Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2014 18:18:24 GMT
You may enjoy digging through this blog run by my friend EnsignExpendable(Peter Samsonov). tankarchives.blogspot.com/It's a sizable collection of translated(declassified)Soviet archive documents that I am shamelessly plugging for him, because he does a lot of work translating this stuff and it deserves to be seen by a wider audience. It's a wide variety of documents, ranging from penetration and accuracy testing, mobility trials, examination of Lend Lease equipment, production orders, intelligence reports, and various other documents showing a perspective that isn't usually seen in the west. Enjoy.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Harrab on Dec 31, 2014 20:34:19 GMT
wow, cool.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2014 21:29:37 GMT
It's some pretty great stuff, look around long enough and you can find some real gems like this one; Tiger I's upper hull shot at 100 meters by 14.5 mm AT rifles, hit 13 is a full penetration.
|
|
|
Post by Warork on Jan 1, 2015 1:17:59 GMT
As a WWII buff...this stuff is my crack. Very nice, Cash!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2015 16:50:37 GMT
As a WWII buff...this stuff is my crack. Very nice, Cash! Glad you're enjoying it. Also for the Brits on the forum. Yuri Pasholok's drawings of a 1944 British proposal to produce Soviet T-34 and KV-1 tanks mounting 17 Pdr and 6 inch howitzer guns.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Harrab on Jan 2, 2015 21:30:37 GMT
As a WWII buff...this stuff is my crack. Very nice, Cash! Glad you're enjoying it. Also for the Brits on the forum. Yuri Pasholok's drawings of a 1944 British proposal to produce Soviet T-34 and KV-1 tanks mounting 17 Pdr and 6 inch howitzer guns. Holy throne, that's awesome. imagine the destruction of Wehrmacht forces those would have caused!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2015 23:03:25 GMT
Holy throne, that's awesome. imagine the destruction of Wehrmacht forces those would have caused! I'd venture to say they wouldn't have made very much of a difference compared to the M4's and Cromwells they used, but it is an interesting idea.
|
|
|
Post by Warork on Jan 3, 2015 1:23:26 GMT
Hard to say...the T-34 had sloped armor and a low profile. The idea of that platform in combination with the 17 pounder is one that has some merit...however Russian tanks had very poor gun depression and its tough to say whether they or Fireflies would be more effective with that 17 pound gun.
Speaking of which: little known fact; the lend lease Shermans we sent to the Russians were given to elite guard units of the Soviet army because they were better than the ones the Russians had initially. In fact, they were considered less burn prone after being hit than the T-34-76s.
The USSR counted for 18.6% of all the Shermans the US sent overseas under the Lend Lease Act.
The 1st, 3rd and 9th Mechanized Guards Corps were all equipped with 75mm and 76mm armed Shermans as standard in 1945 instead of T-34s
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2015 3:41:35 GMT
Hard to say...the T-34 had sloped armor and a low profile. The idea of that platform in combination with the 17 pounder is one that has some merit...however Russian tanks had very poor gun depression and its tough to say whether they or Fireflies would be more effective with that 17 pound gun. Speaking of which: little known fact; the lend lease Shermans we sent to the Russians were given to elite guard units of the Soviet army because they were better than the ones the Russians had initially. In fact, they were considered less burn prone after being hit than the T-34-76s. The USSR counted for 18.6% of all the Shermans the US sent overseas under the Lend Lease Act. The 1st, 3rd and 9th Mechanized Guards Corps were all equipped with 75mm and 76mm armed Shermans as standard in 1945 instead of T-34s The question isn't really "Would T-34s and KV-1s perform better?" it's more like "Would they make a difference at all?" I am not convinced the usage of T-34's and KV-1's by British forces would have any significant impact on the outcome of the western front, Germany simply didn't have the military forces necessary to hold against the allies. It's important to note that the USSR still had T-26Es in service in 1945, Shermans weren't considered to be particularly "better" than T-34s, the M4A2 was considered an acceptable design and the USSR tried to use them to equip certain units to simplify logistics. Performance wise both were listed as 2000-2500 KM and 250-300 engine hours before needing major parts replacement, with individual vehicles reported as going 3000 KM and 300-350 engine hours. Armor performance was similar, in armament the 76 mm F-34 held a slight advantage over the 75 mm M3(Soviet tests against flate plates gives the 76 mm AP round about 11 mm more penetration at 100 meters, in combat both were effective against most German armor from over 1000 meters with the 76 mm holding an advantage at longer ranges against heavier tanks, but no practical advantage at average ranges.)The M4 was considered to be more comfortable with it's synthetic leather seating(often looted by infantry to make boots), medical kit, and slightly roomier interior, the M4's in Soviet use weren't particularly immune to being set on fire(I don't think any had Wet Ammo storage), but were less prone to ammo detonations when storage guidelines were followed, on the other hand the T-34 was easier to get replacement parts for, had a lower profile, and the design was more utilitarian. Generally I'd call the T-34 and M4 equals, they even had comparable post-war usage and foreign upgrades.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2015 4:08:15 GMT
As far as the theory goes it's interesting, the 17 Pdr certainly packed a punch, but it's HE was terrible, especially with the T-34-85 already in service. One of the complaints the British had about the T-34 was the lack of indirect fire capability, they insisted that any locally produced T-34's would need to be modified to allow indirect fire, and the 17 Pdr wasn't really ideal for that role.
The KV-1 is also an interesting idea, the Soviets experimented with mounting a 122 mm U-11 howitzer in a KV-1 under the index KV-9, which was rejected but did lead to the highly successful SU-152.
|
|