CMBB v CMAK

[Mad Russian]

The piece of the puzzle that you are missing, in Soviet early war effectiveness, is the Luftwaffe. Not the superiority of the German tank force itself.

Again, the Germans, and especially your friend Guderian, considered a tank's speed as great a weapon as it's gun. The Germans blew a hole in the Soviet lines and poured the tanks through it. When the Soviets were trying to counter that blow the Luftwaffe broke up their tank concentrations and disrupted the counterattack. Allowing German armor to fight the Soviet tank formations piecemeal. Making them much easier to destroy.

Here is a comment on just how tough the Soviet armor proved to be at times...

III Mechanized Corps tanks, T-26's and BT's, proved surprisingly difficult for the Germans to destroy but heavy attacks by the Luftwaffe depleted their strength and prevented the Russian attacks from being properly coordinated.

The anti-tank and tank crews of the 7th Panzer Division were then able to outmaneuver and outshoot the disorganized Russians.

8 July 1941 Senno....Despite little protection from the air, and a tendency to use their tanks in the usual piecemeal groups, the two Corps(V and VII Mech Corps) managed to advance on Senno but then they ran into the northern spearheads of Panzer Group 2. By the 8th a major series of tank battles was in progress. These Soviet crews were seasoned veterans who handled their tanks with some skill. (Guderian remarking that this was the only time in the early months where the Soviets handled their armor with skill.) At the first clash the advancing Germans ran into a well laid and camouflaged tank ambush. The Soviet tanks attacked the German flanks and tried to take the enemy in the rear. The Germans still retained a tactical edge but this was countered by the T-34's robustness and heavy firepower. One shrugged off the attention of four PzIII's and then, despite being hit several times drove straight over a 37mm antitank gun. This particular tank motored for more than nine miles deep into the German rear unitl, despite it's wide tracks it got stuck in marshy ground and was finished off by a 100mm heavy gun.

and then there is this quote...

The T-34's proved rather more impressive. One of the first examples encountered in the south stood up to no less than twenty-three 37mm hits without any damage. Only the 24th round aimed at the turret ring jammed the turret and forced the Soviet tank to withdraw.

When you consider that 2/3 of the German tank force was armed with 37mm guns or SMALLER you begin to get the idea of just how powerful an opponent the T-34 was.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

Quite an interesting read gentlemen!A green clicky for both of you

What are you trying to ruin my reputation or what?

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

So, how does this all tie in with CMBB?

In the game vehicles never break down...unless you consider bogging and immobilizations, which I personally do, as breakdowns too.

Panther engines never catch fire. T-34's selected in the early war months of the game in QB's have lots of AP.

No vehicle ever runs out of fuel. Nobody gets tired. Tanks don't go back and refuel and reammo to come back into the fight. Unless of course you are doing an operation.

You can't recrew vehicles.

Only in specifically made scenarios can you reduce the effectiveness of the early war T-34's and KV's. They should be very tough to kill since there were only a handful of German tanks in the entire theater that could deal with them at anything other than point blank range.

Conscript/Green crews helps but so does the lack of AP ammo.

The early war scenarios should be anything but pushovers for the Germans. They were tough fights that often hung in the balance and had to have the Luftwaffe pull them through. And we all know how much you guys like to see the Luftwaffe in your CMBB battles....

In a 1941 battle you should only on rare occasions be able to purchase a PzIII with a 50L60. They should be VERY RARE. I have a feeling that they are not. One third of the tank force should be either PzI's or PzII's. How often do you buy with that ratio enforced?

Some points to think about that may shed a different light on 1941 tank battles. I have had several gamers remark on the way that HSG portrays 1941 tank fights. That they were surprised that there were any tank battles worth fighting before 1943.

There are if they are done right. The Germans are anything but sure winners.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

Please read up once more, how many new model tanks and how many older model tanks were present in Soviet Army in June 1941. I will help you: from 10349 up to about 11000 in 19 mechanised corps in Western regions of USSR according to different sources. You can add on top tanks from cavalry divisions and (according to June 1, 1941) you will receive figure of 12 782. So I suggest you should revise your statements about the backbone of Soviet tank forces avalibale at the front.

