|
Post by William Miller on Jun 14, 2014 4:31:59 GMT -6
Very interesting article, chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.htmlOver the years I have never seen a typical mainstream historian slap the T-34 with any sustained negatives - and yes we have all read of the Germans being "shocked" by this Russian wonder weapon.. really? Even by the time of Citadel/Kursk the Russians, even with the constant breakdowns of the Panthers and Tigers (which in turn made the PzIII/IV tanks the most reliable tanks on the field) lost 8-9X more AFVs then the Germans and yet the T-34 was the "BULK" of the armored forces during the battle. That does not look so "superior" to me.. especially considering the Russians had MILES of defenses. During some Russian counter-attacks droves of T-34s were obliterated. That was not the first time either that the loss ratios were so lopsided, severe losses were seen almost from the start of the German invasion. Granted that many T-34s were repaired (some repeatedly) but a lot of what could have been experienced crews were wiped out due to the reasons shown in the article above. The Germans already had some AFVs that could challenge the T-34 at the start of Barbarossa with the PzIIIs and PzIVs which both were quickly, or already, upgraded with better guns. This article also points out that the T-34s were NEVER more then ~1% of the total number of AFVs available to the Soviets. So what gives here?? German propaganda or Soviets blowing their own trumpets?? As most of you know I love to challenge the "mainstream" never ending copycatted gibberish that has been republished since WW2 ended nearly 70 years ago as it just amazes me how long some myths go on for even with plentiful of information out there to challenge them. Some of my favorite targets have been the A6M2, Me262, Japanese torpedo doctrine "superiority", KM warship qualities, etc..etc... I have written quite a few mini-articles on these topics over the years, and in thanks to several of you that took the time to put some true thinking into the topics we all usually walked away from a debate learning more then we started with. Trivia question.. what did the T-34 and many French tanks have in common, and proved to be one of their greatest flaws? So.. is it now time to squash the T-34 historian based "super-propaganda".. any takers? Thanks
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 14, 2014 8:41:14 GMT -6
Very interesting article, chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.htmlOver the years I have never seen a typical mainstream historian slap the T-34 with any sustained negatives - and yes we have all read of the Germans being "shocked" by this Russian wonder weapon.. really? Even by the time of Citadel/Kursk the Russians, even with the constant breakdowns of the Panthers and Tigers (which in turn made the PzIII/IV tanks the most reliable tanks on the field) lost 8-9X more AFVs then the Germans and yet the T-34 was the "BULK" of the armored forces during the battle. That does not look so "superior" to me.. especially considering the Russians had MILES of defenses. During some Russian counter-attacks droves of T-34s were obliterated. That was not the first time either that the loss ratios were so lopsided, severe losses were seen almost from the start of the German invasion. Granted that many T-34s were repaired (some repeatedly) but a lot of what could have been experienced crews were wiped out due to the reasons shown in the article above. The Germans already had some AFVs that could challenge the T-34 at the start of Barbarossa with the PzIIIs and PzIVs which both were quickly, or already, upgraded with better guns. This article also points out that the T-34s were NEVER more then ~1% of the total number of AFVs available to the Soviets. So what gives here?? German propaganda or Soviets blowing their own trumpets?? As most of you know I love to challenge the "mainstream" never ending copycatted gibberish that has been republished since WW2 ended nearly 70 years ago as it just amazes me how long some myths go on for even with plentiful of information out there to challenge them. Some of my favorite targets have been the A6M2, Me262, Japanese torpedo doctrine "superiority", KM warship qualities, etc..etc... I have written quite a few mini-articles on these topics over the years, and in thanks to several of you that took the time to put some true thinking into the topics we all usually walked away from a debate learning more then we started with. Trivia question.. what did the T-34 and many French tanks have in common, and proved to be one of their greatest flaws? So.. is it now time to squash the T-34 historian based "super-propaganda".. any takers? Thanks The greatest flaw of French tanks was the two man turret, which was a characteristic of the T-34 until March 1944 when the three man turret was a standard issue on the new T-34-85. Both were cramped also. As to the "super-propaganda", we always build up our opponent, so our triumphs look that much more impressive. The T-34 exhibited the four general characteristics of a good tank design that has been followed since the war. Good speed and maneuverability; good gun; good armor protection; efficient turret design. These four are my best four, but these have been debated since the end of the war.
