One more time....russians misvaloured??

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Thanks for the response John. Good luck with your searching.

Regards

Jim R.

[PzKpfw 1]

Originally posted by Andreas:

]Note the date on this order. Konev commanded the failed attempt to eliminate the Rzhev salient from the east during operation Mars.

In the Vazuza battles, short-barreled Stugs attached to one of the defending infantry divisions were the single largest tank killer by a wide margin in the sector defended by the division.

Ayup, Andreas the 7.5cm L/24 StuG's wreaked havok all out of proportion to their numbers in the Vazuza fighting.

This special order is very interesting as it shows that Sturmgeschuetz made a real impact in Soviet commanders, & they had nothing like it, as effective, at the time either, in their invetory.

Regards, John Waters

[ April 25, 2003, 01:00 PM: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[JasonC]

I cannot believe how tendentiously some of the revisionist advocates of uber Germans here argue.

You were asked directly what evidence there was the 80mm front StuGs were invunerable to Russian 76s. The correct answer to the question is "absolutely none." None has ever been presented. Some think their calculated numbers, 50 years after the fact, suggest it was so. No one even alleges that any contemporary account from either side reports it as actual, tactical fact.

The report instead trotted out obviously lumps together Marders with StuGs (open on the top and at the back, anyone?). The StuGs that fought in the area in question were 75L24 models, not L43 models. No 75L24 model StuG was ever produced with 80mm of front armor. All were 50mm fronts. The transition to 75L43 guns occurred before the transition to 80mm fronts. The SP guns being discussed in the Russian report, therefore, are thin Marders and 50mm front short 75 StuGs.

The only portion of the report that mentions penetration issues and effective armor penetration ranges is about the *German* difficulties penetration T-34s and KVs. It says the Germans fired from multiple SP guns at 300mm or less, and that fire by single SP guns at greater than 300m was ineffective - against late 42 era T-34s and KVs. Which is about what you'd expect from 75L24. Which would probably need HEAT against either model, or short range or flank shots on the T-34s only.

The stated Russian way of dealing with SP guns is for front line ATGs to take them out. This is said without any more ado, it being obvious they are capable of doing so. Artillery is also mentioned, the bulk of it of course 76mm. Likewise no surprise, since the targets are 50mm front StuGs or thin Marders, neither of which present any serious difficulty to Russian 76mm guns.

This article was presented as *evidence* that 80mm front StuGs are *invunerable*, the StuGs wiped out everything they encountered, that StuGs were uber weapons that had the Russians in a complete panic. The people so presenting it either can't read, can't think, or are being deliberately misleading.

All you had to say is "I haven't seen any reports of success or failure of Russian 76mm against 80mm front StuGs in particular". Because if this is what you trot out in favor of the proposition, you obviously haven't. The reason you haven't is because they don't exist.

[ April 25, 2003, 04:27 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Well I must admit I felt a bit the same way Jason after seeing the report posted by John but I perhaps wouldn't have tackled the reply in quite the same "agressive" manner as yourself. Personally, I would love to see some sort of evidence of reports going back to the Soviet high command highlighting the difficulties T34/76's and their same calibre AT guns had in dealing with uparmoured Stug's from their frontal aspect. Seeing as Stug's weren't exactly uncommon I would have expected some sort of bleating from Soviet troops on the ground if this was really the case.

Regards

Jim R.

[Andreas]

The point of the report IMO was to show that the Soviets issued special orders on how to deal with Stugs. AFAIK they did not issue special orders for the Panzer III. What I referred to is an AAR by a German infantry division that does not throw in Stugs with Marders/SP ATG. This has nothing to do with revisionism - it is a real AAR of a real battle where the Germans kept the battlefield. Surprisingly to me the short-barreled Stugs emerge as the major tank killers, although a similar number of turreted tanks (III/IV) was present. Of course the report does not prove anything about 80mm Stugs, since it does not talk about them. It shows though that the Stug as a weapon system was especially feared by the Soviets.

ISTR that another poster has some info about a Soviet order to just not engage Stugs, i.e. break off the attack if you run into them, and attack elsewhere. That may refer to the long Stugs.

BTW - not every 80mm front armour stug is almost invulnerable. Just those with bolt-on armour an you can achieve weak spot penetrations against them, which jives with one report I have read by a German Stug commander. The kill chance for the ones with a single armour plate is low or very low out to >500m.

[gorgias]

Well, well, well.....

Look at what i found when i look for reports about the "StuG Invulnerability".

--------------------------------------------------Instruction on fighting German tank T-VI.

Signed by Artillery Marshal Voronov

20 April 1943

In the recent battles Germans used their new heavy tank T-VI (see Pic.1) named Tiger (Elefant, Henschel).

