Thread: Questioning chirine ba kal - part II

Originally Posted by Gronan of Simmerya

I'd like to see the PIAT. The damn thing used NITROGLYCERINE as its explosive.

Those Tommies had a stiff upper lip, indeed!

And it's spring-loaded, too, with no propellant involved with launching the projectile. It's one of those weapons that is a lot more risky for the user then the target...

Originally Posted by chirine ba kal

And it's spring-loaded, too, with no propellant involved with launching the projectile. It's one of those weapons that is a lot more risky for the user then the target...

It makes one wonder, "What WERE they thinking?"

Originally Posted by Gronan of Simmerya

I'd like to see the PIAT. The damn thing used NITROGLYCERINE as its explosive.

Those Tommies had a stiff upper lip, indeed!

My apologies, it used a conventional HEAT round.

Originally Posted by chirine ba kal

It also could have been the platoon of T-34/76s in their rear, too. Everybody learned very quickly about the difference between tactical and operational objectives were - this was an operational scenario, not a purely tactical one - and that time and space are sometimes much more important then how many enemy tanks you can kill.

The T-34/76 is an amazingly deadly weapon. If the Russians had thought of 3 man turret crews earlier, the Germans would have been severely handled.

Originally Posted by Gronan of Simmerya

The T-34/76 is an amazingly deadly weapon. If the Russians had thought of 3 man turret crews earlier, the Germans would have been severely handled.

Well, yes and no.
The capabilities of the T34 have been somewhat exaggerated over the years. This is largely due to the Wehrmacht's initial shock at encountering it, which they took a long time to get over, and Soviet propaganda. By the Battle of Moscow steps were already in place by the Germans to neutralise its dominance, including the increased use of the 5 cm Pak 38 (L/60), and the development of an up-gunned Pz IV (the Ausf G).
The initial T34 Model 1940 was, to be kind, piece of crap. The 400 or so which were in service on the eve of Barbarossa were under gunned and mechanically unreliable. Its main gun was an L-11 76.2mm. A low velocity infantry support gun was effective against the lighter marks of German tanks (Pz I, II, 38T, and 35T), but against the Pz III's and IV's it really struggled. Also, against the few captured Char B's and Somuas that the Germans fielded in the East as trial vehicles it was worthless. The T34 Model 1941 was an attempt by the Soviets to rectify this deficiency. The new F-34 76.2mm gun had a hell of a lot better AT capability, but they didn't really start to appear in any numbers until early to mid 1942.
Even though the Soviets improved the armament of the T34 they failed to adequately address its other major deficiency �namely its mechanical reliability. The T34's drive train was notoriously bad from track to transmission. The use of substandard materials in the track pins resulted in the T34 throwing tracks when travelling cross country for sustained distances. This would result in counter attacks and offensives quickly bogging down as tanks fell out of the combat. The T34's transmission had a tendency to shatter while engaged (some famously went into combat with spare transmissions strapped to the rear engine deck), and to compound the matter was mated to a 4 speed gear box that had only 3 cross country/all terrain gears, 1 to be used only on hardened flat surfaces, and 1 reverse gear. This gear box was so bad that it was impossible to shift from 2nd to 3rd while on the fly. Many drivers used a mallet move the stick which caused it to break or bend rendering the tank incapable of motion until repaired. To even further exacerbate the situation the inability to shift from 2nd to 3rd resulted in the T34 being only able to achieve a top speed of 15 to 20 km/h cross country. The introduction of a better 5 speed gear box was to begin in 1942, but even as late as 1945 a disproportionate amount of T34's in service still had the older 4 speed box.
In addition to the offensive and mechanical deficiencies of the T34 it, like all other Soviet amoured vehicles, suffered from the use of poor metal in its armour. The Soviets, along with the Italians and Japanese lacked the advanced metallurgical knowledge to manufacture good "steel." The T34's designers compensated for this lack of quality material by increasing the slope of its armour. As you know, by giving the T34 a 30 degree slope it enabled it to have better ballistic resistance without increased weight. This, the use of a sturdy V12 diesel, and wider tracks was where the T34 excelled.
Lastly, the Soviet manufacturing process was so compromised due to the Great Terror and the conscription of all able bodied men that tanks were, essentially, slapped together. As the evaluation team at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds noted after testing two combat tried T34's in 1942 there were "problems with overall armour build quality, especially of the plate joins and welds, as well as the use of soft steel combined with shallow surface tempering. Leak issues were noted: 'In a heavy rain lots of water flows through chinks/cracks, which leads to the disabling of the electrical equipment and even the ammunition.' Earlier models of the T-34, until the Model 1942, had cast turrets whose armour was softer than that of the other parts of the tank, and offered poor resistance even to 37 mm anti-aircraft shells. (wikipedia T-34). This shallow tempering resulted in spalling, when struck with HE rounds. We encountered the same thing in Somalia in the 1990's with the T54 and T55's, both of which could be easily knocked out with HESH rounds.
In addition to the above noted shortcomings there was also the use of the coax MG firing trace to aim the main gun (lack of good optics), the cramped fighting quarters, only company commander's tanks having radios (using FM), the tank commander also being the loader until the 3 man turrets were introduced (as you noted). Overall, the T34 was not as great as we have been led to believe. Like the M4, quantity over quality was the deciding factor.
If you are interested, check this book out: Tank Rider: Into the Reich with the Red Army https://www.amazon.com/Tank-Rider-In.../dp/1853675547
This memoir is an honest account no BS glorification of the war, and he points out a lot of the deficiencies of the Soviet tanks, especially the T34.

Here's an exerpt:

From page 64

�We were happy when tanks from our Brigade's tank regiment caught up with our battalion and we moved on as tank riders. We had just one objective � to capture Kamenets-Podolsk. Running a bit ahead, I would say that it took the Brigade two or three days to arrive at the town. Both people and tanks were tired; the vehicles couldn't take such stress either. Tanks stopped more and more often because of small technical breakdowns, especially broken tracks.'

Shemek.

PU4V5kl.jpg

Here's an example of what I noted in the previous post regarding T34's going into battle with transmissions strapped to their decks.

Originally Posted by Baron

game.jpg
The aforementioned fatality happened here.
Note the furnishings are not period. Just gotta use what we have!

Simply awesomely cool if you asked me!