ROF for T34 w/ 2man turret

[Doug Beman]

I bet this has been discussed, but I can't find the threads.

I've just read a part of my newest book on Kursk, giving a description of the T34. According to this, the T34's turret held 77 rounds of main gun ammo, but only 9 were in ready-use lockers. The remainder were located in bins under the rubber floormat of the turret. After the 9 ready-use rounds were gone, the loader had to flip up the mat to pull more rounds out; meanwhile, as the main gun fired, it would drop spent shell casings into that storage bin, further complicating matters.

Is this accurate? Did it seriously cut ROF after the 9 ready-use rounds were gone? Will this appear in CMBB?

DjB

[Louie the Toad]

Dear Doug

In Panzer Aces, which of course views the T-34 from the receiving end, your impression seems to be validated.

In almost every situation I have read, the german tanks with a commander, gunner and loader in the turret have better awareness and reaction time during an engagement. I didn't realize that the T - 34 had only a 2 man turret, but that certainly would explain why the russian tanks seem 1) to be slow on the draw 2) appear to behave in a 'herd mentality' fashion.

In the book, the descriptions of tank engagements from inside a panzer have the commander and gunner seeing targets simultaneously. The gunner fires immediately upon the order, sometimes earlier. The loader puts one in the spout just as the commander and gunner are visually acquiring the next target. Commander ="Tank by the round bushes" Gunner = "I've got him". Bang. Commander =

"a hit", "second tank, 100m to the left" Loader = "ready". Gunner = "I see him".

Commander = "Fire" Bang. Gunner = "he's smoking". etc.....

The result is a much higher effective rate of fire by the panzer as well as more accurate shooting. A typical anecdote would be 3 T - 34 s vs a PZlV. The first two 34s are taken out without becoming aware of the situation, the third russian just maybe might get a shot off, usually missing, and is KOed by the third shot of the panzer.

By the way. Lots of mention of 800 m being the ideal tank fighting distance. But many of these meelees happened between 10 m (yes 10) to

100 m.

Hoping for flying turret distruction in CMBB.

Frisbee Toad.

[Brian]

Only the first version(s) of the T34/76 had a two man turret. This was corrected, IIRC on the M1943 version, which introduced a larger turret, with a loader in it. Even so, the lack of a turret basket, plus the storage arrangements for the rounds, made fighting the vehicle a great deal more difficult than was the case in the Panzer III or IV.

The T34/85, of course was a completely different beastie one must be careful in differentiating not only between the two gun calibres but also the differences in the turret designs for the /76. IIRC there were I believe about 3 or 4 different turrets produced for the /76 and only 2 for the /85 (the later of which doesn't really concern us 'cause it was a just post-war development). The main external differences for the /76 were the hatches and the shape (rounded corners or definite hexagonel).

[Mattias]

All T34/76 had four man crews, out of which only two were in the turret (Russian Tanks..., Milsom) .

Among the many models up until model "F" you find at the very least 7 types of turrets with varying ballistic characteristics. Judging by the many discussions regarding armour quality, welding quality etc you could probably produce dozens of different turret configurations.

M.

[Doug Beman]

So, should we expect to see this reflected in the T34's ROF in CMBB? Will there be a sudden drop-off after the ready-use ammo has been expended?

DjB

[Mattias]

I think not in CM:BB, perhaps in CMII, BTS willing.

As it is now the details of tank gunnery and design specific features are abstracted, quite considerably. Though CM:BB will feature improvements with respect to two man turrets they will not include, I assume, the of counting rounds in ready racks.

I for one consider the fact that all guns are always "loaded" with the right kind of ammunition to be an even bigger "omission". In CM style quick draw fights this would be the difference between life and death in many cases.

M.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Mattias:

I think not in CM:BB, perhaps in CMII, BTS willing.

As it is now the details of tank gunnery and design specific features are abstracted, quite considerably. Though CM:BB will feature improvements with respect to two man turrets they will not include, I assume, the of counting rounds in ready racks.

I for one consider the fact that all guns are always "loaded" with the right kind of ammunition to be an even bigger "omission". In CM style quick draw fights this would be the difference between life and death in many cases.

M.