Remark: all German heavies seem to be mixed up. However, on the pictures below scanned from the instruction accurately depict early Tiger.

These tanks cover action of medium tanks, at the same time, acting themselves under the cover of medium tanks. As a rule, they do not come forward. Very often tanks T-VI open fire from distances 1.5-2.5 km.

They retreat (reverse) from under the fire of our artillery.

Dimensions of T-VI.

Length - 6220 mm

Width - 3600 mm

Height - 2940 mm

Armament: one 88-mm anti-aircraft gun and two submachine guns 7.92-mm.

The front part of T-VI is reliably penetrated by anti-armor shells of 45-mm guns model 1942 and 57-mm and 76-mm of all models from distances 100-700 m, by armor-piercing shells of 122-mm guns model 1931, 152-mm gun-howitzers model 1937 from 700-1000 m.

Sides, rear part and turret additionally to that are penetrated by subcaliber shells of 45-mm gun from 200-500 m, by armor-piercing shells of 57-mm AT guns, 76-mm and 85-mm antiaircraft guns from 1000 m.

Commanders of gun crews and gunners must carefully study and know vulnerable places of the tank, as well as which shell of which gun from what distance kills the tank.

Suspension, base of turret and gun are the most vulnerable places.

A hit of any shell from any gun in suspension stops the tank. The best is firing from angles 0-30 as in this case a few wheels are damaged and track is broken.

A hit in the base of turret blocks it and prevents rotation of the turret in the desired direction, The tank has to turn and expose to the fire its most vulnerable places.

A hit in the gun forces the tank to disengage from the battle.

Damaged tank that retained its armament and some fighting ability must be rendered useless by fire at its gun and turret.

Remark: it shows respect to Tiger as the instruction demands to shoot at Tiger until it has only wheels left.

A gun must pick up target among attacking tanks with the consideration of best shooting angles 0-30 , that is, the target must be to the side of the gun.

Guns of all types fire the standard shells only at suspension, turret's base and gun.

By subcaliber and armor-piercing shells the fire is effected from:

45-mm gun model 1937

suspension, turret's base and gun - by armor-piercing shells;

from 200 m at sides, rear and turret - by subcaliber shell;

45-mm gun model 1942

suspension, turret's base and gun - by armor-piercing shells;

from 500 m at sides and turret - by sun-caliber shell;

from 100 m at front part.

57-mm gun

from 600 m at sides, rear and turret - by armor-piercing shells;

from 500 m at front part by sub-caliber shells.

76-mm gun model 1942

at suspension, turret and gun;

from 700 m at sides, rear, turret - by sub-caliber shells;

from 100 m at front part.

76-mm AA gun

from 500 m at sides, rear and turret - by armor-piercing shells;

from 700 m at the front part by sub-caliber part.

85-mm AA gun

from 1000 m at sides, rear and turret.

122-mm model 1931

from 1000 m by armor-piercing shell at the front part. Rear, sides and turret can be hit from 1500 m.

152-mm gun-howitzer model 1937

from 1000 m by armor-piercing shell at sides, rear and turret. Front part can be hit from 500 m.

Commanders of gun crews and gunners must allow tank to close up, as close as possible, and open fire from distances securing reliable destruction.

--------------------------------------------------

Amazing!! No??

[SgtMuhammed]

Originally posted by gorgias:

Well, well, well.....

Look at what i found when i look for reports about the "StuG Invulnerability".

Yes, nice report on the Tiger. And the one on the Stug is?

[ April 26, 2003, 04:27 PM: Message edited by: sgtgoody (esq) ]

[rexford]

Gorgias said: " "Artillery was the main weapon of the Red Army. Not all Russian cannon types could penetrate Tiger's armor, but concentrating the fire of all possible guns on the tanks could heavily damage them, even to the point of stopping the engine or detonating the ammunition. The 76.2mm ZIS-3 cannon, using anti-tank shells, could penetrate Tiger side armor (at 300-400 meters) or destroy the running gear, while it couldn't penetrate the frontal armor."

Where does the 300-400 meter effective range for 76.2mm APBC against Tiger side armor come from? Very important issue that needs solid references.

Russian data for 76.2mm face-hardened penetration is represented by the ARTKOM equation that Miles Krogfus presented in his article.

76.2mm firing 6.5 kg APBC penetrates 86mm face-hardened at point and:

0m 86

100m 84

200m 82

300m 80

400m 78

500m 76

600m 74

Against a single 80mm thick face-hardened plate 76.2mm penetrates on half the hits at 200m, since there is a slight vertical slope. We're not talking about layered 30mm/50mm now, just one 80mm plate.

StuG III with 30mm/50mm add-on still had 50mm on mantlet, if I remember correctly. Did it have added 30mm plates for front lower hull? My models don't show added armor on the lower hull front.

