Do Russian Tanks Suck?

[ExtraOdinary]

Until 1942, when the Tiger appeared.

Imho the Panther was superior to the Tiger. Much more balanced in terms of mobility, firepower (penetration) and sloped armor+lower production cost

 

[BestUsernameEver]

There is nothing special about slopped armor. Even the WW1 FT-17 had slopped armor.

Exactly. Besides, the whole "Soviets invented sloped armor" thing is one of the biggest myths on WW2. It's flat out wrong...

The first tanks to employ sloped armor were French.

WW1:

Schneider CA1

Saint Chamond

Renault FT 17

WW2:

FCM 36

Renault R35

SOMUA S35

 

[500]

Aah... but with sloping, one gets to cover a lot more space - notice the shape 'L' and '\'. L weighs more than the other, while covering similar space.

Lets imagine two tanks. One is cubic (1mx1mx1m) and one is 2mx1mx1m prism (triangle) shape.

Both have same exactly space - 1 m3.

Both have same rear area - 1m2
Both have same side area - 2 x 1m2
Cubic tank has no roof area, but its bottom is 2 times bigger.

Front is slopped at 25.56 grad. That means its LOS is 2.32 times bigger than actual thickness. However it is 2.32 times longer and thus has 2.32 m2 area instead of 1 m2 for cubic.

So nothing is saved in the end.

Does deflection from sloped armor matter much at all?

Full caliber rounds penetrate more than LOS due to normalizaton.
Sub caliber steel rounds penetrate less than LOS due to deflection.
Sub caliber tungsten rounds and HEAT rounds penetration is virtually equal to LOS thickness.

 

[Broccoli]

Sloped armor was used first time in WW I warships so it wasn't anything new when T-34 was designed.

 

[Mighty Caty]

How a tank perform is basically come down to how the user use it.

For a Russian tank, when they were used in Arab country, they would be, well, literally "crap" But on the hand of Russia commander, the tank would perform 110%, regardless of how the crew trained. You want to know why? That's because Russian Tank designed upon the Russian Doctrine.

When you study Military History, you would see there are something going on really strength on Russian Military history during WW2. If you look closer, no one have been able to replicate the success of Russia during WW2 on the equipment they got, with the number they got. And by all mean if the same tactics and strategy was tried and repeated with other western Allied, usually the result is going to break.

The reason of this is, Russian fight with a different doctrine than US and most Western Allied.

The reason the Russian came out ahead in Stalingrad is sheer number. And how Zhukov fight the war is exactly how the Russia excel. Being brutal.

If the same offensive were mounted in the Western Front, Western allied with their bleeding heart strategy would not use the same way to fight with their Russian counterpart. In Battle of Stalingrad, Russian is seriously out tech by the German, while using second rated equipment and non-front line gear, the Russia negate the German technological superiority by attack only close in the German position. How? Simple, by keep throwing man for them to kill until a point have reach that they have more man and bullet than the German can kill and you even the battlefield that way. In the middle phase of Battle, German loses are 500,000 casualty in Dec 1942, while the Russia Casualty is touching 1 million. That number of casualty would not be remotely acceptable by Western standard and would hamper the operational capability of any army, but not the Russian.

On the other hand, when US/Britain Day/Night Bombing raid stepped into a non-sustainable rate, were daily lost mounted to 50 or 60 B-17 (That's 600 aircrew killed/wounded/capture) in a single raid. The allied are looking into technological solution to solve the problem. The invention of B-24, the invention of P-51 and the invention of B-29 is to counter the technological difference between US/Britain and Nazi Germany.

We can see the different doctrine even today when the US/NATO favor a more Force multiplication approach and seriously favor a combine armed doctrine where 1 Armoured Regiment would be accompanied by 1 Air Assault Regiment. That's 1 to 1 ratio. directly resulting a heavily reliance on Scout and Attack Helicopter (Like Kiowa Warrior and Apache in the US, Westland Lynx and Westland Apache in the UK and so on) and while the Russian Armoured Corp were used by Russia as a stand alone corps within their mobile infantry unit. (Mech INF), where you see the development today when Russia have 18,000 + tank and less than 500 attack helicopter while the US have 8,000+ tanks but 3000 helicopter (Apache, Kiowa, Blackhawk Gunship and Cobra Gunship)

But one thing universally agree about Russia tank, that's they are too small inside. Even the Swedish S Tank (Without turret) is bigger than a standard T-72. You can see how small ins the compartment inside. As a tanker, I would appreciate a bigger crew compartment....