That is a VERY good point the appropriate type of round is always asssumed to be loaded in the breach in CMBO (except for smoke :confused: rounds of course). and I agree completely "In CM style quick draw fights this would be the difference between life and death in many cases."

I'm not sure we can expect to see much change in that in CMBB?

oh well

-tom w

[ May 07, 2002, 09:25 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[YankeeDog]

I believe most, if not all, WWII era tanks had only a limited amount of their ammo stored in ready-racks where it was quickly accessible by the loader.

The T-34's total of 9 rounds available in the ready racks may have been somewhat less than what other tanks had, but sooner or later any tank crew would have to move ammo up from the stowage bins to continue firing. If you're going to model ready-rack replenishment for the T-34, than to be fair I think you have to model it for all tanks.

The T-34 may also have been at a disadvantage because, with one less crewmember than similar tanks, there would be less hands avaiable to move the shells.

Ready rack replenishment might be tricky to model. I assume that the crew would replenish the racks any chance they got, so you'd have to make as decision as to just how 'unengaged' a tank would need to be (obviouly no rack replenishment while engaging an enemy tank, but what about while sitting on a ridge area firing into an enemy held town with no anti-armor threat in sight??), who does the work of moving the ammo (does the bow MG gunner help move the ammo? If so, the bow MG can't fire while the ready racks are being replenished) and how long it takes to replenish the racks. You also have to do research into just how many rounds of each type were usually stored in the racks.

At the very least, the tank would have to be still, or at best travelling in a straight line on a nice flat road, for the racks to be replenished. I imagine that a good tank crew would take advantage of any lulls in action to replenish those racks (and clear out empty shell casings rolling around), and might change the types of rounds in the racks based on what it thought the most likely threat at any given moment was.

Not that I wouldn't appreciate these additional realism features being added to the game, just pointing out that modeling things like ready racks and riding with rounds in the chamber would definitly add a considerable amount of complexity to the model and so there's good reason why we probably won't see them in CMBB.

Here's looking forward to all of the arguments. . . um, I mean "discussions" we will have over the model rewrite. . .

Cheers,

YD

[Doug Beman]

Thanks for responses. In this description, a little later, the turret is described as having seats that are welded to the turret ring[i/] and not the turret itself, so as the turret turns the seats don't move.

As a result, if the tank is engaging targets that are behind it, won't the gun's position severely affect loading/aiming operations? This book doesn't (at least not yet) give any indication of that, but it makes me wonder.

DjB

[rexford]

Originally posted by Brian:

Only the first version(s) of the T34/76 had a two man turret. This was corrected, IIRC on the M1943 version, which introduced a larger turret, with a loader in it. Even so, the lack of a turret basket, plus the storage arrangements for the rounds, made fighting the vehicle a great deal more difficult than was the case in the Panzer III or IV.

Untrue. All 76mm armed T34 had two man turrets.

T34 M43 hexagonal turret was bigger, which might allow for more efficiency and a higher rate of fire (more elbow room).

T34 was well known for awful vision to sides and rear prior to implementation of a cupola. Little slits in turret side walls often had bubbles in them and were not magnifying glass.

[rexford]

I have read where T34 turret seats were stationary, and as turret rotated crew had to get off the seat and move.

[jgdpzr]

Originally posted by rexford:

I have read where T34 turret seats were stationary, and as turret rotated crew had to get off the seat and move.

Wow, I have never heard this. Also, I am looking at a drawing of a cutaway T-34/76 (1942) with the turret rotated to the right ~45 degrees and you can clearly see how at least the commander's/gunner's seat is rotated accordingly (can't see the loaders seat). Admittedly, this is from an Osprey/New Vanguard book which is certainly not a definitive source, but I wonder if this was a feature of very early models.

I have only seen the interior of a T-34/85, but despite being roomier than the 76 it is still a very confined space. If the crews had to literally get off their seats and move with the turret, they really had it rough. Just trying to step along with the movement of the turret and dodge the fixtures (spartan as they are) would take a great deal of coordination.

I would be interested to see the sources that describe this layout. Doug, what is the title of the book you are reading (author as well)? And Rexford, if you can find the source that corroborates this I'd appreciate it as well.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by rexford:

I have read where T34 turret seats were stationary, and as turret rotated crew had to get off the seat and move.