So front of reinforced StuG III front has weak areas on mantlet (fairly large area close to center of aim, so it gets hit ALOT) and that big lower front hull.

Could some check to see if add-on 30mm was added to StuG III lower front hull, it wasn't added to PzKpfw III with 20mm+50mm spaced so I doubt it was added to StuG III nose.

Was 30mm added to PzKpfw IVG nose when it was added to driver plate? In every case?

The 80mm single plate StuG III probably had 80mm plates on front lower hull, but wasn't the mantlet still 50mm thick?

The thing about the ARTKOM equation is that is gives one a single penetration figure, but Miles' article points out that projectile nose hardness and penetration could vary from ammo lot to ammo lot.

[rexford]

The following report is interesting but it appears to be calculations and propaganda.

Penetration ranges are based on calculations using face-hardened penetration figures from ARTKOM equation, which are then incorrectly applied to homogeneous armor on Tiger.

76.2mm AA gun fires BR-350A at 745 m/s and round penetrates 81mm face-hardened at 500m. Russians then determine that 76.2mm AA gun can defeat Tiger side armor at 500m.

German reports for Tiger indicate that it could, and did, take all sorts of hits in the wheels and tracks and still moved on its own. Tigers did lead advances, although Tigers did withdraw from artillery.

Just like that rubbish report about IS-2 tanks running from Tigers, the Russians put out a propaganda piece of their own on Tiger.

Also note, as John Waters pointed out, Russian firing tests against a captured Tiger were not incorporated into the April 20, 1943 instructions since the Kubinka tests were not completed yet.

Originally posted by gorgias:

Well, well, well.....

Look at what i found when i look for reports about the "StuG Invulnerability".

--------------------------------------------------Instruction on fighting German tank T-VI.

Signed by Artillery Marshal Voronov

20 April 1943

In the recent battles Germans used their new heavy tank T-VI (see Pic.1) named Tiger (Elefant, Henschel).

Remark: all German heavies seem to be mixed up. However, on the pictures below scanned from the instruction accurately depict early Tiger.

These tanks cover action of medium tanks, at the same time, acting themselves under the cover of medium tanks. As a rule, they do not come forward. Very often tanks T-VI open fire from distances 1.5-2.5 km.

They retreat (reverse) from under the fire of our artillery.

Dimensions of T-VI.

Length - 6220 mm

Width - 3600 mm

Height - 2940 mm

Armament: one 88-mm anti-aircraft gun and two submachine guns 7.92-mm.

The front part of T-VI is reliably penetrated by anti-armor shells of 45-mm guns model 1942 and 57-mm and 76-mm of all models from distances 100-700 m, by armor-piercing shells of 122-mm guns model 1931, 152-mm gun-howitzers model 1937 from 700-1000 m.

Sides, rear part and turret additionally to that are penetrated by subcaliber shells of 45-mm gun from 200-500 m, by armor-piercing shells of 57-mm AT guns, 76-mm and 85-mm antiaircraft guns from 1000 m.

Commanders of gun crews and gunners must carefully study and know vulnerable places of the tank, as well as which shell of which gun from what distance kills the tank.

Suspension, base of turret and gun are the most vulnerable places.

A hit of any shell from any gun in suspension stops the tank. The best is firing from angles 0-30 as in this case a few wheels are damaged and track is broken.

A hit in the base of turret blocks it and prevents rotation of the turret in the desired direction, The tank has to turn and expose to the fire its most vulnerable places.

A hit in the gun forces the tank to disengage from the battle.

Damaged tank that retained its armament and some fighting ability must be rendered useless by fire at its gun and turret.

Remark: it shows respect to Tiger as the instruction demands to shoot at Tiger until it has only wheels left.

A gun must pick up target among attacking tanks with the consideration of best shooting angles 0-30 , that is, the target must be to the side of the gun.

Guns of all types fire the standard shells only at suspension, turret's base and gun.

By subcaliber and armor-piercing shells the fire is effected from:

45-mm gun model 1937

suspension, turret's base and gun - by armor-piercing shells;

from 200 m at sides, rear and turret - by subcaliber shell;

45-mm gun model 1942

suspension, turret's base and gun - by armor-piercing shells;

from 500 m at sides and turret - by sun-caliber shell;

from 100 m at front part.

57-mm gun

from 600 m at sides, rear and turret - by armor-piercing shells;

from 500 m at front part by sub-caliber shells.

76-mm gun model 1942

at suspension, turret and gun;

from 700 m at sides, rear, turret - by sub-caliber shells;

from 100 m at front part.

76-mm AA gun

from 500 m at sides, rear and turret - by armor-piercing shells;

from 700 m at the front part by sub-caliber part.

