T-34 Improvements

Andrei Ulanov posted an interesting note listing some requests by front line soldiers.

"The self propelled German gun penetrates a T-34 at a range of 2 kilometers. To combat it, a portion of the tanks (every tenth) must mount the 85 mm anti-tank gun (equal in power to the German gun). It is also necessary to add armour to the front of the hull and turret to increase it to a combined thickness of 250-300 mm, and increase the top of the hull and turret to 100 mm. 

A drawback of the T-34's design is the roof of the engine compartment, which allows setting the tank on fire with incendiary fluid. I suggest that air intake should be done from behind the armour, removing any openings from the top, which will significantly increase its resistance to incendiary bottles and small bombs.

The second drawback is the turret produced at the Stalingrad factory, which can have its cheek knocked out by an armour piercing shell. The Tagil factory turret has no such defect, and is significantly more robust.

The third drawback is weak protection of the fuel tanks. I suggest that in order to prevent fires, they should have armour screens to reduce the chance of fire. It would be better to place the tanks on the floor. In both cases, they should be protected by 100-150 mm of spaced armour. 98% of unrecoverable losses consist of burned up tanks."

Since the document is dated September 1942, the German SPG in question is not the Ferdinand, as one could have thought when faced with a request for a ridiculously armoured tank destroyer. I can only imagine T-34-85BMs with 300 mm of armour on the front, immune to bombs and anti-tank guns, hitting the battlefield in 1942. The Tiger would turn green from jealousy. 

Unbuttoned

Previously, it was established that Soviet tank commanders were instructed to get inside the tank and shut their hatch when under fire, but as we all know, rules were made to be broken.

"Award order #11949

1. Name: Bezrukov, Nikolai Grigoryevich
2. Rank: Major
3. Position and unit: Commander of the 1st battalion, 150th Tank Brigade
4. Year of birth: 1918
5. Nationality: Russian
6. Party affiliation: VKP(b) member since 1942
7. Participation in the Civil War or subsequent combat in defense of the USSR: Great Patriotic War since June 27th, 1941
8. Wounds or concussions: wounded on September 8th, 1943
9. In RKKA since: 1939.
10. Commissioned at: already in RKKA.
11. Prior awards: "For Bravery" medal, Order of the Patriotic War.

Brief and specific summary of heroism:

Comrade Bezrukov fights in the Patriotic war since the very first days. Over two years, his tank destroyed over 400 fascists and many enemy vehicles and armament. He faced death many times, but his bravery, tenacity, courage, and heroism carried him unharmed through heated battles with the enemy. During the war, comrade Bezrukov rose from turret commander to tank battalion commander. Skilfully guiding his battalion during penetration of a defensive line on August 26th, 1943, his tank was the first to tear into enemy fortifications, forming a path for a successful offensive by the main forces, which successfully completed their objective.

In battles for Putivl on September 2nd, 1943, he entered the city first, and secured a river crossing. On September 7th, 1943, during the battles for Buryn, he corrected the fire of battalion tanks from atop his tank. He was heavily wounded while doing this, but did not leave the battlefield until the enemy was defeated. In these battles, comrade Bezrukov's battalion destroyed up to 10 enemy tanks and SPGs, significant amounts of other armament and vehicles, and 300 fascists. 40 soldiers were taken prisoner.

For his skilful and decisive command, tenacity, bravery and heroism, comrade Bezrukov is worth of the title of Hero of the Soviet Union with the awards of Order of Lenin and the Gold Star medal.

Commander of the 150th Tank Brigade, Colonel Ugryumov"

CAMD RF 33-793756-5

Two Years of Blogging

Another year gone by, and what a year! My total page views have grown from 387,261 to 879,901, or by nearly 500,000 this year (an average of 1349 views per day this year), with 700 published articles (or 341 this year). The demographics remain roughly the same: US at first place and Germany in second. The United Kingdom moved up from fourth place to third, pushing down Poland. Canada remains in fifth place. A newcomer, France, took sixth place, with Finland, Australia, and Russia shifting down. The Netherlands remain in tenth place, while Korea that used to be in ninth dropped off the charts.

World of Tanks related resources remain my main source of traffic, with Company of Heroes falling in relevance, overtaken by War Thunder as my second biggest fans. Military history enthusiasts from Russian and English language communities continue to be a source of traffic as well. In addition to guest articles on FTR, I wrote an article for a more generalist gaming website The Mittani, and will be writing more in the future. I also gave an interview to Tank and AFV News, which is a website I heartily recommend to all fans of modern or historical armour.

In addition to non-interactive content, I added a penetration calculator utility, which is sure to come in handy.

