Combat on the Russian Front

[Mad Russian]

The discussion on the T-34 and Panther generated such interest let's start a thread that includes all issues related to combat on the Russian Front. I would like to start a thread where anyone with questions, opinions, comments about the war in Russia can have those questions, opinions and comments answered or discussed.

Of course tanks will feature prominently in such a discussion, so I have done a bit of scanning to start things off. Nikita may or may not agree with all that is presented here. It will be interesting to see how Western military history compares with that of Soviet military history.

Here is the first post, one that covers the early years tank development of the Soviet pre-war tanks. The impression in the west was that the Soviet armor tank for tank was inferior to German tanks. I think thats wrong. I think there were strengths and weaknesses in each tank design but that as a whole they were pretty even. With the two main exceptions of a five man tank crew and radios for the German tanks. These two items made the German tanks better. One, the five man tank crew, tactically better. The other, the radio, tactically and operationally better. Tactically better because they were more maneuverable on the battlefield and operationally because there were easier for the higher command levels to control.

Now...onto pre-war Soviet tank design:

Sixty British machines were purchased 12-ton, 6-ton, and light Carden Loyd models. Two years later they were followed by two examples of the new 10 ton fast tank which was then being demonstrated by the American tank designer J Walter Christie. This machine had a new kind of suspension which gave it in a later version 64.3mph on wheels. and nearly 40mph on tracks. To this tank the T-34, though it was not yet dreamed of, can trace its direct descent.

These various tanks, assembled hotch-potch from the bourgeois West, became the basis on which Soviet tank designers built the Russian armoured force of the next decade. It was an immense force. The great explosion of talent and energy which now took place in the field of Russian tank production is one of the most remarkable developments in the history of armaments. In 1924 the first lorry was built inside the boundaries of the Soviet state; by 1939 Russia had assembled tank forces which in number greatly exceeded the combined total of the rest of the armies of the world. The equipment of these forces varied in quality, but some of the Russian machines, in their day, were as good as or better than anything in general service elsewhere.

Much, at first, was copied from British designs, especially after the Russo-German tank school at Kazan was wound up when Hitler came to power. The Carden Loyd machine be- came the basis for the light, turret- less Russian T-27 ; the Vickers 6-tonner of the T-26. Other models were more purely Russian in inspiration -a 29-ton T-28 and a 45-ton T-35, both of them multi-turreted designs intended for independent operations. Neither tank was a success, but each carried an indication that Russian armoured theory was at least clear in definition: that a tank was a moving platform for a weapon, and that if the weapon was inadequate, the tank was doomed. The T-28 had a 76.2mm gun, while the T-35 carried a 76.2mm and two 45mm guns. Undergunning was one error which could not be laid at the door of Russian designers, whereas, by contrast, British medium tanks of the period were still armed with the three- pounder (equivalent to 47mm), soon to be superseded by the even smaller two- pounder (40mm).

A new path was opened for Russian tank design when the two Christie models were purchased. These tanks were the final product of many years of thought and experiment by Christie, an American automotive engineer who had entered the field of
mechanised war in 1916 with an anti- aircraft gun carriage, and had deve- loped his ideas through tanks of varying success until they reached full fruition in the revolutionary M-1931 (later called the T-3 in the United States Army). Christie himself summed up the thinking behind this machine when he wrote: 'It is an established fact, conceded by every- one who reads and thinks, that manpower in defence of a country is fast fading away, and that machines swift and low as a trench line are being substituted for manpower.

'My first object was to build a chassis that will protect the man who is to risk his life by facing the enemy, and to provide a machine by the use of which he can defend himself and destroy the enemy. Therefore we built a chassis with frontal lines and slopes that will make it almost impossible to penetrate the chassis with any type of projectile. Next we constructed the chassis as low as possible, making it as inconspicuous as the power plant permits. We then turned to the next problem of defense, which is speed. With speed you can surround 'the enemy, you can flank him, you can reach points quickly and take up positions to stop the advance. If you meet an overpowering force you can quickly evade it. ..'

Christie's definition of a tank was perfect, but, ironically, his ideas on the future of war were less realistic in terms of the conflict in Europe which was already on the horizon. They belonged to the more extravagant theories of armoured warfare which were in vogue in a small British coterie of the time, led by Generals Fuller and Hobart, but supported only part of the way, and with significant reservations by Liddell Hart. These theories, implicitly, saw the battlefield of the future as resembling the sea rather than the land.


This is taken from "T-34: Russian Armor" by Douglas Orgill.

Of particular interest here are the comments...."each carried an indication that Russian armoured theory was at least clear in definition: that a tank was a moving platform for a weapon, and that if the weapon was inadequate, the tank was doomed. The T-28 had a 76.2mm gun, while the T-35 carried a 76.2mm and two 45mm guns. Undergunning was one error which could not be laid at the door of Russian designers, whereas, by contrast, British medium tanks of the period were still armed with the three- pounder (equivalent to 47mm), soon to be superseded by the even smaller two- pounder (40mm). "



Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

Both the Germans and Soviets shared many things in common. The most unusual was that they used the same battle cry.

Urrah!!

Most historians believe this comes from the time in the mid-30's when German troops trained in Russia.

Good Hunting.

MR

[bluehand]

I think the most CM relevant thing in all CM battle recreations on the eastern front is to remember that most german formations would be best represented as units that were weakened and at only 70% full staff. I know most will cry foul but the germans really were bled white from 43 on and were suffering heavily even before that, with few exceptions and most of those are propaganda. The Russians suffered suffered heavily which is why the troops are treated as a level less experienced than they were on paper. but people miss construe that in designing scenarios and include fresh troops as conscript rather than green, forgetting that the game already takes the russian inexperience into account.