Loader had to 'walk after' the gun in the PIII as well.

[ May 08, 2002, 07:57 PM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[Paul Lakowski]

T-34-76 had only two men in the turret and the ROF was very low, about 3-4 rpm . Experienced [Guards?] crews would get the radio operator to feed rounds to the gunner who loaded while the Tank commander fired spoted and tried to direct the tank???? no wonder they had poor spotting. German repeatly report getting 3-4 shots of in the time the T-34s took to fire one shot!

T-34/85 is also reported to get only 3-4 RPM due to the large gun and ammo in such a confined turret.

T-54/55 etc also reported 3-4 RPM and the T-62 droped to around 3 RPM, while Most NATO contemporaries report 3 shots in 15-20 seconds.

Crews from the early versions of the T-64-72 also reported one shot in 20 seconds but later models report 1 shot in 10 seconds.

Modern NATO tankers reportedly can also manage 3 rounds in 12-15 seconds or less.

By far this is one of the main factors miss handled in most wargames.

[Brian]

Originally posted by Mattias:

All T34/76 had four man crews, out of which only two were in the turret (Russian Tanks..., Milsom) .

I stand corrected. I'm sure I read in one of Zaloga's books that they put a loader into at least one of the turrets but I could be mistaken, I admit.

Among the many models up until model "F" you find at the very least 7 types of turrets with varying ballistic characteristics. Judging by the many discussions regarding armour quality, welding quality etc you could probably produce dozens of different turret configurations.

M.

Which is what I was alluding to.

[Mattias]

Originally posted by Brian:

Which is what I was alluding to.

I wasn't out to prove you wrong Brian, just adding a few numbers

M.

[ May 08, 2002, 03:19 AM: Message edited by: Mattias ]

[James Crowley]

According to "The T-34 Tank" by Drs. Hughes and Mann, (in the Weapons of War series; Spellmount) the commander's and loaders seats were suspended from the turret ring, as there was no turret basket.

This is clearly shown in a photo on page 40, of the fighting compartment looking backwards.

You would have to assume that the seats would revolve with the turret.

All T-34/76 models had two-man turrets.

[Doug Beman]

The book I'm reading is Martin Caidin's "The Tigers are Burning." I'm no super-authority, but I can tell that this book leaves something to be desired. It's possible he made a mistake while researching the T34.

DjB

[jgdpzr]

Originally posted by Doug Beman:

The book I'm reading is Martin Caidin's "The Tigers are Burning." I'm no super-authority, but I can tell that this book leaves something to be desired. It's possible he made a mistake while researching the T34.

DjB

Thanks!

I think James probably has it right--they may have been suspended from the turret ring rather than a turret basket, but they still rotated with the turret.

[ May 08, 2002, 09:07 AM: Message edited by: jgdpzr ]

[Jeff Duquette]

Brian Said: Only the first version(s) of the T34/76 had a two man turret. This was corrected, IIRC on the M1943 version, which introduced a larger turret, with a loader in it.

Brian:

An experimental version of the T-34/76 was being run through it paces at Kubinka in 1943. Designated the T-43 and founded heavily in the old -- abandoned -- T-34M project. The T-43 was intended to right some of the problems of the original T-34/76 design. One aspect of improvement for the T-43 was to have been a larger three-man turret. The project was abandoned before it went to production. The summer of 1943 battles around Kursk, Belgorad and the Orel Salient convinced the Red Army that the T-34/76 would require both up-gunning as well as a larger turret crew. Result being the T-34/85.

[Jeff Duquette]

Regarding the gunners position within the T34/85 being attached to the hull floor, I have never read this bit of information before, and would be curious as to the source. Design schematics I have examined show the gunners seat to be supported by an armature which was attached to the main gun housing just below the left side trunion…i.e. the gunner's position traverses as the turret traversed. I haven’t seen a schematic showing the right side loaders position, but doubt that a hull floor mounted chair\stool would have made it beyond the preliminary design or testing state for the vehicle.

