Mark Gallear Posted December 11, 2002 Share Posted December 11, 2002 As the Battlefront designers have complained there is no info on Russian tank gunsights (and implied they were therefor non-existent) I came across this information which I thought was interesting. Found this information in T34 Russian armour, Douglass Orgill 1970, Purnell’s History of the Second World War Weapons book No21. (Orgill was a World War 2 Tanker) The 1941 version of the T-34 is described: “The turret guns were sighted either by means of a periscope dial sight, or by a cranked telescopic sight mounted at the side of the gun. The periscope sight had a moveable top prism, and illuminated moving graticules. The man at the gun could deflect the crosswires of the sights on to the target by adjusting a knob on the eyepiece, while he put on the appropriate range by a knob underneath. Three ranges were provided on this periscope: upto 100 metres for the machinegun; 3,600 metres for armour-piercing shot, and 2,100 for high explosive. A rubber eye guard and brow pad were provided to protect the gunner from the lurching of the tank, but they were not efficient light excluders, and it is clear that sighting either of the turret guns by means of the periscope must have been a fairly chastening experience. However, the more accurate method of laying the gun was by the alternative telescope sight. This was a straight-tube, moving eyepiece of X 2.5 and a field of view of just over 14 degrees. Like the periscope, it had an illuminated graticule with a hand-adjusted knob controlling three range scales, though these offered more scope than was available on the periscope. They showed up to 5,000 metres for high explosive, and 1,400 for the machinegun. The telescope, however, shared a serious disadvantage with the periscope: its rubber eyeguard was not good at keeping out light, which must have hampered quick laying of the gun. The book points to the difficulties of the small turret and the many tasks of the tank commander who was overworked:- “The turret had a pronounced overhang at the rear, making an awkward, ledge –like space between it and the hull. German infantry soon learned to take advantage of the overworked commander’s preoccupation with his gunlaying to approach the tank from behind, climb on the rear, wedge a time-fused tellermine into the overhang, and jump off. This accounts for German propaganda photographs issued early in the campaign showing T-34s with their turrets blown off- something which no contemporary standard German anti-tank gun was capable of doing. “ [ December 11, 2002, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex Bellator Posted December 11, 2002 Share Posted December 11, 2002 Good stuff Mark and I've read of further difficulties which the overworked comander had with aiming. His chair was fixed and didn't rotate with the turret, so he would have to squirm around trying to keep his eye on that poor sight when the turret was moving. Also apparently the turret traverse on early T-34s was extremely prone to breakdown so frequently he would have to reach across his body with his free hand and crank a manual lever to try to revolve it. [Edit] Danm typso... [ December 11, 2002, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: Rex_Bellator ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schrullenhaft Posted December 11, 2002 Share Posted December 11, 2002 I don't think BTS is complaining about the lack of any information regarding Soviet optics in tanks. It's the qualitative data regarding the optics quality that is hard to come by. On top of that there are conflicting accounts about the quality from different sources (though the accounts aren't analytical in nature - just qualitative opinions). Moon actually worked in the German optics industry (or a field related to it) in the past and he had a lot of qualitative data to reference, but almost nothing could be found for the Soviet optics industry of the period. He did find out that several of the Soviet optics plants were based on German manufacturing standards, but it's still hard to get qualitative data as to how good or poor the Soviet optics were in comparison to the German ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgdpzr Posted December 11, 2002 Share Posted December 11, 2002 Originally posted by Rex_Bellator: Good stuff Mark and I've read of further difficulties which the overworked comander had with aiming. His chair was fixed and didn't rotate with the turret, so he would have to squirm around trying to keep his eye on that poor sight when the turret was moving. Also apparently the turret traverse on early T-34s was extremely prone to breakdown so frequently he would have to reach across his body with his free hand and crank a manual lever to try to revolve it. [Edit] Danm typso...Sorry, hate to play the spoilsport, but the first part of this is incorrect. The gunner/commander's seat was welded directly to the turret near the turret ring. What was lacking was a turret basket. However, the seat did rotate with the turret. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxbat Posted December 12, 2002 Share Posted December 12, 2002 Originally posted by Mark Gallear: [..]and wedge a time-fused tellermine into the overhang, and jump off. This accounts for German propaganda photographs issued early in the campaign showing T-34s with their turrets blown off- something which no contemporary standard German anti-tank gun was capable of doing. “I don't see how a Tellermine has the capability to lift a turret several meters up into the air, when a massively more powerful gun couldn't even dislocate it. Besides that would actually result in the turret tipping over forward, rather than rising up into the air vertically.. Turrets are blown off by the ammo cooking off not because someone put a firecracker under the turret overhang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KwK43 L/71 Posted December 12, 2002 Share Posted December 12, 2002 Well it's all about the way the force is applied. The placement of the mine under the turrent overhang concentrates a large portion of it's force to lifting the turrent. However the shell is coming in nearly horizontally or at a slight downward angle, almost no force vertically. Also the turrent isn't really secured into the hull, it just sits in the ring. And don't under estimate the amount of explosive in those teller mines. The mine doesn't have to lift the turrent several meters into the air, only half a meter or so and tip it. [ December 11, 2002, 11:44 PM: Message edited by: KwK43 L/71 ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted December 13, 2002 Share Posted December 13, 2002 Also of course a mine is filled with much more explosive than an AT shot - or even an APHE shell. IIRC you might e talking about 2-3lbs of explisives vs maybe 1/4-1/2 a lb (1-1.5 kg vs .125-.25 kg) - just off the top of my head. The gun round does most of its damage by spraying lumps of metal round the inside of the tank - metal that used to be arour and bits of teh shot itself. These don't generally blow things up - but they may cause fires in ammunition or fuel storage that subsequently blow things up. The AT mine does it's damage by blowing itself up - the force of the blast needs to be enough to break a track (at least) - hence the need for more explosive, and the possibility of physically removing a tank turret if the explosion can be confined somehow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offtaskagain Posted December 13, 2002 Share Posted December 13, 2002 The german Teller mine carried about 13 lbs of TNT, and later Amatol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Gallear Posted December 13, 2002 Author Share Posted December 13, 2002 As everybody is having such a good time with this post I thought I would add a bit more on the difficulties of being a Russian T-34 commander: – “Since the driver had a very restricted field of view –and that directly to his front – the commander, using his throat microphone, had to direct him rather more precisely than in some Western tanks where the driver could see more. In addition, of course, the commander was entirely responsible for seeing that the rounds he fired from either of his guns hit the target. Thus, grabbing his orders to the driver to get the tank positioned properly, shouting to the loader the kind of ammunition he had decided to fire, ducking down to the telescope to lay the gun, working out the range and opening fire – and then shrugging himself well clear of the 76.2mm as it smashed back for the full fourteen inches of its recoil – he had little time to see what any other tank was doing. Yet if he was troop commander, with three or more tanks under him, he could only tell his subordinates of his intentions by waving coloured flags, since wireless was not provided at lower command levels in Russian tank formations. Thus, by using the hand–trigger instead of the foot-button, (the two different triggers for the 76mm gun) he could at least keep himself in the upper part of the turret for longer at a time.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergeltungswaffe Posted December 13, 2002 Share Posted December 13, 2002 Originally posted by panzerwerfer42: The german Teller mine carried about 13 lbs of TNT, and later Amatol.Sssh! MasterGoodale will be all over this like a cheap suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted December 13, 2002 Share Posted December 13, 2002 Originally posted by Vergeltungswaffe: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by panzerwerfer42: The german Teller mine carried about 13 lbs of TNT, and later Amatol.Sssh! MasterGoodale will be all over this like a cheap suit.</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts