Questions about Russian MGs.

[The ol one eye.]

I admit I know absolutely nothing about Russian forces in WW2. I know thier tanks were second to none (after 1941) and their commanders were harsh and swift with capitol punishment.

I was very curios, especially with the advent of cover arc( ) of what Russian MGs were like?

Do they have a comparable LMG, MMG and HMG?

Anything like the ol Ma Deuce to give the kraut halftracks a scare?

What was thier MG doctrine in general, and how did it develop throughout the war?

Were Russki MGs respected or laughed at by the Germans?

Any info would be most welcome, Im sure there is someone out there who has this info and would like to start a disscusion about it. Thanks in advance!

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by The ol one eye.:

I know thier tanks were second to none (after 1941)

Err... second to the Germans and the Americans. In 41 they had an advantage, but that quickly went away

Anything like the ol Ma Deuce to give the kraut halftracks a scare?

Dash-K... bigger round than the Ma-Deuce (and they are still using it)

Their LMGs & MMGs were not as good as the MG34 and MG42.

As for doctrine, it was the same as everyone but the Germans... it supports the infantry (German doctrine was the infantry supports the MG)

[MajorBooBoo]

http://rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/mghvrus2.htm

Good source of general info since alot of it is WWII

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by The ol one eye.:

[snips]

I was very curios, especially with the advent of cover arc( ) of what Russian MGs were like?

Do they have a comparable LMG, MMG and HMG?

Anything like the ol Ma Deuce to give the kraut halftracks a scare?

What was thier MG doctrine in general, and how did it develop throughout the war?

The main Soviet MGs in each role during the Great Patriotic War were:

The DP (Degtyarev) was the standard LMG, equivalent to the Bren, ZB or Chatellerault. A good gun, with a large-capacity drum mag; lots of Soviet sections would carry two of them, especially late in the war. A shortage of DPs meant that sometime a DT (the Degtyarev model intended for use in tanks) would sometimes be used as a substitute.

The MMG might be, especially early in the war, the trusty PM-10 (Maksim); hefty on its cumbersome wheeled carriage and maybe shield, but, like the other water-cooled weapons of its vintage (Vickers, MG-08, Browning M1917) superbly reliable and capable of putting out large volumes of fire for protracted periods. Later in the war it was increasingly replaced by the SG-43 (Goryunov), an air-coooled weapon that was, again, a bit heavier than its foreign equivalents and mounted on a wheeled carriage.

Finally, the HMG would be the DShK (Shpagin), or "Dushka". This weapon has a reputation comparable to the Ma Deuce; it was still a favourite with the Muj in Afghanistan in the 1980s for use against Soviet helos. It also commanded the repect of the SAS during the Dhofar campaign (Ran Fiennes reports a pal of his saying "Jeez, man, they've got Shpagins!" on discovering that the Adoo were using them). Again, a bit on the heavy side, and a wheeled carriage.

I'm not aware of anything especially distinctive about the way the Sovs used their MGs, other than the strange fondness for trundling MMGs and HMGs around on wheels. In common with most European countries, the section weapon was a single-role LMG, not a GPMG as with the Germans nor a not-sure-what-I-am weapon like the BAR, although early in the war AVTs (Tokarev automatic rifles) might have been used as substitutes or supplements to the DP. As with so many other things, the Sov attitude to MGs seems to have been that you need lots of them; at full strength, a standard infantry company might field 18 LMGs and an MMG, and the battalion would have its own MMG company with 3 platoons each of 3 MMGs. That gives a battalion total of 54 LMGs and 12 MMGs, which is pretty respectable; they didn't stint on mortar firepower, either.

Zaloga & Ness' "Red Army Handbook" gives detailed TOEs for Soviet units throughout the war.

All the best,

John.

[The Commissar]

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

Err... second to the Germans and the Americans. (emphasis added)

*snort*

*cough*

ROFL!!

Thanks for the laugh!

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by The Commissar:

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

Err... second to the Germans and the Americans. (emphasis added)

*snort*

*cough*

ROFL!!

