ROF for T34 w/ 2man turret

[Scott B]

Originally posted by 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.

Which sources exactly, and which models of Panzer III and IV? Just curious.

Scott

[Jeff Duquette]

Paul:

The method that you have adapted for presenting this information could only bring one to the conclusion that it is rather anecdotal. It is doubtful that such a measurement could have been conducted reliably under combat circumstances. I went through Zaloga’s “T-34/76 Medium Tank, 1941 – 1945” as well as his work “Red Army Handbook 1939 – 1945” and can’t locate the information you are referring to. What Zaloga title are you referencing?

Having said that I certainly do not doubt that trained crews could out-shoot untrained crews at a rate of 3:1. However it is easy enough to find T-34/76 rates of main-gun fire peaking at 8 rounds per minute. The ROF ratings I have found make no stipulation as to the tank crew requiring Guard Status.

Charles Sharp in “Soviet Armor Tactics in World War II” (page 34) indicates the following regarding the T34/76:

140. When shooting from the tank use the following firing techniques:

-Firing on the move - to suppress the enemy and his infantry weapons;

-Fire from a short halt - at all targets. Halt for 4 - 8 seconds for a cannon shot or several machine gun bursts. For the short halt seek out covered or masked (positions).

-Fire from the halt - from cover or behind shelter. The tank moves at combat speed to a covered or masked position and halts for 30 - 45 seconds, for 4 - 5 shots from the cannon at the (same) target;

-Fire from a position - the most effective type of tank fire. It is used most often in the defense and from (behind) barriers.

It should be noted that the T34 Model 1940 had a different turret ammunition layout than the latter T34 model 1942 with the hexagonal cast or welded turret. Sustained high rates of fire in the Model 1940 were probably not possible simply because of the ammunition storage layout. The nine ready racks in the turret of the M1940 were…3 on the loaders side hull wall, and six on the TC\gunners side hull wall. The remainder of the ammunition being stored under the rubber floor mats of the turret or in other locations that were not rapidly accessible to the loader. Incidentally neither the T34/76 M1940 or M1942 had turret baskets.

Assuming one round “up the spout” it seems reasonable to assume four rounds fired at a rate of 1 round per 8 to 10 seconds was possible for a Model 1940 turret crew with proper training. After the first four rounds have been expended the ammunition storage arrangement was such that a pause in firing or dramatic decrease in ROF would naturally occur. However I have read that the radio operator\co-driver (if available…i.e. crew was not fighting short-handed…and the radio operator\co-driver was not busy firing the hull MG) would pass main-gun ammunition up to the loader in cases where sustained fire had depleted the ready-rack ammunition available in the turret.

Now the T34/76 Model1942 with hexagonal turret is perhaps a different animal all together regarding main-gun ROF. Fourteen ready rounds were available on the walls of the fighting compartment, in racks and metal bins. So 8 rounds rapid fire (again assuming one up the spout for rapid battle-sight engagements)…one round per eight to ten seconds does not seem to be an unrealistic rate of fire. Following the initial eight rounds of fire, rearrangement of ammunition supllies and subsequent decrease in ROF would presumably occur as the loader either lifted the floor mates to access additional main-gun ammunition, or ready rounds from the TC/gunners side of the tank were handed to the loader.

The above exercise is applicable to ammunition arrangements in any tank. So ROF is very conditional.

A somewhat off topic tangential digression; The “Guard” entitlement and its natural association with “elite” status is perhaps misrepresenting a particular units skill\training\experience level in some circumstances. Guard units draw replacements to fill holes in their ranks just like any other unit. A “Guards” Tank Brigade that has suffered 100 casualties in a recent engagement and has drawn replacements to fill these gaps is perhaps no longer in the realm of “elite” or “crack” status.

[ May 11, 2002, 04:02 PM: Message edited by: Jeff Duquette ]

[Paul Lakowski]

Jeff , several quotes and comments, Osprey Vol9 T-34/76 ; Steve Zaloga & Peter Sarson..pp40 " German tankers frequently commented that Soviet T-34s were very slow to find and engage targets. In the early years of the war,the Panzers could typically get off three rounds for every one fired by Soviet T-34s. This disparity in crew training was greatly reduced later in the war."

Ospery Volume 20 T-34-85 Zaloga Kinnear & Sarson,pp19 " A trained crew could usually fire three to four rounds per minute".

"Hitlers Panzers East". RH Stolfi,pp164" ....German tank crews were amazed that they would fire two,three, or four rounds against the T-34 to every round they recieved".