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

How a tank perform is basically come down to how the user use it.

For a Russian tank, when they were used in Arab country, they would be, well, literally "crap" But on the hand of Russia commander, the tank would perform 110%, regardless of how the crew trained. You want to know why? That's because Russian Tank designed upon the Russian Doctrine.

When you study Military History, you would see there are something going on really strength on Russian Military history during WW2. If you look closer, no one have been able to replicate the success of Russia during WW2 on the equipment they got, with the number they got. And by all mean if the same tactics and strategy was tried and repeated with other western Allied, usually the result is going to break.

The reason of this is, Russian fight with a different doctrine than US and most Western Allied.

The reason the Russian came out ahead in Stalingrad is sheer number. And how Zhukov fight the war is exactly how the Russia excel. Being brutal.

If the same offensive were mounted in the Western Front, Western allied with their bleeding heart strategy would not use the same way to fight with their Russian counterpart. In Battle of Stalingrad, Russian is seriously out tech by the German, while using second rated equipment and non-front line gear, the Russia negate the German technological superiority by attack only close in the German position. How? Simple, by keep throwing man for them to kill until a point have reach that they have more man and bullet than the German can kill and you even the battlefield that way. In the middle phase of Battle, German loses are 500,000 casualty in Dec 1942, while the Russia Casualty is touching 1 million. That number of casualty would not be remotely acceptable by Western standard and would hamper the operational capability of any army, but not the Russian.

I have to disagree on the stalingrad battle tactics.This is a common misconception.Russia did use raw human wave tactics in the first days of stalingrad ,after chuikov took command however he made some very imp modifications.
Human wave attacks were cancelled.Instead best troops were divided into small assault groups armed exclusively with SMGs They would do mobile fighting,and present small targets for german air and artillery strikes.The general infantry was mostly used to grind down the german advance from garrisoned houses and the devastated urban terrain.These houses acted as strongpoints holding down the german advance cauysing huge casualities in close quarters brutal fighting.Some the famous buildings used a s strongpoints were the tractor/tank factory,the granary,pavlov's house.The soviet troops were ordered to take up positions so close to the german lines that the luftwaffe would be unable to disntinguish between opponents and unable to bring its firepower into play with full effectiveness.
Among the barren devastated landscape between the ruined buildings,assault parties from both sides roamed the city.In this no man's land chuikov unleashed his sniper army.His famous directive -
''Every german soldier must be made to feel that he lives under the muzzle of a soviet gun''
And nor did soviets pour everything they had into stalingrad.They poured just enough to keep the fight for the city going,acting as a sponge absorbing german strength.While the real soviet buildup continued on the flanks which would culminate in operation uranus.

 

[halfilhal]

So do they suck or not? I don't want them to fire while sucking...

 

[scholseys]

They have always been target practice for the west.

 

[Mighty Caty]

I have to disagree on the stalingrad battle tactics.This is a common misconception.Russia did use raw human wave tactics in the first days of stalingrad ,after chuikov took command however he made some very imp modifications.
Human wave attacks were cancelled.Instead best troops were divided into small assault groups armed exclusively with SMGs They would do mobile fighting,and present small targets for german air and artillery strikes.The general infantry was mostly used to grind down the german advance from garrisoned houses and the devastated urban terrain.These houses acted as strongpoints holding down the german advance cauysing huge casualities in close quarters brutal fighting.Some the famous buildings used a s strongpoints were the tractor/tank factory,the granary,pavlov's house.The soviet troops were ordered to take up positions so close to the german lines that the luftwaffe would be unable to disntinguish between opponents and unable to bring its firepower into play with full effectiveness.
Among the barren devastated landscape between the ruined buildings,assault parties from both sides roamed the city.In this no man's land chuikov unleashed his sniper army.His famous directive -
''Every german soldier must be made to feel that he lives under the muzzle of a soviet gun''
And nor did soviets pour everything they had into stalingrad.They poured just enough to keep the fight for the city going,acting as a sponge absorbing german strength.While the real soviet buildup continued on the flanks which would culminate in operation uranus.

Can't deny there are separate action with Small Unit Tactic action involved but generally the overall course of Soviet Campaign in Stalingrad is the use of sheer number to repulse the German attacks.

