Questions about Russian MGs.

[JasonC]

"logic states that a tank with a simpler design would be simpler to repair."

Logic says that if A then B, and A, then B. The above statement has nothing to do with logic - lol. The fact is the Russian tanks broke down far more often than even the German ones, and the German ones broke down more often than the US ones. Part of the latter was probably due to economic constraints on production, corner cutting that forced in design and production, etc.

As already mentioned, in heavy action it was perfectly ordinary for half of the T-34 fleet to drop out with breakdowns in less than a month. Here is an anecdote about the comparative reliability of Shermans.

The Russians got a number of LL Shermans and some survived the war. Having useful, strong and reliable engines, they were put to civilian work, after their turrets and weapons were removed. One way they were used is as tractors in railroad yards, pushing around rolling stock, to free up full locomotives for heavier work.

One of these railroads was in southern Russia, where the weather tends to be more mild, reducing wear. They had a few LL Shermans running in the RR yard as tractors - for quite a while. The last of these workhorses was retired from service and placed in a museum - in the early 1990s! After fifty years of service. Under Russian crews, so it cannot simply be put down to poor maintenance knowledge or practices.

The Russians simply designed their tanks with the idea that they would probably only last a few months in action at most, due to combat wastage, and so great reliability was a luxury item, not an essential. As a result they got many tanks very quickly, even from their shrunken industrial base (the Germans took areas that had housed half of pre-war Russia's industrial production), but not very reliable ones. The result was they got fine tanks but with limited "wind". And this was part of the reason for the tempo of breakthrough, stabilization, and lull that the Russian front typically showed in the second half of the war, when the Russians were attacking.

As for ground pressure, it is quite correct that the T-34s were better on that score, until the HVSS model Shermans arrived. A T-34/85 and an Easy Eight Sherman are comparable vehicles in almost every respect. The T-34/85 has somewhat better HE blast and better side armor. The Sherman is more reliable mechanically. But the idea that one is a vehicle in a higher category - like a Panther or Tiger - and the other an early war relic or poor design, is simply poppycock.

The Russians had tanks as capable as the western Allies in most fighting respects a year to six months earlier than the western Allies did. The German tanks were inferior to both, at the time of their first appearance. Pz IIIs are inferior to Shermans, not less than they are inferior to T-34/76s. The Germans leapt beyond the standard of either tank with the Panther. And the late Pz IVs were only marginally worse than the upgunned versions of either (Sherman 76 or T-34/85), and better than the early versions of each (Sherman 75 or T-34/76).

The Russians played the heavy tank escalation game with the Germans and produced JS-2s, ISUs, and SU-100s by late in the war. The Americans lagged and produced Pershings only after the war, and did not work out their bugs until Korea. One should not confuse the difference at the high end - which was marked, with the western Allies not keeping up - with the basic perfomance characteristics of the main vanilla varities. Which was quite close for all concerned (StuG and Pz IV, T-34, Sherman).

[Scott B]

You know, it'd be interesting to read a comparative study of the combat performance of Soviet tank and mechanized units with lend lease equipment verses those with home grown Soviet systems. Particularly as you'd think the addition of lend-leased halftracks might have influenced things to some extent as well. The Soviets organized a fair number of units with lend leased equipment, and it might be worthwhile to see what kinds of units they sent certain allied vehicles to, in order to see what they thought these vehicles were best suited for.

I'm familiar with at least one mechanized corps being comprised of lend leased vehicles, but am not sure about the others. I know I have some information along these lines at home, but it's far from comprehensive. By looking into (for example) whether the Soviets typically employed lend lease units equipped with Shermans in the infantry support role verses an exploitation/mobile group role, it might be instructive in that their implied opinion of the vehicles is probably a better measure than merely looking at the tactical specs.

Thoughts? Anyone able to help out with this?

Scott

[Michael Dorosh]

Just curious you would expect to find out about halftracks? The Americans saw them as unreliable and dangerous - the rubber shredded off the tracks, the armour was too thin, and riding in one was likened to driving across a washboard...did the Russians have a similar reaction, do you think?

[Tanaka]

Marlow,

Thanks for the link...

Now as for the M-36, I know the tank destroyer and its 90mm gun… and I think although the hull gives it some protection, the turret is another business, its low angle value (0º to 5º) doesn’t give it much.

As for the top cover on that picture, lets see it as an hand grenade/rain protection plate, wish would make the escape no longer fast & easy

Comparing the T-34 with the M-36 is like comparing the “good overall” idea, with “ the all or nothing” one… guess who is whom ?

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

You completly left out the T-34's superior suspension and wide tracks (...)

another thing to keep in mind is OPTICS... Ok, so this plays no role in CM , but in reality, what good is a 76mm gun when you can't hit anything with it?