I recently played a scenario called "the Seam" and while the troops were conscript, I suspect that by the soviet army standards they were actually green if not better. to put troops that unskilled against veteren troops even romanian and italian, is mistake even the soviet command wouldn't make. historically I believe the romanians and italians were routed but in the scenario there is little possibility of that happenning. especially when the germans get a full tiger platoon as reinforcements...

[Mad Russian]

I think the most CM relevant thing in all CM battle recreations on the eastern front is to remember that most german formations would be best represented as units that were weakened and at only 70% full staff. I know most will cry foul but the germans really were bled white from 43 on and were suffering heavily even before that, with few exceptions and most of those are propaganda. The Russians suffered suffered heavily which is why the troops are treated as a level less experienced than they were on paper. but people miss construe that in designing scenarios and include fresh troops as conscript rather than green, forgetting that the game already takes the russian inexperience into account.

22 June 1941 the Germans were pretty much at full strength.

There is alot of historical data on June 1941 material here:

TPG Research Section

After the very first day the German formations started being like most combat units. A "normal" combat unit would rarely be above 70% operational. The Germans as time went on would be even less.

I would think that there would be an operational strength vs TO&E strength of roughly 80% from August 1941 - December 1941. 70% for all of 1942 and up to mid 1943. After Kursk 1943 it should drop to 60%. In 1944 it should be roughly 50%. in 1945 it should be 40% or lower.

Now that is just a rough estimate. There are times and places where that would change. BOTH INCREASE AND DECREASE!! Not just increase.


Again CM in QB's doesn't control that. And when you are buying units it has little relevance. But in scenarios it has alot of relevance.

I recently played a scenario called "the Seam" and while the troops were conscript, I suspect that by the soviet army standards they were actually green if not better. to put troops that unskilled against veteren troops even romanian and italian, is mistake even the soviet command wouldn't make. historically I believe the romanians and italians were routed but in the scenario there is little possibility of that happenning. especially when the germans get a full tiger platoon as reinforcements...

The Soviets June - September 1941 would absolutely have the problem of sending conscript infantry into battle. The Axis Minors should rarely be above average for those same time periods though and they could be considered green or conscript as well. The Germans would average Veteran or higher though.

You can see some Nationality modifiers that I use as a general guideline for making my scenarios here:

MR's CMBB Nationality Traits

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

While the Germans thought about copying the T-34 but didn't, they did make outright copies of the 120mm mortar.

The Germans used very large amounts of captured Soviet artillery. They also mounted the 76mm AT gun on mobile carriages creating the Marder.

Both sides used captured weapons and often preferred the other sides weapons to their own. Ammo was often an issue when using an enemy weapon.

In CMBB for some reason a captured T-34 in the game is superior to all other German vehicles when fighting other T-34's. NEVER allow your opponent to buy captured T-34's in a QB!!

The Germans often did upgrade the optics on captured T-34's but not the armour or gun. So, why in CMBB a captured T-34 can easily kill a Soviet one but the Soviet one will only bounce rounds off the captured ones armour plate is beyond me.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Ratzki]

Would not Hungarian troops be Reg/Vet experience for this time period? Specially in Cavalry/Armoured units. The infantry lacked mobility but from what I understand, they "blitzed" along side the German units with good success.

[Mad Russian]

Would not Hungarian troops be Reg/Vet experience for this time period? Specially in Cavalry/Armoured units. The infantry lacked mobility but from what I understand, they "blitzed" along side the German units with good success.

There was only one unit the Germans thought there equal in all the Axis Minors, not counting the Finns, the Slovak Mobile or "Fast" Division.

There were others they thought fought okay but they never felt them as good as German troops. The Hungarian mountain troops did well also.

All other combat formations of Axis Minors the Germans considered inferior.

There were only 18 Romanian, 9 Italian, 7 Hungarian, 2 Spanish, 2 Finnish and 2 Slovakians awarded with the Knight's Cross. As you can see the Germans thought little of the combat capabilities of the Axis Minors. Of those 3 were Italian Submarine Captains, 30 were above the rank of General Officer and only 4 Colonels and 2 Majors were issued the medal with no-one below the rank of Major earning it outside the German armed forces.

No, there wasn't alot of combat power in the Axis Minors, which the Soviets learned/recognized very early on. Romania's biggest contribution was to take Odessa. Hungary's biggest claim to fame was to retreat during the summer battles of 1944 without orders often leaving the German troops outflanked with no warning.

To be fair about this though this was Germany's war against the Soviet Union and not the Axis Minor's. While they sent troops it was not their idea and in many cases they were just along for the ride.

If you are interested in a discussion about the capabilities of the Axis Minors I can do some research about each of them individually. As a whole they were cannon fodder.

Good Hunting.

MR

[McIvan]

The Germans often did upgrade the optics on captured T-34's but not the armour or gun. So, why in CMBB a captured T-34 can easily kill a Soviet one but the Soviet one will only bounce rounds off the captured ones armour plate is beyond me.

What they upgraded was the AMMO.

Check out the penetration for the captured 76mm AT gun....it'll go through a KV.

[Mad Russian]

The Germans often did upgrade the optics on captured T-34's but not the armour or gun. So, why in CMBB a captured T-34 can easily kill a Soviet one but the Soviet one will only bounce rounds off the captured ones armour plate is beyond me.

What they upgraded was the AMMO.

Check out the penetration for the captured 76mm AT gun....it'll go through a KV.

In CMBB, yes, but did the Germans make 76mm ammo for captured T-34's or did they use Russian captured stocks?

I would think they used captured Russian ammo right along with the captured tanks.

Someone out there may know more about this issue.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Vartuoosi]

Germans modified many of the captured 76mm guns to use 75mm ammo.