Here's to another wonderful year!

DT Modernization, 1942

"Variant #1 of the DTM modernized V.A. Degtyaryev tank machinegun

Brief description

1. Variant #1 of the modernized DT machinegun involves design changes to the gas system, which allows simplification of the ball mount. The goal of this modernization is to protect the machinegun gas system from bullets and shrapnel with minimum modifications to the mount.
2. The following parts were changed as a result of the modernization:
1. The gas tube was moved closer to the breech, and is now covered entirely by the ball mount.
2. The frame bar and plunger were replaced with one lengthened plunger, attached directly to the frame.
3. The cap of the ball mount was removed.
3. In other ways, the design is identical to the nonmodernized DT tank machinegun."

CAMD RF 81-12040-29

German Tank Reliability

I already looked at Soviet and Lend-Lease tanks, so let's take a look at what was happening on the other side of the front lines. ORO's "Survey of Allied Tank Casualties in World War II" attempts to shine some light on the issue.

Well that's not very helpful. Let's see what Guiderian has to say about this.

Yikes, that's twice as much as even the worst Soviet figures. Some more information, still fairly vague, can be extracted from the document.

50% losses from breakdowns is a pretty bad figure, but it's hard to expect anything else considering the Panther's short lived components. Robert Forczyk has some unkind words dedicated to the Panther's reliability in his book Panther vs. T-34 Ukraine 1943: "...5th Guards Tank Army was able to move its T-34s 300 km on their own tanks to the front between July 7-9 and still had about 90 percent of its tanks operational. No Panther unit could ever have moved this distance without losing most of its tanks to mechanical breakdown.

...

Although the Panther's AK 7-200 transmission was nominally superior to the clumsy transmission on the T-34, about 5 percent broke down within 100 km and 90 percent within 1,500 km in combat."

World of Tanks History Section: In the Service of the White Guards

At the end of WWI, the former Russian Empire was engulfed in another war, a civil war. It differed in degradation of tactics and a decrease in the technical level of forces involved. There were, however, exceptions. Modern weapons occasionally came into play, including tanks.

War with Limited Possibilities

The first tanks sent to the White Guard, 20 French Renault FT-17s, arrived in Odessa on December 18th, 1918. They were followed by heavy Mark V tanks and medium Whippets (85 vehicles in total on all fronts). In theory, among all the chaos, two or three working tanks were a weapon that could defeat any enemy. In reality, tanks faced many problems.

There was a lack of trained crews, so it was necessary to rely on British and French specialists. The first White Guard tankers were taught by foreign instructors. Several foreign volunteer units fought until 1920, but after that, only Russians kept fighting in tanks.

The biggest obstacle was the vast size of the fronts. During the offensive of Petrograd by N. Yudenich's army in the fall of 1919, tanks had to go into battle up to three times per day. Over only four days, "Captain Kromi" traveled 160 kph, "Brown Bear" a little less at 155, and "First Aid" traveled 130. For early tanks, these were very long distances. They wore out both the mechanisms and the crews.

There was no semblance of a normal supply line. In the chaos of the civil war, some tankers in the White Army, a rare and elite force, did not even have complete uniforms. One of them recalls: "I arrived at the tank battalion and received my clothing: a sailor's shirt, torn in many places, black pants in terrible condition, and a pair of boots with no soles. I had no cap, no socks, no underwear." Later, the English gifted him a fresh uniform. Unlike their tank crews, Russian crews did not receive a salary, had poor rations, and could not buy tobacco. Fuel had to be transported by horse carts.

Tank Fist of the White Army

Aside from obvious advantages, the appearance of tanks on the battlefield gave a psychological advantage. Even with heavy guns, the enemy did not know how to defeat moving armoured targets. Tank crews insisted that they took fire from 107 and even 220 mm guns, but the shells caused them no harm. "Cut through enemy obstructions, entered their trenches, and, despite a powerful artillery barrage, remained there for 25 minutes, allowing infantry to follow with no losses" was a typical excerpt from a tank commander's award order at the time.

The first tank attacks appeared unstoppable, despite their crude tactics. Loud tank engines gave away their location and cooperation with infantry and aircraft was questionable, but tanks achieved victory after victory. With his tanks, Denikin conquered Tsaritsin and the Donbass.

Red infantry still had no anti-tank weapons. Regular bullets bounced off armour. At most, bits of paint and metal that flaked off the inside scratched the tankers' faces and hands. Methods for anti-tank combat became more and more desirable. A vehicle knocked out by G. Briedres' Latvian gun battery was showed off in Petrograd as evidence that tanks were vulnerable.