85-mm AA gun

from 1000 m at sides, rear and turret.

122-mm model 1931

from 1000 m by armor-piercing shell at the front part. Rear, sides and turret can be hit from 1500 m.

152-mm gun-howitzer model 1937

from 1000 m by armor-piercing shell at sides, rear and turret. Front part can be hit from 500 m.

Commanders of gun crews and gunners must allow tank to close up, as close as possible, and open fire from distances securing reliable destruction.

--------------------------------------------------

Amazing!! No??

[Grisha]

The following report is interesting but it appears to be calculations and propaganda.

rexford,

I've been following this thread with some interest, finding it very interesting and informative. The technical knowledge displayed here by several members are far beyond my small abilities with respect to armor combat and gunnery, yet I find it very fascinating, to say the least. Your last post, however, compels me to caution you. These instructions from Voronov who was one of the better Soviet Marshals at the time - and certainly competent - may have been erroneous, but I doubt very much it was propaganda. Consider what this report represented, who was meant to read it and why.

It may sound like I'm nitpicking, but given the continuing practice of broadly labeling conflicting Soviet documents as propaganda, I believe this concern is valid. Remember, propaganda is not so much a case of false information, but of propagating a doctrine or cause or interest. Why would Voronov or his staff go to such technical lengths to convince artillery units to engage Tigers when it would've been easier to just let the Commissars put out a political document exhorting the Red Army to engage Tigers by force of will and bravery? This was a wartime document, not something written after the war like the famously false 300 German tank losses at Prokhorovka.

I'm not saying Voronov's instructions are valid (they're probably premature, possibly based on too much anecdotal experience or poor testing conditions), but I am asking you to be a bit more thoughtful in your use of the word propaganda.

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Grisha:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The following report is interesting but it appears to be calculations and propaganda.

rexford,

... I'm not saying Voronov's instructions are valid (they're probably premature, possibly based on too much anecdotal experience or poor testing conditions), but I am asking you to be a bit more thoughtful in your use of the word propaganda. </font>

[Richard Morgan]

Gorgias,

This is in reply to your original post, which has since drifted off subject into a bit of a "grogfest". I hasten to add that I am not much of a grog myself :confused: However, I think that I should say that in the scenario "Jaegermeister", I achieved success against Panther and Tiger 1 using JS 2's if memory serves. (Someone correct me if I am wrong.) The range was about 3 - 400 metres and the tactic was to use the shoot and scoot option: nipping out from behind a building whilst the German was looking elsewhere, taking a quick shot and then nipping back. I hasten to add that this was against the A.I. (artificial intelligence). The end result was that most of my armour was destroyed, but I managed to capture the village and in turn destroyed all of the German armour, most of which was taken out by frontal strikes. If you haven't discovered it, try using shoot and scoot. I rate it as one of the most valuable options in the menu.

I believe you said a little later, that the Russian infantry anti tank capability was not very good. I would agree with you on this. Kip Anderson, one of my regular opponents, reckons that particularly in the later stages of the war, the Russians should have had more RPG's. As a result we always tend to throw in a few RPG armed tank hunter units gratis (meaning free) to the Russian line up. Although I don't think that Kip has managed to convince the designers that this is valid... as yet!

Kip, are you out there, and would you like to comment?

Cheers,

Richard.

[rexford]

Originally posted by Grisha:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The following report is interesting but it appears to be calculations and propaganda.

rexford,

I've been following this thread with some interest, finding it very interesting and informative. The technical knowledge displayed here by several members are far beyond my small abilities with respect to armor combat and gunnery, yet I find it very fascinating, to say the least. Your last post, however, compels me to caution you. These instructions from Voronov who was one of the better Soviet Marshals at the time - and certainly competent - may have been erroneous, but I doubt very much it was propaganda. Consider what this report represented, who was meant to read it and why.</font>

[kipanderson]

Richard, hi,

Yes, the RPG43 was around in far greater numbers than CMBB would indicate. I have come across a German references to “very Soviet infantryman seeming to be clutching an RPG”. But as Richard points out this is a problem very simply remedied by giving the Soviet side some free Tank Hunters with RPGs.

“My understanding is that 76.2mm sub-caliber wasn't available during April 1943, yet the instructions act like it was plentiful during spring '43 when references indicate it was around for the first time during the fall of '43 or late summer at the earliest.”

John,

I saw an interview about Kursk not so long ago when a Soviet tank commander was going on about the sub-caliber rounds they had there. I did try to persuade BFC that they were around earlier then September but got the thumps down.

All the best,

Kip.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

One more quick point.

I came across a report in the archives of the Tank Museum in Bovington that made clear the British view that Soviet 76.2mm APBC ammuntion, in case the 1942 versions, were effective against Face Hardened armour in the same manner as western APCBC were.