Weapons design is based on doctrine. Once you have settled on or developed a doctrine, from that doctrine flows weapons requirements and then specifications. It was true of the all armies in WWII. The T-34 was based on Russian armored doctrine, and it suited that well.
|
|
|
Post by William Miller on Jun 15, 2014 0:52:50 GMT -6
a) The 2 man turret was a definite hindrance to combat efficiency, but not the "flaw" I was looking for.. b) Ironically you follow up with "efficient" turret design, which detracts against the 2 man turret concept. In effect, the turret was extremely cramped, had poor outside visibility which made detection and engagements less effective then other national designs, the turret also suffered from variable metal qualities (including the shells), and the gun was only marginally better then the 50mm German AT gun design. The 75mm German long gun was superior to it and even the M4 Sherman 75mm gun was just as good, or in some cases, better then the 76.2mm F-34 gun. Overall IMHO the Sherman was a better overall combat vehicle in terms of combat efficiency, effectiveness, and reliability. Any other opinions?
|
|
|
Post by ksbearski on Jun 15, 2014 6:18:20 GMT -6
Lack of a radio, at least early on. The huge advantage the Germans enjoyed, at least early on, was superior small unit communications, especially in their tanks. Where the French and the Russians had to rely on hand signals and semaphores/flags to coordinate small armored units, the Germans did it by radio.
|
|
|
Post by William Miller on Jun 15, 2014 8:38:34 GMT -6
ksbearski you got it dead on.
All the theoretical doctrines, tank features, crew effectiveness, etc...are worth squat without good communications - especially for any type of mobile warfare. The Germans constantly reported the lack of coordination with Russian armored attacks and the lack of cohesion greatly contributed to high losses of T-34s.
The lack of a good radio caused many weapons of WW2 to lose a considerable level of effectiveness, in some cases the results were catastrophic.
|
|
|
Post by William Miller on Jun 15, 2014 8:58:02 GMT -6
For anyone who thinks a radio was no big deal....picture this, while discarding just about any tank sim or pc wargame you ever played that did not model visual signals for tank tactics,
You are a tank commander in an utterly chaotic battlefield with smoke, body parts flying around, planes overhead, artillery shells going off, bullets flying like hornets hauling ass by your head, praying a sniper does not blow your brains out, and your trying not to break your ribs on the hatch while the tank tosses you around like ragdoll ...and all this while trying to tell another tank with limited vision that also needs to stay in visual conact what to do next.
Try playing a wargame where you might get a 10% chance to command your tanks and the other side gets around a 75% chance per turn or 3-5 min of intense combat and see if you don't try and pull you hair out.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 15, 2014 13:01:41 GMT -6
We have brought up the subject of radios in tanks, so I thought I would give you some information about the electronics, of the day. The radios of this era were tube based. The tubes were large, generated large amounts of heat and were very susceptible to shock damage and water damage if not coated properly. They were glass bottles mounted on ceramic bases, the internal anode, cathode, grids and plates were connected through the ceramic or a bakelite base which sealed the vacuum in the tube hence the name vacuum tubes. The whole tube was mounted in a base in a metal, usually aluminum box, with 30 gauge wires coated with plastic connected to all the other passive and active components. This box was then screwed in the main radio box, with dials and switches on the front connected to the metal component box via a cable harness. I have provided a link to a site with pictures and some descriptions of these German radios. The sets consisted of a receiver, transmitter, power supply for each and a connection cable to the aerial. They were modestly heavy, somewhere between 30-50 lbs depending on the unit. Voice range of 15 km or about 5-8 miles. Operating in towns, mountainous or hilly country will restrict you communications, North Africa would be excellent as would Russia in most areas. If you took a hit, the radio aerial might be blown off and the radio possibly knocked out of action. I suspect the were shock mounted, possibly. These were high voltage radios, 3000 volts down to 100 volts with good amperage. They were dangerous. If you have any questions, I will answer them. I was trained in the USAF on tubed based radar and radios, repair and usage. After the USAF, I worked on the F-4B/J UHF Radios which were all tube based.
panzerfaust.ca/AFV%20interiors/germrads.html www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Germany/HB/HB-8.html - scroll down to Section IV Signal Equipment.
france1940.free.fr/armee/radios.html - French Radios - Yep, they had radios.
