had much higher light chassis production capability than the Germans, in absolute terms. The combined output of SU-76s, T-70s, and T-60s, is much higher than the combined output of Pz II and Pz 38 chassis. But they are comparable portions of total production - roughly 30% for the Russians and 20% for the Germans.

Even that difference mostly reflects the transitional position of the Pz III chassis. The two wartime production distributions are both bell shaped by chassis weight. The center of the bell is the T-34 chassis for the Russians (T-34s plus SUs based on the same chassis), and between the III chassis and the IV chassis for the Germans.

The lower end of each side's bell migrated from turreted light tank to upgunned but unturreted SP, as mid war armor improved enough to make the early popgun turreted types ineffective. The Russian transitions were 6-9 months later, largely mimicking the Germans moves as to type mix, then just beating them in amount produced.

The Russians were using T-70s as a considerable portion of their fleet mix in 1942 and the first half of 1943. But remember the Germans on the flanks confronted the Stalingrad counterattack in Pz38s, and a third of the German AFV fleet at Kursk still had the short 75 and mixed 50 guns of their 1942 era production. By the time the German fleet was practically all long 75 armed or better, the Russians were making SU-76s not T-70s.

[laxx]

Just played a homemade scenario:

April 1942

4x Regular Long nose StuG total under 310 points

1 x T-70 Tank Platoon + 3 additional T-70 total 308 points.

Did a wide flank with the 3 additional t-70s while the platoon did a frontal charge. 2 Turns later all the StuGs were dead with the loss of 2 x T-70s.

Did a search on the forum for T-70, and this thread answered all the questions on the T-70.

Although the original JasonC post was in Jan, I just discovered the T-70 this evening and I must say it is quite refreshing from the t-26, BTs, I have been playing.

[SgtMuhammed]

Yes cost had very little to do with the decision to continue production on the T70.

Basically the Russians wanted to get as many tanks into the field as possible. With their support vehicle needs, trucks and jeeps and such, being largely met by imports they turned their automotive industry to weapons production. Factories that were too small to handle the heavier tanks were set producing lights and then later SP guns.

The Russians were big believers in the maxim of "firepower kills." Having something that could shoot on the battlefield was better than waiting for those factories to find something useful to do.

[lcm1947]

Excellent reading JasonC. Thanks.

[Barrold]

Meeting JasonC at Rune's place was a real treat and he was as pleasant in person as he is prolific here.

Excellent thread. The T-70 seems to be the surprisingly useful tank just as the Stuart was in CMBO.

BDH

[Major Jerkov]

Just my thoughts on an old thread...

Actually, besides the T-70, the T-26'Ekranirovanniy'E, is realtively well equipped to handle the Pz38(t)E and the like with a decent rate of success in 41'.

In a platoon vs platoon between the 2, I lost only one T-26 compared to all Pz's being destroyed(usually side or rear shots). At an approximate range of 400-500 meters the Pz's either ran out of ammo or their guns were damaged. The ammo load on the Russian AFV was immense.

I believe it could have easily gone either way. It was pure comedy.