This would have great implications for the StugIII. It would mean the Face Hardened armour was more vulnerable, not less vulnerable than homogenous armour.

All the best,

Kip.

[gorgias]

Richard i agree with u. Really u can win any battle playing with russians. U play vs the IA and a human player always get the way to overpass the problems and success althought he has worse units.

Really the the "misvaloured" soviets are seen when u play with germans no soviets. So u can see absolutely ridiculous battles as i play a lot of times to enjoy I.e. i take 1 or 2 tigers 1 Plt of jaegers and i play a ME vs 20 T34s and 1 or 2 soviets inf. companys..... result i win the 90% of times and when i draw is for my "cats" runout its ammnution..... well this is "real"? If the germans could have to do this in real war now everybody would speak german....

[JasonC]

Speaking of propaganda...

I've been looking for first hand accounts of StuGs in action against Russian armor. I believe the single best source would be a unit history of the 276 StuG brigade, which I'd expect to have the greatest detail. I don't own the book, though, and my library did not have it either. If anyone does, they could add significantly to the debate here by relating tactical passages.

What I've encountered instead is two different problems. On the Russian side, I don't know Russian and the histories available in English are typically cast at a higher unit level, proper for operations but not for detailed technical questions like 76mm vs. StuG fronts.

What limited info there is in these sources supports the figures in CMBB rather than the behavior actually seen in CMBB (i.e. 500m and under penetrations possible, vs. practically invunerable). But none is positive enough to confirm it. What you see in these is comments that the protection of the StuG was akin to the Pz IV, that is outranged the T-34s without any claim of invunerability.

Every source, either side, comments on things like the low outline of the StuG, superior range of its gun and optics, and quality of gunnery. There are direct statements from Germans that getting the first hit decides the issue, that success came from firing first and zeroing faster, and the like.

The typical opening ranges are given as 800m to 1000m. Which would fit with wanting high first shot kill, wanting to be far enough that 76mm AP could not penetrate the front, and wanting all 75L43 shots to go in, regardless of plate hit or side angle encountered.

Beyond the generalities, there are German accounts of actual engagements, closer to blow by blow recounting. Unfortunately, these seem to come mainly from wartime propaganda sources and deal with best outlier performances of great StuG aces. As such, they follow a stylized pattern. Undoubtedly some engagements (including those directly related) went like this, but I will show immediately afterward that most could not have. But first the stylized typical "StuG fish story".

Each StuG kills about 10 Russian vehicles. They always shoot first, typically from ambush. They hit in 1-3 shots. Some targets are hit up to 5 times because they were shot again and again until they burned, but no hit failure or ricochet is ever recounted (exception - sometimes a KV takes 2 shots). The Russians typically do not return fire at all, or if they do they do not hit.

I've read all of 2 accounts from Germans in these stories of StuGs actually hit by Russian tank shells. Both from the same incident. One shot was from a KV, model unspecified, round AP. It was front aspect, range close but neither exactly specified. It was called a glancing hit that ricocheted, plate unspecified. The second was a round that hit the nose, and exploded, leaving a cloud of smoke - apparently HE not AP.

In the stylized accounts, StuGs are routinely mentioned as breaking down with mechanical trouble, or getting stuck in mud, or needing to be towed. Typically 1 per engagement.

Other damage is recounted as being due to HE barrages, sometimes sat under for hours, resulting in the following sorts of damage - sight destroyed, gun mantle busted, antennas fragged off, bolted on armor cracked and loosened, skirts smashed, running gear damage.

I have yet to find a single first hand German account of a StuG being penetrated, any aspect, any shooter, any range. The "official line" apparently is, every time out they kill 3-10 Russian tanks apiece, without battle lose. Damage from indirect arty and mechanical failures lead to modest attrition of StuG strength.

In unit kill claim stories, kills are claimed on the order of 40-50 per running StuG over a period of a year or so, and represented as typical. Overall, 20k to 30k dead tanks are claimed for the StuGs over the course of the war.

Finnish stories divide the typical ranges by a factor of 10, specify the outcome remains the same if the enemy is T-34/85s, remains the same if initially the StuGs are flanked. Finns eat their wheaties, hoo rah.

Now, none of the numbers involved add up. If a typical StuG killed 3-10 per outing without loss, the Russians would have run out of tanks in a matter of weeks. If 1/3-4 StuGs suffers damage or breakdown, from which say half are repaired or recovered, in the course of such outings, the exchange rate over the life of a StuG would be 18-80 each.

But the 20k - 30k figure for whole war claims, even without applying the German's own usual 50% "haircut" to own side claims, gives only 2.5-4 per vehicle. With such a haircut it predicts 1-2 to 1. The Germans fielded 8K StuGs in the defensive period of the war, out of a total of 60K major AT sytems (tanks, SP guns, heavy PAK), while total Russian tank losses in that period were 60K.