T-34 became the main workhorse of Soviet army only in 1943, comprising about 2/3ds of the soviet produced tanks, present in Kursk battle.

In English the backbone means the hard part. Not necessarily the most numerous part. The hard part of the Soviet tank force were the T-34 and KV-1's. They were, as you have pointed out, at times, not the most numerous part.

From January 1941 through May 1945 the T-34 was the workhorse of the Soviet Army. It was the tank the Soviets intended to fight the war with and when the factories outproduced losses it was the one that they built their inventory around.

T-34 production figures before you claim it becomes the Red Army workhorse are:

1940 - 117

1941 - 3014

1942 - 12,553

By the time you claim the T-34 becomes the workhorse of the Soviet Army it was produced in greater numbers than the entire German tank force for the whole war!! I don't think that's a reasonable assumption to make.

The Soviets intended on the T-34 being the tank they would fight with and they started it's production before the war. They continually upgraded it and then produced more T-34's than any other tank in the war.

After the destruction of the obsolete models, in mid to late 1941, the T-34 was never less than half of the TO&E strengths for their tank brigades. While there were times, when this wasn't accomplished, the intent was still there.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Nikita]

Sorry, but you are writing simply too much, it is too difficult for me to follow you everywhere.

Steven Zaloga is not the best available source for Russian armor. Ask him personally, if possible for such names as Michail Svirin or Baryatinsky and then post his comments here. Figures, that I was stating, are from books, written by people, tank engineers, working in Russian archives more frequently, than Zaloga.

Again: you are making mistake of usual diletant, comparing calibers and armor thickness, and disregarding other factors. Untrained crew, for example, may be simply uncapable of driving tank and T-34, especially early model or KV, are very difficult to drive. Or, when driving, Due to better transmission German tanks enjoyed much better mobility. T-34 had extremely poor spotting ability. If repair was needed, the untrained crew will have difficulties to repair. And such difficulties are becoming even bigger, if you count the fact, that evacuators, available in OOB of Russian MCs, were not capable of driving such heavy tanks, as T-34. I am sure, you are not aware about the time limits for Russian tank engines, used in T-34 at the time. etc. etc.

I need to state to you again, that tanks are not necessarily fighting tanks. OOBs are fighting. Tank battles are much more seldom, than tanks fighting enemy ATs, artillery and infantry. German artillery, including 37mm, were quite capable of knocking-off earlier Soviet tanks, that formed the backbone of fighting force in border battles. I know, what backbone means and can not buy argument, that much more times numerous tanks, than T-34 r KV can not be considered as such, just because T-34 or KV armor is thicker. Light tanks were the main fighting power, the workhorse of Soviet MCs of the period. As for T-34s, it still could be defeated with decreasing difficulty 50mm guns, divisional artillery and flaks, should that become necessary.

As for Luftwaffe: do you know, how many tanks they have killed? They have affected marches and organisation, but not much tanks themselves.

Power of German tank and infantry divisions was combined arms warfare, employed by veteran troops, which were fighting for 2 years on different theaters (especially the command chain). And the quotes, you are stating, prove that, it is a pity you can not analyse them completely. Surely, if masses of Soviet tanks achieved local superiority, by "overfilling" German anti-tank capacity sometimes, they had successes, but, as I said, they were too low on supporting infantry and artillery to consolidate it.

For tank production and OOB:
Production of T-60 up to 1943, accepted for military service:
5796
T-70 - 8226
You should also count tanks of other models, produced during pre-war times and losses of almost all T-34s, available at the beggining of 1941. I gave you figures, available at the front. Production figures alone are good, but somewhat misleading. I also need to re-check Production of t-34s for 1941 and 1942 and will come up[ later.

I can not understand, why you are neglecting Baryatinsky statements about actually deployed new model tanks out of commissioned for service? Again, please provide other statements for low AP rounds supply, than Zhukov's memoirs. BTW he was not stating it there like you do: this was not presented as a universal situation.