www.rkk-museum.ru/about/sitemap_e.shtml - Russian Radios
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 15, 2014 13:20:28 GMT -6
ksbearski you got it dead on. All the theoretical doctrines, tank features, crew effectiveness, etc...are worth squat without good communications - especially for any type of mobile warfare. The Germans constantly reported the lack of coordination with Russian armored attacks and the lack of cohesion greatly contributed to high losses of T-34s. The lack of a good radio caused many weapons of WW2 to lose a considerable level of effectiveness, in some cases the results were catastrophic. Good command and control is facilitated by good communications however, in the early campaigns only the command tanks had both transmitters and receivers all the rest had just receivers. It wasn't until later that they were updated to both. Also, the best method communications was by Morse Code which took time. It was also the most secure. Voice could be heard and possibly used by the enemy signal intelligence forces. Keep in mind, the French doctrine was based on the infantry with tanks in support as per the WWI doctrine. Humans walk at about a 2.5-3 mph rate so it wasn't hard to maintain contact. Again, doctrine drives requirements which drives specifications. The Germans as with all armies used radio silence to cover operations, this was done many times and other signal methods such as hand signals had to be used. They also reduced the transmitter power to limit the range for security purposes. Signal flags are good, but some will betray the leader and make him a target, happened all the time. Code names, paraphrasing, encoding were all used to protect communications.
BTW, tube based equipment needs calibration almost constantly, or it will not receive correctly and all transmissions will be garbled. The receiver oscillators along with the transmitter oscillators had to be calibrated and tuned together or communications would be lost. Weather also affects communications, the rise and fall of the ionosphere, storms, cloud cover can all attenuate and scatter signals. Tunneling can occur in which case someone in the US might get your signal, don't laugh. We once tracked an aircraft over the Sierra Nevada and it disappeared, only to be told it was a plane over Japan. Funny now, but not then.
|
|
|
Post by William Miller on Jun 15, 2014 22:40:48 GMT -6
Hi Dennis, my dad used to build old HAM and shortwave radios and also worked on old "tube" equipment back when computers were the size of a house - you and him would have some great chats. He once picked up the Sputnik satellite beacon and other international frequencies to listen in on.
Yes, radios were still being worked on in terms of improvements.. but IMHO that was the single greatest technological breakthrough for mobile warfare. You had a lot of situations where armies could be divided up between the "haves" and "have nots" in terms of reasonable radio comms and it often made a drastic difference on the battlefield, at sea, and definitely in the air. More often then not the side with better comms often outmaneuvered and outfought their opponents - even if the opponent, on paper, was superior in arms and/or numbers. Germany proved the advantage of better comms repeatedly at the start of WW2 and throughout most of Operation Barbarossa. In essence, visual communications would basically be shoving a mechanized force back to the time of the horse, spear, and musket type of warfare.
Now the French - granted the whole "stick with the infantry" thing might have been their thought process but it failed miserably - especially when trying to communicate during chaotic combat. Even if they improved their doctrine for tank tactics it would have faltered quickly in combat without something better then "visual" communications.
IMHO, the radio made the "Blitzkrieg" possible.. without it, the German army coordination would have been questionable at best - even with their early 1940s superior tactics.
What do others of you think?
|
|
|
Post by William Miller on Jun 15, 2014 22:45:37 GMT -6
Which country were you referring to exactly? Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 15, 2014 22:50:17 GMT -6
Which country were you referring to exactly? Thanks. Sorry, Germany. The panzer I and II's did not have full sets, just receivers due to weight and space. In the early campaigns, they made up the bulk of Panzer Divisions. I am not certain about Panzer III's.
|
|
|
Post by William Miller on Jun 15, 2014 23:25:29 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by William Miller on Jun 15, 2014 23:37:17 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by William Miller on Jun 16, 2014 0:38:57 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 16, 2014 7:49:37 GMT -6
I've been doing some further research because I wasn't satisfied with the information I have provided. The Panzer IIs did have an Fu5g radio, which was a full transmitter/receiver equipped radio as did the Panzer III and IVs. These made up the bulk of the Panzer forces in the French campaign. This would be consistent with all the other information that I have concerning day to day action in that campaign. Accuracy is important to me.
Note: The T-34 had a radio, 71-TK-3, full transmitter and receiver. www.rkk-museum.ru/vitr_all/exhibits/113_e.shtml
|
|