Thanks for the laugh! </font>

[Tiger]

"Soviet light machine gun was the Degtyareva Pekhotnii, or DP: a 7.62mm gun of light construction (looks like a rifle) with a horizontal drum magazine (i.e. flat) about the size of a 78 rpm record over the receiver and holding 47 rounds. ROF is listed at 520-580 per minute, though with the big flat drum magazine holding only 47 rounds you'd have to have a nunmber of extra magazines readily available. There is no single-shot mode for the DP. The barrel becomes very hot and is next to the spring which becomes warped and results in jams.

The DP light machine gun had only 6 moving parts. It was light, reliable and of simple manufacture. There was a tank version made called the DT which had a heavier barrel and a 60-round drum. Both versions had a bipod.

The Germans captured a large number of these and put them into use as the 7.62mm leMG 120®

Soviet medium machine gun would be the PM1910, a 7.62mm Maxim gun of Great War vintage, of which 9,691 were produced in 1941 by the Soviets, 55,258 in 1942 and by 1944 upwards of 270,000 had been produced.

The PM1910 was attached to a small pull-cart and was belt-fed (250-round), water-cooled, and had a small gun shield. ROF was 520-600 per minute.

Effective but considered too heavy for modern (1940s) warfare (it weighed 152 and a half pounds with cart).

Another medium Soviet MG was the SG-43, also mounted on a similiar hand cart like the PM1910. Created to be simpler to manufacture than the PM1910, the SG-43 had similiar performance but had a quick-change barrel but still was mounted on a pull-cart with a small gun-shield. However this gun never replaced the PM1910 since the old Maxium was still being produced in huge quantities.

The Soviet heavy MG is indeed the DShK firing 12.7mm x 108mm cartridges. This gun is a scaled-up version of the 7.62mm DP light machine gun, and like the medium MGs has it's own wheeled carriage (all told weighing a staggering 342 pounds!) The ammunition was fed from a side-mounted drum magazine and later a 50-round link belt, allowing a ROF of 550-600 rpm. A anti-air version mounted on a tripod was also employed. This big beefy machine gun is still in use today still with the 12.7 x 108mm ammo being manufactured, although in 1972 a new AP incendiary round was developed....."

Info taken from Terry Gander's excellent book "Allied Infantry Weapons of World War Two".

-john

[The ol one eye.]

Thanks for the run down John, its much appreciated. I remembered seeing those hefty 'Dash-Ks' on TC positions, they looked pretty mean. I cant wait to use them!

About the tanks, I meant that the Germans and Allies had respect for the design of the T-34. There is, however, no doubt that the lack of reliability and radios were serious drawbacks.

Do you think that the wheeled MGs will take an additional speed penalty? I imagine( again I have no idea) that it would be easier to carry the MMGs and HMGs in most situations. The thought of pushing one through mud or through rubble makes my back hurt. Then again, carying does too. Also, should the DP be handled like the German LMG, organic in squads and also availible by itself?

Thanks for the good link too BooBoo, Ive got to brush up on all my Soviet equipment in anticipation of CMBB.

{Edited cause Im 'tarded}

[ February 11, 2002, 09:13 PM: Message edited by: The ol one eye. ]

[antaresqc]

Hi guys !

Hmmm... second to none except the germans (rightfully so.. ) and the americans. Well, I'll take on a sherman with a T-34/85 or a JS-II anytime, not to mention the KV-1. 1941-42 T-34s were very unequal in production quality since they needed them and needed them FAST. Also, the factories were in a state of turmoil because of the emergency move east of the urals mountains. In the later stage of the war, production standards were much better and the T-34/85 was a clearly superior tank to the sherman in firepower, armor and speed/manoeuvrability. Reliability didn't seem to be a problem. The JS-II was a big and powerful tank, it had some problems (so it seems) with armor quality at some time but those problems were rare and were mostly corrected barring the occasionnal bad copy. To sum it all up, most of the german tank divisions were deployed on the east front (with the bulk of their army) and the soviet crushed them in 1943-44-45 so that's must be because their tanks and troops were not so bad heh ? The allies faced much lighter opposition and had all the troubles overcoming it with massive air supremacy on their side. The soviet weren't gods, far from it, but they didn't win the war by chance and solely because of (not that great btw) numerical superiority.

I'm waiting for the incoming (but largely innacurate) return fire

[The Commissar]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

How about if you just add something significant to the conversation and dispense with the sarcasm.

Surprise surprise, I really had nothing more to contribute that these other fine gentlemen before me already posted. So I decided to just have fun with a statement I found much fault in.

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Any tank that comes with a hammer for the sole purpose of changing gears with it, leaves a bit to be desired in the mechanical reliability department - surely no tank was the equal of the Sherman in this regard.

Hah! No other nation had the safety of the USA. They could sit back, in perfect peace, and build away undisturbed by such bothersome little factors like, oh I don't know...invading forces.

When the USA is invaded, millions of its people butchered, its factories forced to be relocated hundreds of miles and STILL be able to produce a top-notch quality tank with all the doo-hickeys and cup holders attached, I will consider your argument as valid.

As it stands, it can be assumed that the Soviets indeed had the best production and design with the resources and time they were given. Americans could afford to sit on a Sherman for months, making sure everything was in proper order. Not so for the tanks being produced say, in the heart of the Stalingrad battle.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by The ol one eye.:

[QB]

Do you think that the wheeled MGs will take an additional speed penalty? I imagine( again I have no idea) that it would be easier to carry the MMGs and HMGs in most situations. The thought of pushing one through mud or through rubble makes my back hurt. Then again, carying does too.

The US .30 MMG could be dismantled into two lighter pieces (gun and tripod), the German lafette mount also disassembled from the gun, as did the tripod for the Vickers. They were still damn heavy, but how often was it required to carry a heavy machine gun in action? The British Vickers MG crew usually had a carrier or truck, German infantry platoons had horse-drawn carts, etc.

You may have a point about doctrine - British MMG and HMGs were usually set up behind the front line, to provide interdiction fire, thicken barrages, or for defensive purposes. If the Russians were really making use of those wheels instead of dismantling the guns, I would suggest they were employing them farther forward than the other Allies....anyone care to provide more than simple speculation?

[Marlow]

Originally posted by antaresqc:

Hi guys !

Hmmm... second to none except the germans (rightfully so.. ) and the americans. Well, I'll take on a sherman with a T-34/85 or a JS-II anytime, not to mention the KV-1.

The easy-eight Sherman did just fine against the North Korean T34/85s. The Israelis also did pretty well with Shermans (albeit upgunned) against Russian tanks. And finally, the M-36 was essentially a Sherman with a 90mm dropped in. I'd take on a T-34 any day with a Jackson.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by The Commissar:

Surprise surprise, I really had nothing more to contribute that these other fine gentlemen before me already posted. So I decided to just have fun with a statement I found much fault in.

Hmm, you should have quite while you were ahead! You make a fine point about the pressures the Soviets were under, but don't be too sensitive - no one is judging the Russian people or saying they weren't capable of better (look at the space race or the atomic weapons race after the war...)

Looking at the tanks of the various nations on their own merits I hope you don't honestly believe that in the area of crew comfort, mechanical reliablity, or adaptability, that the Russians were in the same league as the Americans. (The Sherman was an infantry support tank, a main battle tank, a mine clearance vehicle, an armoured personnel carrier, an engineer vehicle, etc., etc.)

And I don't necessarily agree that the Americans could "afford" to sit on the Sherman for many months. Any US tanker who served in Normandy would tell you of the urgency they felt to get better armed tanks in production - even if the politicians and chair-borne officers in the 48 didn't. (EDIT - we can see, though, that the British/Americans never really did come up with anything to scare the Germans in anything like a timely manner - the Pershing etc. came out far too late, while the Russians had introduced the KV, IS2, etc. For this, I give the Russians full credit.)