By 1920, tactics of White tanks improved significantly. In Wrangel's push out of Crimea, tank units used concealment tactics, were equipped with trucks and motorcycles, and even had an electric generator and a medical unit. Cooperation with sappers and artillery was set up, as well as regular technical service for the vehicles. As a result, the Red front failed, and Wrangel broke through into Northern Tavriya.

A record of a battle at the Preobrazhenka farmstead describes how cavalry and artillery tried to destroy a tank. Cavalrymen dismounted, and hid among tree lines with grenades and machineguns. At first they threw grenades from a large distance, then from thirty paces, with little effect. The tank was not affected by rifle or machinegun fire. One of the Red Armymen walked in the tank's dead zone, knocking on the armour with a grenade, then climbed up on top, but was wounded by an explosion of his own grenade. Horse-drawn gun batteries went into action. In theory, the batteries were supposed to line up in a semicircle and shoot up the tank from the sides. However, fire from one thousand paces was imprecise, so one battery moved up to 500 paces. The tank was knocked out by fire from two batteries, but was then towed away by a second one.

Red Triumph at Kakhov

The culmination of tank use in the civil war happened at the Kakhov foothold on October 14th, 1920. The White offensive under Wrangel's command lined up according to best tactical practices and had a fair chance at success. In the early morning, artillery thundered, and 12 tanks attacked the Red positions with horsedrawn artillery, armoured cars, and infantry.

In an advantageous position, the Whites made several mistakes. They attacked 2.5 hours before dawn. Tanks could not see each other and had to fight individually. Artillery and aircraft could not offer timely support, and White infantry was preoccupied with Red infantry and was unable to help out its tanks.

Red Armymen were wisened by experience from previous attacks and came prepared. The foothold was reinforced with three lines of trenches, anti-tank ditches, mines, and even flamethrowers. Armoured cars armed with cannons were pulled up to the front. Red artillery knew how to fight tanks by this point. Special "dagger" batteries were used, firing from short distances. The result was the capture of five tanks. Wrangel's forces were defeated, and his army lost all hope for a successful offensive.

Article author: Evgeniy Belash

Sources:

• Report on the British Military Mission, South Russia by Gen. Holman, 8 October 1919. CHAR 16/29, CCAC.
• With Lieutenant Colonel Hope Carson in Estonia and Russia. Baltic Defence Review 2/1999.
• I.M. Gostev, Tanki v grazhdanskoy voyne na severe i pamyatnik v Arhanhelske, Arkhangelsk, 2011.
• Ya.P. Krastyn, Latyshskiye strelki v borbe za sovetskuyu vlast 1917-1920, Riga, Academy of Sciences of the Latvian SSR 1962.
• R.N. Reden, Skvoz ad russkoy revolutsii. Vospominaniya gardemarina 1914–1919. Moscow, Centropoligraf, 2006
• A. Trembelovskiy, Epizody iz zhizni 3-go otryada tankov. Pervoprokhodnik #3 October 1971, Pervoprokhodnik #4 December 1971, Pervoprokhodnik #6 April 1972
• H. Williamson, Farewell to Don, Moscow, Centropoligraf, 2007 
• Etapy bolshogo puti. Vospominaniya o grazhdanskoy voyne. Moscow, Voyenizdat, 
• S.L. Fedoseev, Russkiye protiv tankov, Bronya #4, 2011

Original article available here. 

Lend-Lease Support Vehicles

CAMD RF 38-11355-3046

"List of steamships with samples of English tank armament

Steamship Benjamin N. King #5282

Bill of Lading 180: two "Churchill Crocodile" flamethrower tanks

Bill of Lading 97: flamethrower equipment for "Churchill Crocodile" tanks - 24 places

Bill of Lading 119: two "Sherman Crab" minesweeper tanks

Bills of Lading 119,18: equipment for "Sherman Crab" minesweeper tanks - 87 places

Bill of Lading 209: two AEC armoured cars 

Steamship Samaritan #5283

Bill of Lading 144: one "Churchill Crocodile" flamethrower tank

Bill of Lading 148: flamethrower equipment for "Churchill Crocodile" tank - 11 places

Bill of Lading 143: one "Sherman Crab" minesweeper tank

Bills of Lading 143, 123: equipment for "Sherman Crab" minesweeper tank - 26 places

Bill of Lading 147: one AEC armoured car. Packaging for flamethrower and minesweeper equipment is labelled in both Russian and English: "Flamethrower Crocodile" and "Minesweeper Crab".

April 20th, 1945"

In 1944, Soviet engineers were sent to England to familiarize themselves with some support vehicles. Here are photographs of them examining some bridgelayers on the Covenanter chassis. 

