How Russia Stopped The Blitzkrieg

[Mastermariner]

"8 out of 10 soldiers.."

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

It doesn't mean 8 out of 10 German Soldiers Died, but that of the Dead German Soldiers 8 out of 10 were killed on the Eastern Front. He also forgets to Mention the Importance of many other Factors like Radios, Ergonomics, Communication and Cooperation etc.

 

The S-35 for example had a 1 Man turret and thus was severely hampered ergonomically. The T-34 had a two Man Rotating Casemate, IT WASN'T A TANK, but an Assault Gun. This is simply due to the Lack of a Turret Floor. It couldn't be Operated properly once the Casemate was rotated more than 90° to any side because the Breech would Block the Loader. 

 

The Pz.III and Pz.IV were hampered by Firepower until they were fitted with larger Caliber, High Velocity Guns and Armor Reinforcements. But their Three-Man Turret made them very Efficient and Quick to Operate when facing Light Armor, Positions and Infantry. 

 

He approaches this from an individualistic Gamer's Perspective like Top Trump Cards and not within a War Context. Thus he misses out on the Important Stuff. 

2/10, would not recommend. 

[AndyJWest]

The T-34 wasn't a tank? 

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

The T-34 wasn't a tank? 

May look like one, but since it doesn't have a Real Turret, but a Turret Shaped Rotating Casemate, I would define it as an Assault Gun/Tank Destroyer. The Casemate is able to traverse 360° but if you look at the internals the Ergonomics make it impractical to Operate with the Turret more than 45° angled from the Forward Position. 

 

Ón the T-34-76 this was a bit less of a Problem than in the 85 where the entire three Man Crew had to Waddle Around and Pull up their Feet whenever the Casemate was Rotated. 

Edited May 28, 2017 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[AndyJWest]

So, is it just you that says the T-34 isn't a tank, or are their other people who share your opinion? If so, who?

[Finkeren]

If having a turret basket is the defining characteristic of a tank, then there are a hell of a lot of tanks that aren't tanks - including the ones that coined the term "tank".

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

The Basket it was makes the Turret. Without the Basket it is just a Rotating Casemate. One can be used 360° Properly, the other is mostly Visual. One is a Dream to Work in, the other an Ergonomic Nightmare. So many Broken Legs and Feet in the T-34s tell a story. 

 

 

Not a Turret

 

 

A Turret

 

Edited May 28, 2017 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[Finkeren]

The lack of a turret basket in Soviet tanks was a nightmare for the loader, that's true, but to not call it a turret or claim, that it makes the tank essentially an assault gun is absurd. That's like saying, that a tank's main gun isn't a cannon because it doesn't have a gyro stabilizer. Sure, it makes operation a lot easier and more effective, but it is not a defining characteristic nor does the lack of it render the tank useless.

 

I'll never understand, why the Soviet designers never included a turret basket in their WW2 designs. It seems such an obvious thing that is fairly simple to manufacture.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Then why are the Hellcat and M10 called Tank destroyers or Assault Guns? They also have a Rotating thingy on Top? It can't be used in a proper Tank Role because the Loader can't operate once a certain Angle is reached. This means is has to be used in a Fashion that suits Assault Guns and the Hull has to be turned in order to get a Useful Firing Solution. 

[Finkeren]

Neither of those are commonly called assault guns. However, both of them are tank-destroyers for the simple reason, that they are designed with the main purpose of fighting other armoured vehicles.

 

Neither the Hellcat or the M10 would qualify as proper tanks, because they have open crew compartments. One of the defining characteristics of a proper tank is, that it is completely enclosed.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Well, Assault Guns were also typically fully enclosed. Just look at the soviet SU and german StuGs and Jagdpanzers. 

And the T-34s were used in an Assault Gun Role most of the time and Operated as Assault Guns. And when equipped with a 57mm ZiS they were called Tank Destroyers. 

[Finkeren]

Well, the ting about tanks is, that they can operate in a multitude of roles, they are not purpose-built for a single role the way assault guns, tank-destroyers etc. are.

 

The modern definition of a proper tank, usually requires it to have a rotating turret, and assault guns usually don't have turrets, but there are exceptions to both.

 

The most useful definition of a post WW1 "tank" is probably something along these lines: a fully-enclosed, tracked AFV with no troop carrying capacity and its main armament housed in one or more rotating turrets. Very few vehicles that we would agree to call "tanks" fall outside this definition. The only WW2 era example I can think of is the M3 Lee.

Edited May 28, 2017 by Finkeren

[AndyJWest]

As far as I'm concerned, if 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann is the only person who thinks the T-34 isn't a tank, it's a tank.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Well, the T-34 couldn't be used effectively in the Tank Role. They were used as Assault Guns with slightly more Felxibility in Close Quarters. They were never used as independently as other Nations could use theirs. 