None of which is to pass judgement on the hardships faced by the Russians as a people, or the bravery of their troops. [/disclaimer]

[ February 11, 2002, 10:01 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[lcm1947]

I really don't know much about the actual weapons themselves but if you would be interested in the cartridges that were used this might interest you. This is from the book Cartridges Of The World, under military cartridges section by Frank C. Barnes. The site that MajorBooboo referred you to is an excellent site and I enjoyed it very much myself but it didn't exactly tell you how good of a cartridge the 7.62x54R was. So thinking you'd be interested in that here is what the above book states. Basically it is in the same class as the .30-06. A little less powerful but overall a fine cartridge for military purposes. Here follows the muzzle velocity and Muzzle energy for the 4 most common cartridges that I know of in WWII.

Russian - 7.62x54R - MV - 2886 ME - 2727

American - .30.06 - MV - 2960 - ME - 2910

British - .303 British - MV - 2440 - ME - 2310

German - 7.9x57mm (8mm Mauser) MV -2880 -ME-2835

[The Commissar]

Crew comforts are besides the point. Its a part of doctrine, not "engineering skill".

Soviet doctrine began to form in the post WW1 years, continued through the 30's, when the purges momentarily halted it, and reappeared again as WW2 raged on. Soviet doctrine called for their AFV's to be above all, fighting machines. If cutting out "cushioned seats" resulted in more over all tanks produced, or descreasing the room in the turret resulting in thicker armor, the choice which benefited its purpose as a fighting machine above all else would be chosen.

Let me just analyze one of your sentences.

"I hope you don't honestly believe that in the area of crew comfort, mechanical reliablity, or adaptability, that the Russians were in the same league as the Americans."

Crew comforts: If this is a category which is supposed to elevate a tank above the rest, then sure, Americans and even the Germans were above the others.

However, while I do understand that crew comfort would place the crew in a better atmosphere, perhaps even making them fight better to a degree, I would rather take thicker armor or perhaps a larger calibre gun opposed to, say, a roomy turret and a clean interior.

Reliability: That depended in a large degree on the effects of the war on Soviet production. The T-34 series, starting out as a poor fighting machine with a 2-man turret and crap mechanics evolved into a tank still used by many armies today. When the Germans pressure was taken off Soviet production at least to some degree, Soviet factories and engineers were allowed to produce a tank a lot more reliable then the early '41 designs they had to push out the factory gate to stop the German tide.

Adaptability: Ill class the Sherman-variant examples you listed with the stuff about Sherman Jumbos Marlow said in a previous post.

It is of my opinion from reading on topics of Soviet armored production, and grogs may feel free to correct mistakes, that the T-34 really reached the end of its design with the introduction of the T-34/85. After this machine was produced and yielded good results, the Soviet staff was happy enough with it to discontinue upgrading the T-34 line. They had other projects to concentrate on, like further T designs that yeilded promising results.

The Americans on the other hand did not do this. Look at how many variations of the Shermans they had to go through for the tank to go from a "luxurious" (by WW2 tank standards) AFV to a truly effective machine. They had the upgraded gun Shermans, the upgraded armor shermans, the HVSS, the Jumbo's, the super Jumbos and a million others.

Oh, and as far as engineering tasks/mine rolling, etc., I believe that the T-34 could have been easily converted to similar versions if not for doctrine, once again. I think most of us know some of the Soviet mine clearing methods. I suppose lack of supplies and later in the war priority of all available supplies to roles of COMBAT over convenience/comfort/customability kept the T-34 mainly as a fighting machine instead of a "Dozer/Tractor/Lawn Mower/ AT-Infantry support All in one Wonder" type which happent to the Sherman.

Oh, and as a side not Marlow, I also seem to hear contradictory reports from many sources about the supposed 'easy time' the Jumbo had against T-34's. Most of these sources went on to say the Americans really only achieved armor superiority with the arrival of the Pershing.

[ February 11, 2002, 10:39 PM: Message edited by: The Commissar ]

[Brian]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by The Commissar:

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

Err... second to the Germans and the Americans. (emphasis added)

*snort*

*cough*

ROFL!!