While as you mentioned, some objective the Russian seized it with small assault group but the question is, if you repeatedly send in small assault group to attack a single objective, then you are still using human wave tactics. (Which is exactly what Vietcong did to the US in Vietnam war) Which you would see most objective the Russian counter attacked has been using this repeat method to engage and destroy the German troop in the surrounding area.

While German follow a combined force tactics, which is to engage the enemy weak point and high point in effect to use their artillery and tank, then separate pocket to the remaining urban fighting. The Russian have no unified objective on how to retake the city. The battle rage on wherever the Soviet Reinforcement got off the Volga and they fought then and there. While the ground troop on the front line attack and defend objective regardless of their strategic and tactical value.

In Urban warfare, we are train to prioritize building by their use, function and their location, a force fighting with combine arms tactics would engage the building with the highest tactical value according to the war plan. For example, if there are 4 building in front of you, and if I have to attack and occupied 1 enemy building so that I can get better defensive support, I would occupied the highest most building both serve as vantage point and serve as observation post. The same goes as to defending the city. However, not much can be seen in Stalingrad, beside the tractor factory and the assorted railway station and yard, defensive line are hold whenever and wherever the friendly troop was.

Conventional military wisdom suggested that the Defender will enjoy a 3:1 ratio of troop uses before weighting in Air and Ground support. However, as you can see the situation, While the German suffer 800,000 casualty in an offensive, the Russian lost 1.3-1.5 mil (Approximately 2 times) with the defender. Which usually would be the other way around.

The only reason Russian did not buckled during this battle is simply because they have more strategic reserve down the road
and the distance to replace the lost troop is no where near as far as the Germany has to replace them. On average, a single lost Russian troop can be replaced by another within 24 hours in battle. While the German side have to take 2-3 days. This is also a serious contributing factor on how Russia win the war.

Had The location change and this battle is fought nearer to Germany, the outcome could be a lot different.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Perhaps we have a miscommunication here.when i say human wave attacks i mean literally that.Waves of soldiers charging towards the enemy in a line in ww1 fashion.These mobile shock troops however didn't follow such tactics,they followed fire and manuever taking cover and moving under suppresive fire and specialized for close combat in buildings being armed with mostly smgs.That i don't call human wave tactics.
Also one point i missed was the havoc caused by soviet artillery from the other bank and its role in blunting major german infantry attacks.

 

[vostok]

Can't deny there are separate action with Small Unit Tactic action involved but generally the overall course of Soviet Campaign in Stalingrad is the use of sheer number to repulse the German attacks.

While as you mentioned, some objective the Russian seized it with small assault group but the question is, if you repeatedly send in small assault group to attack a single objective, then you are still using human wave tactics. (Which is exactly what Vietcong did to the US in Vietnam war) Which you would see most objective the Russian counter attacked has been using this repeat method to engage and destroy the German troop in the surrounding area.

While German follow a combined force tactics, which is to engage the enemy weak point and high point in effect to use their artillery and tank, then separate pocket to the remaining urban fighting. The Russian have no unified objective on how to retake the city. The battle rage on wherever the Soviet Reinforcement got off the Volga and they fought then and there. While the ground troop on the front line attack and defend objective regardless of their strategic and tactical value.

In Urban warfare, we are train to prioritize building by their use, function and their location, a force fighting with combine arms tactics would engage the building with the highest tactical value according to the war plan. For example, if there are 4 building in front of you, and if I have to attack and occupied 1 enemy building so that I can get better defensive support, I would occupied the highest most building both serve as vantage point and serve as observation post. The same goes as to defending the city. However, not much can be seen in Stalingrad, beside the tractor factory and the assorted railway station and yard, defensive line are hold whenever and wherever the friendly troop was.

Conventional military wisdom suggested that the Defender will enjoy a 3:1 ratio of troop uses before weighting in Air and Ground support. However, as you can see the situation, While the German suffer 800,000 casualty in an offensive, the Russian lost 1.3-1.5 mil (Approximately 2 times) with the defender. Which usually would be the other way around.

The only reason Russian did not buckled during this battle is simply because they have more strategic reserve down the road
and the distance to replace the lost troop is no where near as far as the Germany has to replace them. On average, a single lost Russian troop can be replaced by another within 24 hours in battle. While the German side have to take 2-3 days. This is also a serious contributing factor on how Russia win the war.