A Tank is a much more Autonomous and Independent Unit than a simple Assault Gun. Since the T-34s were always used En-Masse this didn't really Matter, but doesn't change the Fact that the T-34 wasn't Operated in most Ways like a Tank. 

[AndyJWest]

I'm sure the Wehrmacht found great consolation in learning that the T-34 couldn't be operated as a tank...

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Well, Assault Gun isn't a derogatory Term, just Marks a Different Kind of Use. It basically Marks the degree of autonomous Operation in this Case. The T-34 wasn't used independently. 

Edited May 28, 2017 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[AndyJWest]

No, assault gun isn't a derogatory term. Not that it matters, since nobody except you seems the think the T-34 is one. 

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

No, assault gun isn't a derogatory term. Not that it matters, since nobody except you seems the think the T-34 is one. 

Well, fortunately Truth isn't based on popular Opinion. The Panther was considered a Heavy Tank back then as well, while Nowadays it's often called a Medium. 

Captured T-34s were rarely used in Tank Roles, but as a supplement to the StuG IIIs in Infantry Support and in Defense.  

 

And the German Models were lifted to Tank Status with Advanced Radio Equipment, improvised Turret Floors and Cupolas. This way they could Operate together with the German Tanks Independently. 

Edited May 28, 2017 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[Finkeren]

Klaus, you seem to have some misconceptions about how the T-34 worked.

 

For one thing, the entire crew in the turret weren't standing on the floor. The gunner/commander (on the T-34-76 this was one person, on the T-34-85 they were seperate persons) say on a seat that rotated with the turret (since the gunner controlled turret traverse with a set of pedals, he couldn't bloody well be standing up) The loader had a seat too (on most versions) but since he pretty much couldn't do his job while sitting down, during combat he had to stand on the floor - which wasn't really a floor but tightly packed ammunition boxes, which in turn meant, that when the ammo in the loading rack was spent, he had to remove part of the floor he was standing on to retrieve more. The problem for the loader was not, that he couldn't operate the breech at certain angles, but the fact that every time the turret rotated, he was at risk of injury and he absolutely couldn't reload the gun while the turret was traversing. In no way did the angle the turret was at prevent the gun from firing or being reloaded (obvious since every part of the gun was in the rotating part of the fighting compartment)

 

It was an ergonomic nightmare to be sure, and on the T-34-76 the gunner/commander was severely over-worked and with very limited vision to the outside.

 

However, it absolutely was a tank and fully able to function as such.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Well, in the End of the Day it's Semantics. In my Opinion the T-34 was never a Proper Tank. Just go and try yourselves. Just compare the T-34 Fighting Compartment to a Marder or StuG and Pz.III or IV. It's already a Cramp to Operate with 30° to the Left. Any more than that is just hateful. 

[AndyJWest]

And by the same logic, the 'cramped fighting compartment' would mean that the Bf-109 wasn't a proper fighter... 

[Cybermat47]

Klaus, by your logic, the very first tanks weren't tanks.

 

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Now you're just being silly. 

[Cybermat47]

Now you're just being silly.

 

How so? You say that the T-34 isn't a tank due to it's poorly-functioning turret and it's role as infantry support, when the first tanks completely lacked turrets, and were designed from the ground up for infantry support. In fact, as far as I can find, there was only one tank vs tank battle in all of WWI, in which no tanks were destroyed.

[unreasonable]

Not only that but the assertion "Well, the T-34 couldn't be used effectively in the Tank Role. They were used as Assault Guns with slightly more Felxibility in Close Quarters. They were never used as independently as other Nations could use theirs. " is not only patently false it is actually the reverse of the truth.

 

Soviet Tank Corps - the rough equivalent of both German and Allied armoured divisions - had 2 (later 3) 3 tank brigades plus only one rifle brigade.  That is tank heavy. They were grouped in tank armies and often pushed forwards in deep penetrations with only cavalry support.  The British and US did this too in N. Africa also with a very tank heavy organization (without the cavalry) - it rarely ended well. By the end of the war  Western Allied and German Armoured had a much more balanced infantry/tank mix to deal with complex defenses in depth in difficult terrain, while the Soviets kept their  tank heavy orbat throughout which worked well enough since STAVKA could concentrate massive reserves and then blow whole armies through the holes in the overextended German line.

 

I agree with Klaus that the film is pretty bad - I can just about tolerate the accent, but the Germans did not cross the Meuse by armoured assault: they did it through infantry and engineer assault, backed up with massive air attack, which caused most of the French reservists to run away.  Tanks only crossed after the bridgeheads were secured.

Edited May 29, 2017 by unreasonable

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

These were new Technologies in WWI when Aircraft were good enough when they just got off the Ground and anything that could Fire, Cross Trenches and was impenetrable to Rifle Projectiles was 'a' tank. 