I was under the impression that the russian optics were not the best in WW2?

[dalem]

This has been touched on, even in this thread, before, but I think that it is difficult to discuss 'the best' this or 'the worst' that without picking a scale. If you're going to talk about 'the better' tank, then we need to think about 'better' for exactly what? And to whom? With so many variables to think about on an individual vehicle - armor effectiveness, gun effectiveness vs. soft or hard targets, ammo stowage, speed, engine and drive train reliability, number and effectiveness of machine guns; not to mention ease of maintenance, ease of construction, ease of shipping, and ease of recovery at larger levels, it's not sensible to try to make sweeping generalizations.

A president or fuhrer or premier is not necessarily going to worry about the same AFV characteristics as an armored division general or a logistics colonel, and none of them are probably going to emphasize the same things that an actual front line crew would.

'Better' without scale is just a pissing contest.

-dale

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Stormhouse:

The T-34 didnt have cup holders or super comfort but guess what it got the job done, by kicking the germans back all the way to berlin. I dont care if the panther was better, it was created after the T-34, it was also rip-off of the T-34.

Rip-off of the T-34, bollocks more like. The only design cue that is directly traceable to the design of T-34 is the sloped armour.

Wa Pruef 6 created the conceptual design specs for the replacment of the PIV/III then know as the VK series in 1938. Oberst Ernest Kniepkamp head of Wa Pruef 6 was a lover of speed, His VK series all included "Large road wheels without return rollers, Torsion bar suspensions, The latest motor design, packing increased HP in the smallest space, Power assisted semi-automatic transmissions, Advanced steering gear designs." (1995, Jentz pg 9) The T34 could not have provided the cues for the VK series automotive. The T34 did not use a double interleaved suspension, nor semi automatic transmissions and had a simple clutch and break system for steering vs the fixed radius steering gear of the Panther that allowed for the ability to turn in place.

[Tiger]

One point he made against the Sherman... it can't pivot (seems the damned thing turns like a car)

Aye, an important point. The Sherman could not lock one track and pivot on the other. The result, as one sherman crewmember observed, is that "the sherman takes a whole field to turn around in".

However in CMBO the sherman gets to pivot on one track.

-john

[ February 12, 2002, 09:03 PM: Message edited by: Tiger ]

[Michael Dorosh]

So how does the Sherman steer then?

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

You completly left out the T-34's superior suspension and wide tracks (...)

another thing to keep in mind is OPTICS... Ok, so this plays no role in CM , but in reality, what good is a 76mm gun when you can't hit anything with it?

I was under the impression that the russian optics were not the best in WW2?</font>

[Iron Chef Sakai]

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

You completly left out the T-34's superior suspension and wide tracks (...)

another thing to keep in mind is OPTICS... Ok, so this plays no role in CM , but in reality, what good is a 76mm gun when you can't hit anything with it?

I was under the impression that the russian optics were not the best in WW2?</font>

[dalem]

Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

Ya the Germans would say....."the T-34 does not have the best optics in the world, this piece of junk tank is no match for us, if only we had some Shermans to fight them with." Pick any book you want, whether you realy like the Sherman or not, it is FACT that in World War 2 the T-34 was better then the Sherman.

Oh, do go away. You're not funny, you're not knowledgeable, and you're not relevant.

-dale

[Battlefront.com]

Is this "my mommy is bigger than your mommy, so there NNNNNNNNAAAAAAAAH!!!" thread really necessary?

Each weapon system has its + and - factors. If I had the ability to tailor pick a tank for each individual circumstance I as a tanker would face, I can PROMISE you that I would likely not choose the same one each and every time. To say what "best" or "worst" is, one has to first define what that means. Survivability? Well, I think the Matilda scores damned well in that regard for its day, but was it the best tank? No. Best armored? Something like the Ferdinand/Elephant was the best in its day, but I wouldn't like to be caught up in a swift moving battle where the rest of my buddies were headed towards me in a great hurry. Reliability? It would probably be something like a Stuart, which I certainly wouldn't like to get into a pissing match with anything more than a Hitler Youth with a defective Panzerfaust.

And so on and so on.

What does any of this crap prove? That some of you have WAAAAAAY too much time on your hands

Steve

[The ol one eye.]

Yeah, what Steve said....

Anyways, back to the question. I always thought that a soldiers opinion of the enemy's weapon's was a somewhat telling thing, biased as it may be. I've heard that the Germans were often scared $hitless of the .50 cal and I imagine that means they were also repectfull of the Soviet HMG. Why did'nt the Germans also develop a 'heavier' MG, one that could repay the Allies for countless HTs and soiled underwear?