Thanks for the laugh! </font>

[PJungnitsch]

In the US, the T34 and KVI were considered superior to the M3 and M4 medium tanks - again, something which wasn't hard.

I wouldn't get too carried away. T-34 was revolutionary design, but Soviet tanks have always had a habit of looking better on paper than they perform in real life. The little things mean a lot. The Americans were impressed in some ways by their T-34 and KV, but disappointed in many others by the sample they had. And I reckon its not a Soviet problem so much as a Communist problem.

Hands up those of us here driving a Lada or Yugo

[Tanaka]

Marlow,

I can bring a North Korean to the forum and I bet he will state the contrary about the Shermans and the T-34/85…

Well after all, the T-34 and the JS-II still are operationally and used today, just take a walk in central Africa.

The tankers on those tanks do not exactly have a degree in tactics, but after all…

What a piece of equipment, 50 years of history on its armor and working…

These machines knew Russian crews; Egyptians; Sudanese ones and now those unita monkeys and they just go on and on for ever…

How much do you think a full with extras (gear box with “personality” and “forced” air included), T-34 costs ? a 1/100 of a Abrams ? A few little diamonds ? Even less ?

The engines of those babies work on anything that burns, just don’t try to give them water… You can see the engine smoke well before you see the tank, what a sight…brum,brum…braumm.

A toast to the best all around tank of the 2nd WW, the T-34 !!! :cool:

A M-36, you are joking… what is that ? Some exotic mammal ? Ok, I agree with you… open top is good, it makes the escape easier & faster…

This remembers me another honest product that came from those parts of the globe, the famous AK 47… Nowadays, with 70$ any one can buy one in Pakistan, and it is brand new and it has never been fired (that’s why I advice to ask for the seller to fire it first on the other direction), after that you can go anywhere on the globe and be sure to be able to shoot back and make your self heard.

[gunnergoz]

My 2 bits (I know you all await breathlessly for it ):

If I were alter the question a bit, I'd ask: "Which country produced the best tank it could come up with AT THE TIME."

To such a question, I'd have to give the not to first the Russians, second the Germans, third to the US and fourth to the Brits.

What I mean by this is that internecine politics, narrow-minded leadership and a refusal to "think outside of box led the Brits and US in particular to evolve tanks that were not as good as might have been designed had the engineers been given free reign, or had the fighting troops been listened to more closely.

The Russians I laud for coming up with the T-34 which was years ahead of it's foes and a real trend-setter. I also compliment the Germans for seeing the need for better tanks and guns and invariably rising to the challenge in both evolutionary and revolutionary bounds, creating excellent machines in the process.

British tank design was muddled jumble of outmoded thinking, twisted by competing interests within the Royal Army between infantry generals and cavalry generals. The engineers couldn't seem to make anything complicated enough to suit their tastes and were badly locked into unimaginative designs for way too long.

The US Army was hampered by the single-minded obstinacy of the Army Ground Forces leadership, which was responsible for designing and raising the wartime army and its weaponry. These folks convinced themselves that the Sherman was the best tank design in the world, never even having seen an enemy tank or having paid much attention to world events. The fact that it was "made in USA" was sufficient for these gents.

The Sherman's advantages - automotive reliability, mobility and suitability for mass production - were more attributable to the US automotive industry's input to the design, than to any skill on the part of army planners who devised the thing.

Later US tank designs were quite good, both the Chaffee and Pershing being at least equal to their opponents. But, thanks to the army leadership, the introduction of both tanks was delayed in part due to the stubborn refusal of AGF to admit that the Sherman and Stuart were obsolete literally off the starting blocks.

[PJungnitsch]

Originally posted by gunnergoz:

[if I were alter the question a bit, I'd ask: "Which country produced the best tank it could come up with AT THE TIME."

To such a question, I'd have to give the not to first the Russians, second the Germans, third to the US and fourth to the Brits.

The most sensible thing anyone has said here so far.

[The Commissar]

Originally posted by Paul Jungnitsch:

I wouldn't get too carried away. T-34 was revolutionary design, but Soviet tanks have always had a habit of looking better on paper than they perform in real life.