You wouldn't call a He-111 a fighter just because it has guns and can fly and a vaguely turret shaped Object doesn't make the T-34 a Tank by Post WWI Standards. 

Otherwise a Redneck with a Vest, Helmet and Shotgun on a Bulldozer is a Tank as well. 

 

I'm gonna call this a Tank as well now, because ain't no Bullet gon hit that. 

 

Edited May 29, 2017 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[Finkeren]

You know which other country didn't field any tanks in 1940? France.

 

Almost all French tank designs used horrendous tiny 1-man turrets with no turret basket. The officer in the turret not only had to act as commander, he also had aim and fire the turret gun and load it himself (on the Char B he also had to operate the radio!), unless he was lucky and some other crew member was available to squeeze in and help with the loading. In this regard French tank crews were much worse off than the Soviets were.

 

So I guess the Western power with the largest tank force at the start of the war really fielded no tanks at all?

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

I just love when the Forum is so Dead that People will engage in Stupid Semantics. 

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

We could continue on the Topic why it isn't called "Tea" if it doesn't contain Tea Leaves, but should instead be called "Infusion".

[Gunsmith86]

Just so you all know the Panzer III also has no turret basket!

[Aap]

I think this ludicrous claim about T34 is just to pry people away from the original topic 

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Which is the Complete Dismissal of Ergonomics, Communication, Tactics and Doctrine. The Germans were just better at them. The French Tanks were Disconnected, Blind, Slow and Short Legged, so were the T-34s. Guderian and Rommel invented Modern Tank Warfare and their Doctrine was arguably the Best looking at their Performance. Their only Mistake was to underestimate the Importance of Armor and Anti-Armor Sufficiency.

 

And the PzIII has a Turretfloor, no Basket and the Turret/Floor is not a Single, Liftout Unit, but it has a Rotating Turret Floor.

[Gunsmith86]

 

And the PzIII has a Turretfloor, no Basket and the Turret/Floor is not a Single, Liftout Unit, but it has a Rotating Turret Floor.

No rotating floor!

 

[Gunsmith86]

[DD_Arthur]

I think you're onto a looser here Klaus but its stimulated an interesting discussion so

[Finkeren]

It was a major blunder by the Soviet design team not to include a turret basket in the original design of the A-20. Once mass production was well underway, there was no way they'd redesign the entire turret mounting and ammunition storage and hold back production for weeks or months. It was a design flaw that plagued the design for its entire service life. What's even more baffling is, that they still didn't add a turret basket to the T-55 design after the war!

 

However, this did not mean, that the design was unusable or that the gun couldn't be fired or reloaded beyond 45^o traverse. That's just bonkers. It did however mean, that it was practically impossible for the loader to reload the gun while the turret was moving, and that'¨s something I'd actually like to see implemented in the tank models in the game: Making it so that reloading stops whenever the turret is traversing at more than 2-3 degrees per second. 

[Trooper117]

The T-34 series were all tanks, simple as.

Just because a certain country had a different philosophy regarding it's early construction method, doesn't mean it's not a tank!

[Brano]

OP video....oh,dear,yet another history expert utuber 

 

To Klaus and his "theory"

 

T-34/76 had dedicated seats for both gunner and loader attached to the turret ring.Nobody had to crawl around when turret moved.

 The reason behind not installing turret basket into T-34 was simple.It would block access to the ammo boxes stored on the 

floor (where most of the ammo has been stored).It was an disadvantage of angled armor construction of the turret with 

combination of Christies suspension.Both took vital space from interior,where ammo could be stored = that readilly available 

to the loader.It was also easier for the loader to access ammo stored at the side of the hull.Even radio operator and driver 

could help loader with passing ammo from the racks next to their seats.Another advantage was in that whole floor of the 

turret area could be used for ammo boxes.

 This improved a lot with new 3 man turret of T-34/85 (obraz goda 44),where readilly available ammo could be stored on the 

walls of the turret and in its extended rear part (IIRC 20pcs, which is plenty enough for standard everyday frontline usage)

 This was not the case of american or german tanks,as large portion of the area under turret has been occupied either by 

torsion bars or the cardan shaft.This,on the other hand,increased significantly the height of the tank,comparing to 

Christies suspension.On top of it,part of ammo stored above sponsons (sherman for example) was easilly ignited by the hit of an enemy shell.

Ammo stored low on the floor in T-34 was less prone to got hit.

 To wrap it up,each construction decision had its advantages and disadvantages.Puting all of them into good balance would 

win the war for you.Not the turret basket hehe

[MiloMorai]

 

 

Well, Assault Guns were also typically fully enclosed. Just look at the soviet SU and german StuGs and Jagdpanzers.

 

Soviet SU vehicle

[Brano]

Its not fair towards Klaus,Milo. Its afterwar ASU-57 (for VDV)