What is a good source\website\book that goes into soldiers from each side's opinions of eachother,then and now?

Sorry for all the questions, but as CMBB gets closer to reality, I want to know more and more and more....

[Tiger]

So how does the Sherman steer then?

You can slow down one track vs the other but can not lock one track and pivot in place.

-john

[edgars]

Originally posted by Tiger:

Slow down to extent that it stops. Whereas the german tanks had an independent drive train which means one track can go forward, and the other - backwards. And that helps a lot in turning in place.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by The ol one eye.:

[QB]Yeah, what Steve said....

Why did'nt the Germans also develop a 'heavier' MG, one that could repay the Allies for countless HTs and soiled underwear?

[QB]

Was it really doctrine to take out halftracks with machineguns? German halftracks were a rarity anyway - even in a panzer division, two battalions at most would have them, and in any event the infantry dismounted to fight - foolish commanders (like Graebner at Arnhem Bridge) would rush their vehicles forward asking to get wiped out. So you have what - 1 percent of all German infantry battalions in World War Two actually being mounted in halftracks? I can't see that as a reason for upping the scale of issue of heavy machineguns.

The question is valied, but for the wrong reasons. The machine-gun was never considered an anti-armour device - anti-tank guns were supposed to do that for the infantry, no matter what nationality he was.

[Battlefront.com]

ciks is partially correct. In order to "neutral steer" or do a "zero radius turn" the vehicle had to have a speciall transmission which had to be engaged seperately from the normal one. Some German tanks had this feature, but only a few. There have been countless discussions about this in the past.

Neutral Steering is great in theory. In reality it is often the quickest way to throw a track or cause failure to a part of the suspension. I've heard that at least National Guard units in the US have their neutral steering controls locked down so that they can not be used. Throwing a track during precious, expensive training time is frowned upon

Steve

[dalem]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by The ol one eye.:

[QB]Yeah, what Steve said....

Why did'nt the Germans also develop a 'heavier' MG, one that could repay the Allies for countless HTs and soiled underwear?

[QB]

Was it really doctrine to take out halftracks with machineguns? German halftracks were a rarity anyway - even in a panzer division, two battalions at most would have them, and in any event the infantry dismounted to fight - foolish commanders (like Graebner at Arnhem Bridge) would rush their vehicles forward asking to get wiped out. So you have what - 1 percent of all German infantry battalions in World War Two actually being mounted in halftracks? I can't see that as a reason for upping the scale of issue of heavy machineguns.

The question is valied, but for the wrong reasons. The machine-gun was never considered an anti-armour device - anti-tank guns were supposed to do that for the infantry, no matter what nationality he was.</font>

[Michael Dorosh]

dalem - understood; I wasn't implying that MGs were not used that way - but I think it would be false to suggest that scale of issue in any of the Allied armies, of heavy MGs, would have been affected because of some potential use against German halftracks...they weren't all that common.

Doctrinally speaking, wouldn't the Cannon Company in a US unit be the most likely called on to provide anti-armour defence, with bazooka second - and the effectiveness of .50 MGs against armour a happy coincidence?

[dalem]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

dalem - understood; I wasn't implying that MGs were not used that way - but I think it would be false to suggest that scale of issue in any of the Allied armies, of heavy MGs, would have been affected because of some potential use against German halftracks...they weren't all that common.

I agree. The scale of issue, at least in the U.S. Army, was something along the lines of "as many as possible". Forty's "US Army Handbook" shows a 1943+ Infantry Division with 236 .50cal, to 157 .30cal. Now, a good number of those M2s would have been on various vehicle pintle mounts, but that still leaves quite a few for MG platoons and the like to use.

But as far as the logic of someone inventing a new HMG solely for anti- light armor work in another army, based purely on U.S. results, I agree that the role was already being adequately filled by various ATG and LATW at the time.

Doctrinally speaking, wouldn't the Cannon Company in a US unit be the most likely called on to provide anti-armour defence, with bazooka second - and the effectiveness of .50 MGs against armour a happy coincidence?

Oh sure, I have no doubt that that is how it most likely worked in the field when doctrine and reality met. When a platoon of PanzerGrenadiers shows up at your roadblock with their HTs hosing MG fire at you from a few hundred yards away (assuming that kind of LOS), I doubt the first thing you're going to yell for is the Ma Duece. Your 57mm ATGs should engage, if they're there, then your bazooka boys should try to maneuver into position. But if an M2 is there and has a shot at the HTs and had the time... it would know it was a decent shot.

-dale

[Scott B]

Originally posted by JasonC:

The fact is the Russian tanks broke down far more often than even the German ones, and the German ones broke down more often than the US ones. Part of the latter was probably due to economic constraints on production, corner cutting that forced in design and production, etc.