Had The location change and this battle is fought nearer to Germany, the outcome could be a lot different.

In the West, often like to say that the USSR "flunked Germans with corpses." That's not true. Although the Soviet Union lost more soldiers than his enemies, the ratio of losses Russian to fascists is 1:1,1-1,3. It's calculating all fascists - Hungarian, Romanian and others. In Stalingrad won elite troops - scouts and snipers. And the Germans also staged "psychic attack" - that is, going in all growth to attack, shooting from the hip.
In addition, in 1942 on the territory controlled by the Soviet government remained only 70 million inhabitants. At the same time in the territories occupied by the Germans and their allies - 220 million( in Europe). USSR could not "flunked Germans with corpses." Physically could not.

 

[500]

Until 1942, when the Tiger appeared.

Actually even Pz-IV Ausf F2 was better than T-34-76. Tiger is different category.

They have always been target practice for the west.

No Russian tanks always were good.

They had problem in 60-es when West adopted excellent 105-mm gun while T-64 still had issues.
Then again in 80-es when West adopted thermal sights which Soviets could not produce.

 

[IND151]

I have to disagree on the stalingrad battle tactics.This is a common misconception.Russia did use raw human wave tactics in the first days of stalingrad ,after chuikov took command however he made some very imp modifications.
Human wave attacks were cancelled.Instead best troops were divided into small assault groups armed exclusively with SMGs They would do mobile fighting,and present small targets for german air and artillery strikes.The general infantry was mostly used to grind down the german advance from garrisoned houses and the devastated urban terrain.These houses acted as strongpoints holding down the german advance cauysing huge casualities in close quarters brutal fighting.Some the famous buildings used a s strongpoints were the tractor/tank factory,the granary,pavlov's house.The soviet troops were ordered to take up positions so close to the german lines that the luftwaffe would be unable to disntinguish between opponents and unable to bring its firepower into play with full effectiveness.
Among the barren devastated landscape between the ruined buildings,assault parties from both sides roamed the city.In this no man's land chuikov unleashed his sniper army.His famous directive -
''Every german soldier must be made to feel that he lives under the muzzle of a soviet gun''
And nor did soviets pour everything they had into stalingrad.They poured just enough to keep the fight for the city going,acting as a sponge absorbing german strength.While the real soviet buildup continued on the flanks which would culminate in operation uranus.

Thanks for info, but please provide source for claim.

I have to disagree on the stalingrad battle tactics.This is a common misconception.Russia did use raw human wave tactics in the first days of stalingrad ,after chuikov took command however he made some very imp modifications.
Human wave attacks were cancelled.Instead best troops were divided into small assault groups armed exclusively with SMGs They would do mobile fighting,and present small targets for german air and artillery strikes.The general infantry was mostly used to grind down the german advance from garrisoned houses and the devastated urban terrain.These houses acted as strongpoints holding down the german advance cauysing huge casualities in close quarters brutal fighting.Some the famous buildings used a s strongpoints were the tractor/tank factory,the granary,pavlov's house.The soviet troops were ordered to take up positions so close to the german lines that the luftwaffe would be unable to disntinguish between opponents and unable to bring its firepower into play with full effectiveness.
Among the barren devastated landscape between the ruined buildings,assault parties from both sides roamed the city.In this no man's land chuikov unleashed his sniper army.His famous directive -
''Every german soldier must be made to feel that he lives under the muzzle of a soviet gun''
And nor did soviets pour everything they had into stalingrad.They poured just enough to keep the fight for the city going,acting as a sponge absorbing german strength.While the real soviet buildup continued on the flanks which would culminate in operation uranus.

This policy was named "Hugging the Germans" and was effective.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Thanks for info, but please provide source for claim.



This policy was named "Hugging the Germans" and was effective.

I'll in my battle report.But great reads on this battle.

Battles That Changed The World Special

Osprey publishing Campaign 184-stalingrad 1942

Osprey Publishing Ostfront-hitler's war on russia 1941-45.

Stalingrad: The Fateful Siege: 1942-1943: Antony Beevor: 9780140284584: Amazon.com: Books

These 4 are great .First 3 are available in net via ******** if u do a little digging.Or i can send u an attatchment to ur mail address if ur really interested.Can't send 4rth one as that one i have in paperback only.

 

[Zarvan]

Their are some serious problems with Russian Tanks even Russians are not happy with T-90 so far it is also giving some problems to them