Umm, isn't that the case for any tank design from almost any country? The real world and the crap it throws at you in the middle of a battlefield tends to produce some stark revalations.

Originally posted by Paul Jungnitsch:

The little things mean a lot. The Americans were impressed in some ways by their T-34 and KV, but disappointed in many others by the sample they had. And I reckon its not a Soviet problem so much as a Communist problem.

I saw a report (probably on the Russian battlefield or some other such site) where it had an Ami analysis of an early T-34. The 2 man turret one.

The Americans were impressed by the armor and armament but didn't much care for lack of comfort and poor quality of runnign gears/engine. I forget if this was prior to or during the war.

Originally posted by Paul Jungnitsch:

Hands up those of us here driving a Lada or Yugo

My relatives in Russia own a Volga. If I could, I would ship it here to the States. Truly a "Born and Bred a Red" car - damn quality though.

[ASL Veteran]

Okay, I did a little digging and it would appear that the penetration ratings for the various 76mm guns on the T-34 (and other Soviet vehicles) are comparable to the US 75mm - the 76mm has a marginally higher MV, but the penetration is almost identical to the penetration ratings listed in CM for the Sherman 75.

The T-34/85 main gun has penetration stats that are similar to the US 76 used by the "Easy Eight" - nearly identical at 0 degrees at 500 meters and 1,000 meters as far as I can tell. Armor protection between the Sherman and T-34 is also similar in terms of thickness. I am not sure about the slope comparison of the front plates - but the Sherman in CM is something like 60 mm 47 degrees IIRC.

So taking a look at things a little less "patriotically" it would seem that the Sherman 75 is the rough equivalent of the T-34/76 and the Sherman 76 is the rough equivalent of the T-34/85 in terms of firepower and protection. This only leads to a comparison of reliability and crew placement / space. On that I will leave you all to judge for yourselves .

Naturally if someone would like to post some comprehensive statistics for penetration and armor protection I think it would possibly bring a little less - 'opinionated' discussion on the topic and a little more 'direct comparison'.

Everybody knows the T-34 is an uber tank therefore it must be superb. Everybody knows how much the Sherman sucks, so it must be a lame tank that explodes on sight. Well, the Germans didn't think the Sherman was a suck tank at El Alamein. I think people will find the Sherman to be quite effective in Tunisia and Italy when CM 3 comes out. Try tangling with a Sherman in a Pz III armed with the same gun as those 50mm AT guns in CMBO. Yeah, I think some German players might have a tough time of it. A Pz IIIJ would have just as much trouble with a Sherman as it would have with a T-34 - and that's really where the T-34 got its reputation. Fighting against Pz IIIs.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

Okay, I did a little digging and it would appear that the penetration ratings for the various 76mm guns on the T-34 (and other Soviet vehicles) are comparable to the US 75mm - the 76mm has a marginally higher MV, but the penetration is almost identical to the penetration ratings listed in CM for the Sherman 75.

.

Hey - the TO KILL chart on the QRDC does NOT count as a reference!

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

A Pz IIIJ would have just as much trouble with a Sherman as it would have with a T-34 - and that's really where the T-34 got its reputation. Fighting against Pz IIIs.

Or even better, fighting against unsupported infantry with no organic AT weapons - hence the introduction of the Panzervernichtunsabzeichen.... - or infantry who only had the regimental panzerjäger company with some towed 5cm PaKs to call on...

As you rightly point out, ASL Vet, a tank's gun and armour are not "good" or "bad" when viewed in isolation - only once compared to what it is asked to fight against...

[ February 12, 2002, 12:04 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[ASL Veteran]

Hey - the TO KILL chart on the QRDC does NOT count as a reference! [/QB]

Sometimes you just gotta go with what's available!! . Obviously I didn't dig very far . That's also why I encouraged someone to post some data in order to take at least a slightly rational look at the two vehicles. Chest thumping patriotic discussions don't get ya very far if we want to actually learn something.