However a T34/85's loader would have had to perform his work while standing on the hull floor, and would thus be required shuffle about during each traverse. Extremely inconvenient and dangerous in high rpm traverses as the turret and all of its accoutrements and protrusions are rotating independently of the hull floor. However the T34/85 was designed with a twelve round ready rack in the turret overhang area…backside of turret. This is a central location within the turret, and appears to have been easily accessible to the loader regardless of shuffling or his position in the turret following a traverse. One of the problems for the loader occurs as expended shell casings begin accumulating on the hull floor during engagements. These add to his trip hazards particularly during a traverse.

[ May 11, 2002, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: Jeff Duquette ]

[Brian]

Originally posted by Mattias:

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

Which is what I was alluding to.

I wasn't out to prove you wrong Brian, just adding a few numbers

M.</font>

[Jeff Duquette]

A little bit of additional digging indicates that the loaders seat\stool was hung by two armatures. One attached to the right side of the main gun-housing below the right side trunion. The other arm was attached to the turret ring cover. The stool was apparently hinged and could be retracted toward the hull wall. In other words if the loader has his head out of his turret hatch for air-watch or is simply getting a breathe of fresh air he is basically suspended from the turret and “traverses” along with the turret. No shuffling required. I am willing to bet the TC step\stool was arranged in a similar manner.

While suspension from the turret is much more “ergonomic” relative to stools and the like being attached directly to the hull floor, there are still numerous disadvantages to turret crew activities when compared with turrets with honest to goodness turret baskets. The lack of basket vastly increased potential for getting limbs and appendages pinched off during a rapid traverse. And the "loader" shuffle required during the traverse of "basketless" turrets could not have helped with target engagement proficiency.

The British Army experimented with a similar system of “suspended” turret crews. During early development and production of the Churchill it was felt that both production time and expense could be reduced considerably by loosing the turret basket. The basketless design, after a fair amount of proving ground trials, was determined to be a far less efficient than the Churchill with turret basket.

Regarding ROF for the T34/76, 3 to 4 rounds per minute sounds on the low side. Charles Sharp's book on Soviet Tank Combat Tactics – derived heavily from Soviet wartime manuals and wartime operational studies – indicates that 3 to 4 rounds per minute was consistent with T34/76 employing a movement/short-halt and fire technique. Tanks employing stationary precision gunnery could easily double this rate of fire.

I think what wargames typically get wrong is the initial acquisition time required. Personally I believe a tank without TC override capability should be at a disadvantage in acquisition time. Tanks in which gunners and loaders were not equipped with honest to goodness viewing periscopes should be at a disadvantage in acquisition time. Tanks that are not equipped with radios should be at a disadvantage in acquisition time (unit cohesion….buddy system…watching each others back…blah blah blah...these can't be effectively communicated within the platoon). Unfortunately without some sort of variable spotting routine built into the game, the real disadvantage in not being able to communicate with your “track-mates” will not really become apparent to mouse wielding generals.

[ May 09, 2002, 12:32 AM: Message edited by: Jeff Duquette ]

[K_Tiger]

I think what wargames typically get wrong is the initial acquisition time required. Personally I believe a tank without TC override capability should be at a disadvantage in acquisition time. Tanks in which gunners and loaders were not equipped with honest to goodness viewing periscopes should be at a disadvantage in acquisition time. Tanks that are not equipped with radios should be at a disadvantage in acquisition time (unit cohesion….buddy system…watching each others back…blah blah blah...can't be effectively communicated within the platoon). Unfortunately without some sort of variably spotting routine built into the game, the real disadvantage in not being able to communicate with your “track-mates” will not really become apparent to mouse wielding generals.

Exactly what i have in mind for all wargames i played till now. Its also on cm and long ranges, i think, its typical to try to hit a target with the first round, so im carefully in acqusition my ennemy. So the delay time would be longer if im more far away. Also our beloved "Optics" and now the T-34 2 man turret thread tell us we need some more detailed Tanks.

[Paul Lakowski]

Jeff I'll buy 6 rounds a minute from a guards unit thats stationary...not more. Zaloga and many German reports note a that they could out shoot the Russians T-34s 3 to one.The max ROF for Pz-III & IV i've seen is 10-12 RPM.