I've looked over various photos of StuGs left on the field. They are typically described as "abandoned". Some show damage to the bow area, some to the sides. Often there is no visible damage on the sides from which the picture was taken. Naturally gun and range information is wholly lacking.

There are, however, some additional indicators from tactical practice, that I've run across. To wit -

It was SOP to place track sections across the lower front hull "bow" area to reinforce the front armor.

It was not SOP, but sometimes done as a field modification, to reinforce the front of a StuG with poured concrete, up to 4 inches thick. Sand bags were sometimes used instead. The gun mantle in particular was considered a weak area, if these field modifications were anything to go by.

Sides were naturally covered by skirts. Track sections, sand bags, and logs were also used, stacked on the horizontal panels over the tracks to reinforce the sides of the fighting compartment in particular. The side of the superstructure was apparently an area of concern (as one would expect - 30mm, vertical surface, crew and ammo directly behind).

German tactical directions to StuG crews stressed camo, firing from ambush, using the low outline via hull down positions, opening close (1 km and under), rapid "bracketing" (3rd shot maximum). There was a motto that "the life of a soldier of the assault artillery is short but eventful". German StuG aces attributed their own success to superior gunnery, saying they usually got the first shot and the first hit.

None of this is dispositive as first hand accounts of actual front aspect penetrating hits by T-34s would be dispositive. If anyone has the combat history of the 276 (the only monograph length unit history of a StuG formation I know of), they might be able to correct or add to my impressions from what I've found so far.

But to me none of it quite gives a picture of frontal invunerability to the most common Russian AT weapon. Wouldn't even the propaganda stress this, if it were true? Wouldn't the StuG aces explain they felt invunerable as long as they faced the target?

For what it is worth. I will continue looking.

[ April 29, 2003, 09:29 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Michael Dorosh]

HA - good luck finding a source in English where the Germans actually

a) talk in detail about technical matters, even such "low level" tech detail as exactly which model of tanks they were using

talk in detail about any of their shortcomings

c) discuss in any sort of detail the actual units they were facing, or give any kind of credit to the enemy for skillfully fighting

d) make the war seem like anything but a grand heroic struggle which any reader should feel ashamed for have missed it!

I'm not simply being childish, either; I've long been disappointed with the standard of histories (the ones I've read, translated into English). Unfortunately, I think the booksellers/publishers doing the translating realize the nuts/bolts grogs are outnumbered by the wide-eyed Wehrmacht-penis-envy worshippers who simply want to read and marvel at the Tiger aces and the RK winners without gaining any sort of understanding of the most basic types of organizations, procedures or equipment issues.

Keep us informed, JasonC, if you find anything going against the grain. But if the official historians of the Pz-Korps GD and the Pz Regt GD can't get the bits and pieces in focus, I wonder how much hope there is for large numbers of the "vanilla", as you say, units having left something for us of much worth.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Speaking of propaganda...

It was SOP to place track sections across the lower front hull "bow" area to reinforce the front armor.

It was not SOP, but sometimes done as a field modification, to reinforce the front of a StuG with poured concrete, up to 4 inches thick. Sand bags were sometimes used instead.

What time periode? What Stug Model? What front?

On the west front it would be logical to do this as most AT waepons could penetreate it. On the east front it would be logical to do this at least after the Sovs get the 85mm gun.

As for the ranges. The Stug commander will ofcos try to engage at long-medium distances. Seeing how the Stug has no turret, close combat is not a very good idea.

[PzKpfw 1]

The StuGs that fought in the area in question were 75L24 models, not L43 models. No 75L24 model StuG was ever produced with 80mm of front armor. All were 50mm fronts. The transition to 75L43 guns occurred before the transition to 80mm fronts. The SP guns being discussed in the Russian report, therefore, are thin Marders and 50mm front short 75 StuGs.

And who implied that the Stugs etc, had 75L/43 guns or 80mm armor?

This article was presented as *evidence* that 80mm front StuGs are *invunerable*, the StuGs wiped out everything they encountered, that StuGs were uber weapons that had the Russians in a complete panic. The people so presenting it either can't read, can't think, or are being deliberately misleading.

This *order* was presented to show how the Soviets dealt with StuGs, nothing more, nothing less, no where did I state the order was 'presented as *evidence* that 80mm front StuGs are *invunerable*, ' etc.

All you had to say is "I haven't seen any reports of success or failure of Russian 76mm against 80mm front StuGs in particular". Because if this is what you trot out in favor of the proposition, you obviously haven't. The reason you haven't is because they don't exist.