I was asking David Glantz about this on the old RMF and he reported to me that in practice many early war Russian tanks where undermanned . He noted in the first few years of the Eastern Front,if a tank didn't actually have a radio, it was unlikely to have a radio operator. Thus the idea of radio operator shoving rounds to the loader is doubtful until mid war any way.

[Jeff Duquette]

Paul:

I think it is probably important to separate out variables here so that we are not arguing about two different things. Obviously, as I have already indicated, crew training is a potential variable that will influence ROF. Availability of normal complements of crews is also a potential variable that will influence ROF. Platoon and company commander’s vehicles would likely have been equipped with radios even in 1941. Turret layout and ammunition storage is another potential variable that will affect ROF. How much ammunition has already been expended will influence ROF of fire (i.e. if a T34/76 is down to its last ten rounds of ammunition it is likely that these rounds are in the most inconvenient areas under the floor mats.)

Distinguishing between target acquisition by a tank crew, and a crews ability to maintain a fixed rate of fire on a known target are two different aspects of gunnery that, for the purpose of my point, somewhat mutually exclusive. There are a myriad of additional variables that we could get into regarding things that will accelerate or retard target acquisition time. The layout of the T34's turret as well as prescribed crew duties were both severe detriments to rapid acquisition and rapid engagement of targets. On the other hand the TC acting as gunner eliminates the middle man (the gunner). No need to get the gunner to recognize the target you wish to engage. However, with the T34 TC glued to the gunner’s sight, situational awareness goes into the ****er. In addition absence of a honest to goodness gunner means you don’t have an extra set of eyes on board scanning for bad guys. On the opposite side of the playing field German TCs tended to fight heads up…unbuttoned (no their schlong wasn’t hanging out). This option wasn’t available to the T34/76 TC who would rapidly become a slave to the gunners sight during actual combat. But ultimately mixing and matching sustained ROF with disadvantages in acquisition introduces a multitude of additional variables than are not necessarily associated with sustained ROF.

So in summary ROF is conditional and optimum ROF is only sustainable in the T34/76 for very short runs. Worst-case scenario for a T34/76 crew: zero rounds per minute while the crew scrambles to uncover ammunition under floor mates. Best-case scenario: eight rounds per minute. Beyond that I reckon we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Regards

Jeff D.

[Skipper]

NB: T-34-76 and Pz-III have main gun calibers of 76 mm and 50 mm, respectively. Which kind of explain everything, doesn't it?

[Paul Lakowski]

Originally posted by Skipper:

NB: T-34-76 and Pz-III have main gun calibers of 76 mm and 50 mm, respectively. Which kind of explain everything, doesn't it?

Huhh, not sure what that means?

Jeff your refering to the cadance of the gun...how fast it can shoot max...by that standard M-1A2 has a ROF of >16 rpm. When they refer to ROF they mean the end result all factors considered. Many M-1 tankers told me they could chamber a round in 2-4 seconds.

For Example T-72/80 is rated at 7-8 rpm but users indicate a round every 10-20 seconds depending on the ammo and FCS.

[Jeff Duquette]

Paul:

2 seconds per round seems pretty darned fast. That had to have involved some cheating during gunnery training ;o)…particularly for two-piece 120mm ammunition.

I reckoned that I could load one-piece 105mm ammunition at about 5 to 6 seconds per round…granted I was only in the Guard.

A gunner with a couple of live fire exercises under his belt was typically giving me an "ON THE WAY" within probably two to four seconds of me giving an "UP". Sometimes a lot quicker. I recall one exercise in which a particular crew was short handed by a gunner and loader. I filled in as the loader and one of the platoon sergeants of my company filled in as the missing gunner. This platoon sergeant was as fast or faster than I could load; And was consistently firing one or two round engagements on plywood targets at 1000m to 2000m . He was quick and accurate, and the gunners sight on the old M48A5 is far closer to its ancestors in the Sherman or T34/76 than the GPS on the M1A2. More like the GAS sight on an M1A2. In addition we didn’t have the advantage of an LRF.

I think by far the biggest chunk of time involved in a particular engagement is the initial target acquisition. First the TC has to spot the target. Than he has to get his gunner to recognize or identify this same target. The gunner than has to perform the appropriate tweaks on his controls. After all of this than you finally get an ON THE WAY. Now your in the aquired ROF mode.

What I am speaking of is practical rate of fire against an acquired target. Not a "mad minute" of un-aimed fire. I recall an excerpt from “La Panther” (French Army 1947? Report on performance specs of the Panther). The mad-minute was rated at 20 rounds per minute. Could these French tank crews hit anything at 20 rounds per minute…well yes…French crews could...but normal folks probably couldn’t.

Beyond what I have already indicated above I see no practical reason why a T34/76 could not obtain an aimed ROF of fire of 1 round per 8 to 10 seconds. Again contingent upon blah blah blah(see above for blah blah blah).

A little tangent here but one of the discrepancies of many tactical level wargames is the seemingly similar rates of fire between towed anti-tank guns and tanks. I was recently watching some old timie’ Aberdeen Proving Ground films of 57mm gun crews. These guys were incredibly fast and accurate. Course the fact that a standard 57mm gun crew consists of one gun commander, one gunner, and about 8 loaders and loaders assistants didn’t seem to hurt their rate of fire.

[Jeff Duquette]

So Paul:

Since you’re ignoring my question on the yahoo forum but are intent on giving the occasional glance here, what was the original source of the RKKA Ordnance drawings you posted on yahoo so many moons ago?

I have been advised by what I consider a reliable source that a long standing error in some US Army Foreign Ordnance recognition manual has preptuated the idea that the Soviet 85mm BR-365 was pointy-nosed uncapped AP-HE-T. Apparently the round was actually blunt-nosed APBC-HE-T. The reason I ask is the two yahoo drawings I.D.'d respectfully as BR-365 and BR-365K both show uncapped ogival ammunition.

minutia...yes...but of some interest to me.

Regards

Jeff

[Paul Lakowski]

Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

So Paul:

Since you’re ignoring my question on the yahoo forum but are intent on giving the occasional glance here, what was the original source of the RKKA Ordnance drawings you posted on yahoo so many moons ago?

I have been advised by what I consider a reliable source that a long standing error in some US Army Foreign Ordnance recognition manual has preptuated the idea that the Soviet 85mm BR-365 was pointy-nosed uncapped AP-HE-T. Apparently the round was actually blunt-nosed APBC-HE-T. The reason I ask is the two yahoo drawings I.D.'d respectfully as BR-365 and BR-365K both show uncapped ogival ammunition.

minutia...yes...but of some interest to me.

Regards

Jeff

Sorry Jeff, I don't choose to ignor you its just that I seem to tire alot of the 'gay banter' or should I say 'battering matches ' that seem to happen on our much loved Yahoos group these days!

Its kind of depressing! Tom Rodwell has happened upon what looks like some of the original Chobham armor studies by Dr Harvey etc [ credited with developing Chobham armor]....But these are available on @ 'PRO' and it may cost a pretty penny to get copies. I had high hopes of going to our Tankers group and saying 'guys these would be great finds if we could just pitch in to defray the costs'....

ah well the best laid plans of mice and men.

BTW I agree with your last post...I'm not surprised that Russian sources claim that 50-80% of german tanks/SPguns were nailed by ATguns. Since they often could out shoot the panzers in ROF...and would probably have better sights and unlimited visibility / loaders etc etc.

The source of those scale drawings was Gavin Kratz , who reports there from "UXO ID book US Amy /National ground Intelligence center".He wasn't more specific than that!

[Jeff Duquette]

The source of those scale drawings was Gavin Kratz , who reports there from "UXO ID book US Amy /National ground Intelligence center".

danke

[Skipper]

> Huhh, not sure what that means?

Maximum ROF (8 and 12 rpm, respectively) is determined purely by the speed of firing-loading cycle. Assuming rughly similar cyclogram, duration of this cycle is very much dependent on the weight/size of the round, i.e. caliber of the gun.

When we start speaking about practical ROF, target spotting, acqisition, aiming etc, at this stage so many other factors come into play, that you can only speak about qualitative differences. Qualitatively, Pz-III had an advantage over T-34-76 in that department, thanks to things like three men turret, commander cupola and so on.

[Determinant]

Originally posted by Doug Beman:

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

Some really interesting stuff in this thread. I fear however that I'll never know if this design feature will be modelled in CMBB as none of my tanks have ever managed to survive long enough to fire more than nine rounds of main armament...

[rexford]

Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

So Paul:

I have been advised by what I consider a reliable source that a long standing error in some US Army Foreign Ordnance recognition manual has preptuated the idea that the Soviet 85mm BR-365 was pointy-nosed uncapped AP-HE-T. Apparently the round was actually blunt-nosed APBC-HE-T. The reason I ask is the two yahoo drawings I.D.'d respectfully as BR-365 and BR-365K both show uncapped ogival ammunition.

The question you ask was answered by Vasiliy Fofanov some time ago on the Yahoo!Tankers forum as to BR-365.