Where did yo get such universal rule for Russian OOB? For example Katukov's brigade, formed up in September in Stalingrad, had only 16 T-34s (which was rather high due to close preence of Stalingrad tank factory) out of 49 tanks. general volumes of T-34 by the end o 1941 was about 25-30% of total tank volumes. It slightly increased in 1942, but not everywhere. 61army before Bolhov offensive of June 1942 had only 20% of T-34s compared to tanks, avalable to them.
At Kursk in 1943, in both Central and Voronezh Fronts T-34s comprised 62%, becoming main fighting force.

[Mad Russian]

Well then...a couple of things right off...

Steven Zaloga is not the best available source for Russian armor. Ask him personally, if possible for such names as Michail Svirin or Baryatinsky and then post his comments here. Figures, that I was stating, are from books, written by people, tank engineers, working in Russian archives more frequently, than Zaloga.

I would guess that you have no idea how much time Mr. Zaloga spent in the Russian archives. No, I don't know him. No, I can't ask him anything.

His book, "Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War Two" is considered the bible of Soviet combat vehicles in WWII. In the back he lists 276 sources about 60% of which are from some form of Soviet source.

I never heard of the two men you list.

There is only ONE issue I have in this thread. The fact that T-34's and KV-1's early on in the war had a shortage of AP ammo. I can make all the preconceived mistakes that you want to give me credit for. However, you cannot get around the fact, that if they were fully operational with their full combat loads of AP rounds, Soviet tanks would have killed more German tanks.

Period.

All of the other "issues" you bring up mean nothing. Tank crew quality, optics, ability to hit the enemy tanks, lack of spare parts, the lunar brightness on any given night....none of that matters. What matters is that when a German tank was hit with a round from a T-34 it would have been more effective if it was an AP round than an HE one.

You wanted to talk German tank superiority. We have. Your position that the Germans were far superior in tanks was bunk and I think I proved it.
The German tanks were very good at killing Russian tanks in small groups, when they were broken down or surrounded and out of supply. They were not so good at killing Soviet tanks that were actually fighting. I showed that too.

I have nine books on the T-34. So yes, I know an awful lot about T-34's.
I know they were hard to drive. I know their crews were inexperienced and that they were missing spare parts. I also know they were short of AP ammo during the first months of the war.

I also know alot about the German Panzers and their deployment. I know that the Panther was a design that was specifically made to counter the T-34 threat and was not a progression tank. At one time in 1941 the Germans had stopped making tanks altogether. They saw no need for a larger tank. The war they thought was over. Then they met the T-34 in ever increasing numbers.

You wanted specifics and I gave them to you. From both the German and the Soviet sides. You talked about post war fairy tales, and the only one I've seen is quoted is, that the Germans were supermen, with the best equipment on earth. That they were winning every fight with ease. That the Soviets only had outdated equipment and their tactics were worthless. I quoted you instances, where, when they were allowed to fight with the tactics they were trained in, they did quite well. It was the Germans that said so not something I made up. It was in fact Guderian. Yes, I know he isn't your favorite author. But when he's talking about how well the Soviets were fighting you have to believe that there might be some truth to that...

Of course the 37mm ATG was capable of knocking out obsolete Soviet tanks. It did so well in fact, it earned the knickname of "Door Knocker", when it tried to fight T-34's.

Do you know how many tanks the Luftwaffe killed? I don't. I don't really care. That's not the issue here. I don't quote tank kill numbers but talk about the disruption of combat formations. That is definately not the same thing.

You quote the production figures for T-60 and T-70's for 2 years and that figure barely matches the 1942 year production alone for the T-34. How does that make them the workhorses for the Red Army?

I get my universal rules for T-34 deployments from the Red Army Shats. The TO&E's issued by the Red Army during the war. I can give you the TO&E strengths for every tank brigade during the war. Every other Soviet tank formation as well as far as that goes.

Katukov became the commander of the 4th Tank Brigade 29 August 1941. He took the 4th Tank Brigade into action against the 4th Panzer Division at Mstensk. Yes, I know that the actual strength of the tank brigades, at times, was below the TO&E strength.