Basicly thats what I did say, I pointed out Soviet measures against StuG's in that order layed out, was mainly AT. Artillery. & Infantry. And that I was searching for imformation. You want to help Jason,? provide us refrences showing 76.2mm penetraion of the 80mm frontal armor.

Read my cited remark on why the PzKpfw IV armor was increased to 80mm, was it because of Soviet 45mm At guns?, nope. Was it because of Soviet 76.2mm tank or 76.2mm cannon?, nope. It was because the British 6pdr could defeat the PzKpfw IV with 50mm armor frontaly @ 1000m.

If you have documental evidence the 76.2mm could defeat the StuG 50 + 30mm FH, or 80mm present it with refrence title, author, & page #. If not we can both agree, their is no evidence found to date that the 76.2mm could defeat the 80mm armor either.

Nor have you presented any hard data that supports your position. You claim Rexfords data 50 years after the fact is suspect, yet provide nothing to support your claim. Furthermore you have made vauge refrences, to Soviet tactical reports in several previous posts, we have asked you repeatedly for source citations, & got "absolutely none." in return.

We have seen documented 1943 Soviet LF tests vs the Tiger E 80mm side hull/turret armor show that the 76.2mm F-34 L/41.5 could not defeat the 80mm @ 0^ armor even at 200m @ 0, or 30^. In the Sept 1943 tests vs the Tiger E, the Zis-3 76L/51 could not defeat the side hull/turret armor @ even 100m.

We can assume the Sept 1943 tests would have used the most common 76.2mm AP round which should have been the BR-350B at this time, as production of the BR-350A had ceased before Sept 1943. Yet the 76.2mm rounds failed vs the 80mm @ 0^ armor. Which leaves us with more questions..

Why are we to believe that the same guns & ammunition performed any better vs the 50 + 30, or 80mm StuG armor?. When they could not defeat the 80mm side plates on the Tiger E etc.

It's also interesting that the Germans felt the PzKpfw IV with 80mm frontal armor was adequate on the Eastren front till the appearence of the T-34-85, as well, as expressed in Wa Pruf 1/W-2b report dated March 23 1944.

Regards, John Waters

[ May 02, 2003, 12:22 AM: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[PzKpfw 1]

Originally posted by rexford:

Also note, as John Waters pointed out, Russian firing tests against a captured Tiger were not incorporated into the April 20, 1943 instructions since the Kubinka tests were not completed yet.

The Instruction on fighting German tank T-VIpamplet is dated 20 April 1943. The Live fire tests were conducted April 25-30th 1943.

IMHO the T-VI Instructions are useing the De Marre/ARTKOM calculated penetration formulas, for the T-VI penetration data.

Beliefe these are ARTKOM generated results, is supported by the date of the LF tests, vs the issue date of the T-VI Instructions, and the huge discrepency between actual Soviet weapon/ammunition performance vs an Tiger E, vs the data claimed in the T-VI instructions penetration data.

Ie,:

The front part of T-VI is reliably penetrated by anti-armor shells of 45-mm guns model 1942 and 57-mm and 76-mm of all models from distances 100-700 m, by armor-piercing shells of 122-mm guns model 1931, 152-mm gun-howitzers model 1937 from 700-1000 m.

Yet in the LF test report they state the F-34 could not defeat the Tigers side armor even at 200m. And the only gun reportedly that did penetrate the Tiger E armor was the M1939 85mm AA gun, which also reportedly penetrated the Tiger E armor frontaly @ 1000m.

Yet in the Sept 43 tests 85mm obr.1941 AT gun could only defeat the Tiger E side armor @ 500m useing an "improved round" , and could not defeat the Tiger E on the frontal arc at any range. Also from both LF tests the 76.2mm Zis-3 could not defeat the side hull/turret armor @ any range or angle.

Their also some interesting comments in the Soviet LF tests vs the Tiger II in 1945 Ie,:

7. The tank's side armor plates were notable for their sharply unequal durability in comparison with the frontal plates and appeared to be the most vulnerable part of the tank's hull and turret.

Yet:

9. The tank's hull and turret side plates were not penetrated by armor-piercing projectiles from the domestic 76 mm guns (ZIS-3 and F-34).

Reards, John Waters

[ May 02, 2003, 01:18 AM: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[PzKpfw 1]

Concerning Soviet tank/SU losses:

From June 22 1941, thru Dec 31 1941, the Soviets lost 20,500 tanks broken down as, 900 heavy tanks, 2,300 mediums, 17,300 Lt. tanks 72% of the tanks on hand & produced in this time period are lost.

From January 1, 1942 - December 31, 1942, the Soviets lose 15,000 tanks broken down as, 1,200 Heavy tanks, 6,600 Medium tanks, & 7,200 Lt. tanks 42.13% of the tanks on hand & produced in this time period are lost.