Early war BR-365 was uncapped AP as shown in drawing, later war BR-365 was APBC is how Vasiliy addressed the issue.

My book gives the source of the drawings on the second page of the special note which follows page 63. Source is given as UXO IS book, U.S. Army/National Guard Ground Intelligence center.

[Paul Lakowski]

Originally posted by Skipper:

> Huhh, not sure what that means?

Maximum ROF (8 and 12 rpm, respectively) is determined purely by the speed of firing-loading cycle. Assuming rughly similar cyclogram, duration of this cycle is very much dependent on the weight/size of the round, i.e. caliber of the gun.

When we start speaking about practical ROF, target spotting, acqisition, aiming etc, at this stage so many other factors come into play, that you can only speak about qualitative differences. Qualitatively, Pz-III had an advantage over T-34-76 in that department, thanks to things like three men turret, commander cupola and so on.

OK sorry didn't follow at first...yes so if the T-34 TC vision and poor ammo lay out hinder this process a realistic ROF of ~ 3-4 rpm is reasonable and would explain German troopers reports about realistic exchange rates... This in turn would skew any battle field exchanges since the Pz-III 50L60 had about the same chance of penetrating T-34 Front turret as 76mm had of penetrating the spaced armor of the front turret of the Pz-III L/M. So kill ratios should favor the Germans.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Paul Lakowski:

[snips]

Its kind of depressing! Tom Rodwell has happened upon what looks like some of the original Chobham armor studies by Dr Harvey etc [ credited with developing Chobham armor]....But these are available on @ 'PRO' and it may cost a pretty penny to get copies.

Could you oblige with the piece numbers of the relevant PRO documents, please? I'll give them a peek next time I'm at Kew.

All the best,

John.

[Paul Lakowski]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Paul Lakowski:

[snips]

Its kind of depressing! Tom Rodwell has happened upon what looks like some of the original Chobham armor studies by Dr Harvey etc [ credited with developing Chobham armor]....But these are available on @ 'PRO' and it may cost a pretty penny to get copies.

Could you oblige with the piece numbers of the relevant PRO documents, please? I'll give them a peek next time I'm at Kew.

All the best,

John.</font>

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Paul Lakowski:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John D Salt:

Could you oblige with the piece numbers of the relevant PRO documents, please?

[Paul obliges promptly, snipped]

</font>

[Skipper]

Originally posted by Paul Lakowski:

OK sorry didn't follow at first...yes so if the T-34 TC vision and poor ammo lay out hinder this process a realistic ROF of ~ 3-4 rpm

In some sort of operational game where a unit is tank division, difference in practical ROF of about 1.5 times would probably be about right. CM, however, uses two-dimensional model - separate spotting/targeting and reloading times. When firing repeatedly at the same target, tanks should obviously use maximum ROF (?)

[Paul Lakowski]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Paul Lakowski:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John D Salt:

Could you oblige with the piece numbers of the relevant PRO documents, please?

[Paul obliges promptly, snipped]

</font>

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Paul Lakowski:

John let me know how you make out, Tom wasn't sure when he could go , and has cautioned that until you actually ask for the material , you never know if its still classified or 'just minutes from a meeting' etc....mind you the titles look promising!

Ah. I assumed these refs were for open documents. I suppose it was too good to be true.

By visiting the PRO on-line catalogue at www.pro.gov.uk, if you can stand the interface, you can tell the access status of records (and you don't even need a reader's ticket). All the records cited are noted as closed records with open descriptions, and carry the notation "Retained by Department under Section 3.4".

Still, look on the bright side -- at least the records are shown as being stored at Kew, so they won't have been lost in the DERA split or when the folks moved out of Chertsey. So we might get to see them one day.

All the best,

John.

[Paul Lakowski]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Paul Lakowski:

John let me know how you make out, Tom wasn't sure when he could go , and has cautioned that until you actually ask for the material , you never know if its still classified or 'just minutes from a meeting' etc....mind you the titles look promising!

Ah. I assumed these refs were for open documents. I suppose it was too good to be true.

By visiting the PRO on-line catalogue at www.pro.gov.uk, if you can stand the interface, you can tell the access status of records (and you don't even need a reader's ticket). All the records cited are noted as closed records with open descriptions, and carry the notation "Retained by Department under Section 3.4".

Still, look on the bright side -- at least the records are shown as being stored at Kew, so they won't have been lost in the DERA split or when the folks moved out of Chertsey. So we might get to see them one day.

All the best,

John.</font>