A TO&E is the list of equipment that a unit is authorized to have assigned to it. Maybe I am missing you with that abbreviation.

Either way, I'm not going to argue with you. I have posted the strengths of both the Soviet and German tank forces. I have shown that tank guns were increased in size, and velocity, in the absolute desire to increase their tank killing abilities. You dismiss out of hand any notion that the Soviets had any idea of what they were doing, or that they had any equipment worthy of being called tanks. While the German armor seems to have been invincible and their tactics flawless.

If that's what you want to believe be my guest.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Dashammer75]

Trust me I ain't trying to get in between anybody in this discussion. You guy's knowledge of German and Soviet equipment, OOB and tactics is light years ahead of me.

The T-34 was the best all round tank comming and going in WW2. The only tank that could compare with it was maybe the Sherman up gunned to 76mm. I know I will raise a storm by saying that.

The real issue with the out come of WW2 in europe was real simple the german decision cycle was broken. Ultra and the spy networks of the Soviets, Hitler and his homeboys where freaken A-- CRAZY and the german industrial complex was divided all over the place instead of concentrated on production of a good hard hitting medium tank and dual purpose fast fighterplane produced in mass.

I would have hated too see the outcome if just those simple things would have been changed.

Bottom line Hitler and his homeboys where Freaken A-- CRAZY. Thank God.

[McIvan]

What self propoganda value and self esteem value is gained by admitting that the enemy has better capabilities than you do?

The only one I know if is the one played over and over.....The Russians were bigger, better, badder but we still beat them.

A minor point: The obvious answer to your question is using it as an excuse, a very cogent point when talking about post war memoirs.

[McIvan]

Now for the real show of strength. Only the PzIII armed with the 50L60 had an even up chance against a T-34. The PzIII's armed with the 50L42 had to get very close to kill a T-34. Much closer than the T-34 needed to kill them. Of the 1090 PzIII's involved in Operation Barbarossa 960 were models E through J with the 5cm KwK38 L/42 (50L42). Only 130 were armed with the 50L60 gun that Hitler had deemed necessary for the tank force to be armed with before going to war with Russia. The German tank force was anything but overwhelming technologically. It was a very small shark with a couple of sharp teeth. But it was fast and had powerful jaws. When it did bite it bit hard and held on.

I think you'll find that the T34 available in 1941 could be dealt with by a PIII with a 37mm gun on pretty even terms. A PIII with a 50mm is deadly to them, will kill them from most ranges. The T34 front armour doesn't stand up at only 45mm. It's the 60mm and 70mm turret front T34s that caused the trouble from 1942 onwards.

The 37mm Anti tank gun cannot deal with the T34, that's accepted. I don't know why, but the 37mm Pak does not have the power of the 37mm tank gun.

You're also using production figures as if they bear some correlation to Russian tank strength which of course they didn't. So, on the eve of invasion iirc (and you will no doubt correct me), there were about fifteen to twenty thinly armoured T26/BT5/BT7 for every T23 or KV. And the PzII was quite capable of shredding them, leaving only the now somewhat rare PzI as completely useless.

I'm all for deflating myths of German superiority, but I think you're going a bit over the top. Also, you keep accusing Nikita of extolling German armour as flawless etc, when I didn't really see him doing any such thing???

There is an interesting scenario called Directive No.5 where early T34s (with, as it happens, virtually no AP ammo) and a large bunch of T26s/BT5, get their way for the first half of the scenario and are thereafter absolutely terrorised by a small force of German armour...PzIIs, Pz38t and a couple of PIIIs. It was a scenario I remembered for a long time because it felt right.

[McIvan]

In English the backbone means the hard part. Not necessarily the most numerous part. The hard part of the Soviet tank force were the T-34 and KV-1's. They were, as you have pointed out, at times, not the most

For me the word backbone would normally refer to the most numerous type.

Which is not to say I'm exclusively right, just that there is more than one view of what the word means in English. Actually I've never heard (or at least I don't recall) the word used as you use it.