As already mentioned, in heavy action it was perfectly ordinary for half of the T-34 fleet to drop out with breakdowns in less than a month.

My readings have indicated that all large mechanized formations suffer high breakdown rates during advances; in fact the Red Army loss rate due to breakdowns was much higher than you've mentioned here, according to Soviet sources (who say 8-10% per day, and in some cases losing over half in 3 days). What I have not been able to find is comparable figures and descriptions of technical support for German armored formations. I'm willing to believe that the American numbers are better than the Soviets (in no small way due to issues of scale, but the Americans had different pressures on them than the Soviets did as well), but anecdotal evidence at the least suggests that the higher complexity (albeit rarer) "big cats" required immense amounts of servicing time compared to the norm.

Do you have any hard figures for the loss rates due to breakdowns for the Germans during a major advance? Did it get better or worse as the war went on?

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Just curious you would expect to find out about halftracks? The Americans saw them as unreliable and dangerous - the rubber shredded off the tracks, the armour was too thin, and riding in one was likened to driving across a washboard...did the Russians have a similar reaction, do you think?

The Soviets lacked any form of "home grown" armored transport during WWII. They received a number of universal carriers from the British and a number of halftracks from the Americans via lend-lease, however, and I was wondering whether these might have given an advantage to the formations that employed lend leased armor.

Looking through some sources last night I did note that in at least one case a Soviet formation turned in T-34/85s for Shermans. I like how the Soviets employed their Shermans as well - they received about 2000 Sherman 75s, and 2000 Sherman 76s. The 75mm armed Shermans went to the tank regiments of Mechanized [infantry] Brigades (where they'd be tasked specifically with infantry support), while the 76mm armed Shermans went to the Tank Brigades (exploitation units that would also be as or more likely to deal with enemy armor).

Originally posted by The ol one eye.:

I've heard that the Germans were often scared $hitless of the .50 cal and I imagine that means they were also repectfull of the Soviet HMG.

By TO&E the Soviet 12.7mm HMGs were assigned to AAMG units rather than line units, who typically employed MMGs instead. It may well be that the Germans did not see as many DShKs as they did M2 .50 cals, simply for the fact that the former were not present on practically every armored vehicle in their arsenal (save some of the halftracks), as was the case with the Americans.

On the Lend Lease angle again but with the AAMG thing in mind, another thing I noticed was that the Soviets showed a strong preference for the American halftrack mounted AA vehicles over their own truck mounted quad AAMGs; apparently a fair number of otherwise "all Soviet" equipped tank and mechanized formations traded their quad maxim trucks for American quad-.50 cal and 37mm/.50 cal equipped halftracks.

Scott

[Conscript Bagger]

dalem and Michael - wasn't Cannon Co. an organic artillery unit, equipped with 105mm howitzers or some such, while the 57mm were grouped in an AT unit? Or was the AT part of Cannon Co. as well?

[PJungnitsch]

Originally posted by Scott B:

anecdotal evidence at the least suggests that the higher complexity (albeit rarer) "big cats" required immense amounts of servicing time compared to the norm.

Not necessarily. There were advances in the design of the Panther and Tiger chassis that included central greasing and easy track adjusting that made servicing quicker.

From an American evaluation of a captured Panther in 'Weapons of Pattons Armies':

1. Tracks. Track blocks are removed by knocking out two drift pins. Track tension is adjusted by turning one large nut. Crews agreed that track adjustment and maintenance were easier on the Mark V than American tanks. During approximately 75 miles of operation, both on roads and -country, tracks have given no trouble except for track guides. These were broken when the tank was recovered.

2. Lubrication. A master grease fitting inside the turret lubricates all bearings in the tank. This is a desirable feature.

Compare this to T-34 (Russian Battlefield):

I must notice that track tensioning was a real pain for the crew, the tracks could be tensioned by three men equipped with one sledge-hammer and a couple of a hundred coarse words. All attempts to simplify this process failed and the rest of the war Soviet tankers troubled with tracks tensioning.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Offwhite:

dalem and Michael - wasn't Cannon Co. an organic artillery unit, equipped with 105mm howitzers or some such, while the 57mm were grouped in an AT unit? Or was the AT part of Cannon Co. as well?

I've seen it TO&Ed as both, but the sources I trust more (i.e Forty's "US Army Handbook") have the Regimental Cannon Co. with a battery of short-barrelled 105s and an antitank company of 12x 57mm antitank guns. Most subordinate TO&Es I've seen (from wargames and such) just have them automatically distributed amongst the battalions, one platoon each.

-dale