From January 1 1943, thru Dec 31 1943, the Soviets lose 22,400* tanks broken down as follows, 1,300 Heavy tanks, 14,700 Medium tanks, & 6,400 Lt. tanks. 51.50% of the tanks on hand & produced in this time period are lost.

From January 1 1944, thru Dec 31 1944, the Soviets lose 16,900* tanks, broken down as 900 Heavy tanks, 13,800 Medium tanks, & 2,300 Lt. tanks. 40% of the tanks on hand & produced in this time period are lost.

From January 1 1945, thru May 10, 1945, the Soviets lose *8,700 tanks broken down as follows, 900 Heavy tanks, 7,500 Meduim tanks, 300 Lt. tanks, 25.7% of the tanks on hand & produced in this time period are lost.

*Totals do not include SU loss totals, below is SU Production & losses in ( )'s:

1943 - 4,400 (1,100) 25%%

1944 - 16,900 (6,800) 40.2%

1945 - 15,900 (5,000) 33%

Total Tank/SU losses combined 1943 - 1945 were:

1943 - 23,500

1944 - 23,700

1945 - 13,700

Soviet AT gun losses only June 22 1941 - May 10 1945:

1941 - 12,100 (69.5%)

1942 - 11,500 (44.6%)

1943 - 5,500 (14.6%)

1944 - 9,300 (24.1%)

1945 - 4,000 (13%)

Regards, John Waters

[ May 02, 2003, 12:23 AM: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[rexford]

John Waters posted the following:

"Yet in the LF test report they state the F-34 could not defeat the Tigers side armor even at 200m. And the only gun reportedly that did penetrate the Tiger E armor was the M1939 85mm AA gun, which also reportedly penetrated the Tiger E armor frontaly @ 1000m.

Yet in the Sept 43 tests 85mm obr.1941 AT gun could only defeat the Tiger E side armor @ 500m useing an "improved round" , and could not defeat the Tiger E on the frontal arc at any range. Also from both LF tests the 76.2mm Zis-3 could not defeat the side hull/turret armor @ any range or angle."

I think the Sept. tests took place at an unspecified side angle.

How much info do you have on the tests where 76.2mm fails against side at 200m and 85mm succeeds against front at 1000m? Do you have the side angle from firing weapon to hull facing, and do you have the ammo used (BR-350A vs BR-350B vs special BR-350B for 76.2mm, and BR-365 vs BR-365K for 85mm).

Does the report say that 76.2mm could not defeat TIger side armor at any range or angle? What is the source of the Sept. 1943 report, is it Russian or German?

[PzKpfw 1]

Originally posted by rexford:

I think the Sept. tests took place at an unspecified side angle.

Yes Lorrin you have expressed your opinion on this before, & as I said, angles indicated were 0^, 60^ & 30^ in Sept 43 tests.

How much info do you have on the tests where 76.2mm fails against side at 200m and 85mm succeeds against front at 1000m?

That is exactly, what I have to date.

Do you have the side angle from firing weapon to hull facing, and do you have the ammo used (BR-350A vs BR-350B vs special BR-350B for 76.2mm, and BR-365 vs BR-365K for 85mm).

Does the report say that 76.2mm could not defeat TIger side armor at any range or angle? What is the source of the Sept. 1943 report, is it Russian or German?

See previous posts on for range & angle or above for ^. No it does not, Miles Krofgus states both BR-350A & BR-350B were both used in the Arpril test in his De Marre and ARTKOM AFV News article.

No identification of the 85mm AA fun rounds is made in the data I have collected on the April test 85mm round, except it defeated the frontal armor @ range.

In the April report the F-34 failed "even at 200 meters". The reports are Russian, conducted @ Kubinka & signed by Vorolov. Ranges were; as I have stated previously to you, & yes the F-34 & Zis-3 ammunition failed even @ 100m the angles used were 0 degrees - 30 degrees, & 60 degrees.

Regards, John Waters

[ May 02, 2003, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[rexford]

John Waters posted "In the April report the F-34 failed "even at 200 meters". The reports are Russian, conducted @ Kubinka & signed by Vorolov. Ranges were; as I have stated previously to you, & yes the F-34 & Zis-3 ammunition failed even @ 100m the angles used were 0 degrees - 30 degrees, & 60 degrees."

That is new info to me and really is terrific, well it's terrific for Tiger fans and those we were looking for something concrete to compare against.

So we finally have a range with an angle, T34 and 76.2mm field gun fails at 100m on 0, 30 and 60 degree hits.

Thanks for the great new material. Can you share the source of the info, where you obtained it (a report from some dusty archives, a post on another forum, etc.).

Your posts are really appreciated.

Lorrin