CAMD RF 38-11355-2193

Ultimately, the engineers went with Valentine bridgelayers. The Covenanter was a much less reliable platform, and the Red Army already had Valentines in its supply chain.

MS-1 Rebuilding

A while ago I posted some photos of how not to restore an MS-1. Today, you will see how it should be done, by forums poster interest68.

In 2002, he initiated a search for an MS-1 hull near the Russian-Chinese border, where several of these tanks were installed and then torn out of the ground when they became completely obsolete even as bunkers. He succeeded, although the brutal treatment of the tank was evident: the roof of the fighting compartment and turret were missing.

Major Igor Maltsev is the MS-1 hull. Top: Evgeniy Rybakov, Rafik Kudzhayev, Captain Vitaliy Zykov.

The tank is being dug out during April of 2003.

The turret was found separately, in another border zone, spotted accidentally from the window of a moving car. The turret is equipped with a mantlet for two DT machineguns instead of a cannon.

The hull and turret, dug up in and indoors.

In order to avoid the abominations linked to above, new road wheels must be made. If you want to see how to make MS-1 road wheels out of T-55 shock absorbers, look no further than these blueprints.

 And here's what the finished product looks like:

Many photographs and materials are examined to recreate the track precisely. Here is a wooden mockup.

The original engine is long gone, but a Komatsu excavator offers a suitable replacement.

While tracks are out for casting, the restoration team is working on the hull. There is a new roof and engine compartment bulkhead.

The hull roof is ready, and the turret ring is populated with ball bearings. The turret spins when placed on top, but not freely. The bearings are not lubricated, and the underside of the turret is still covered in debris.

The suspension is nearly complete! There were financial difficulties in the process of casting an entire new set of tracks, and so it was necessary to use the excavator track.

The front idlers and axles are being put in place.

The tank is ready for a test drive!

The most important part is done, now to spice up the interior. 

Insides are done, but the armament still needs some finishing touches.

interest86 writes about his completed vehicle: "After installing the gun and machinegun, the turret became very cramped, and it was not a place for someone with my frame. The vehicle is very inconvenient for the crew in general. The driver has no back to his seat, and this is very difficult. One immediately gets the idea to insert an improvised back after a few minutes out of something like a board, which can be easily inserted between the shelves and fighting compartment bulkhead.

After years of labours, the tank is up and running!

More words from the man responsible for this feat: "The work took about three years, but preparing for the restoration took even more time. We needed to retain all technical subtleties, so it was not just a copy, but as close to possible to the original. It is known that this tank participated in the events at Lake Hasan. To this day, no more than 5 tanks of this kind remain. Experts already admit that our tank is the closest to the original."

Achievements and Predictions, 1929

"Report of the Artillery Directorate of the Supplies Directorate on achievements from 1925 to 1928

Part 2: Scientific research work on improving armament (Artkom)
Moscow, 1929

1. The army's technical strength is a consequence of the technical and cultural condition of the country.
2. Between exiting the World War in 1917 and until the end of the Civil War, the USSR was completely cut off from the West for four years. This, as well as the destruction of industry and a lack of materials and production capacity impeded any development of an armament improvement program.
3. Artkom places three principles into the development of artillery technology, same as in the West: surprise, mass, and depth.
4. The principle of surprise is achieved in the following ways:
1. Increasing mobility, primarily operational mobility (wide use of mechanical transport, development of railroad artillery).
2. Development of methods that permit opening lethal fire immediately (such as use of land or air observers).
5. The principle of mass involves admitting that artillery can only be effective when used in massed amounts. It is necessary to strengthen artillery as a type of forces and establish a powerful Supreme Command reserve, as well as centralized control of artillery in battle.
6. The principle of depth is achieved by increasing the range of all guns and increasing the horizontal and vertical field of fire.
7. Requirements for new artillery systems that solve the issues of modern war are composed considering the following factors:
1. Widespread use of aircraft.
2. Group infantry tactics and use of defense in depth, using both natural terrain and artificial fortifications.
3. Widespread use of tanks.
4. Use of chemical weapons.
8. Considering the above, it is suggested that a new system of armament should be developed and taken as the baseline.
1. Existing weapons should be evaluated from the point of view of the new system.
2. A realistic plan of improvements should be adopted, and weapons that cannot be adapted to the new system must be found out.
3. A realistic plan for development of new designs that satisfy the new system must be created.
   However, this path is long, so the first stage is defined by Artkom to be:
1. Modernization of existing designs.
2. Creation of new designs, made necessary by tactics of modern battle.
9. Modernization is defined by Artkom as changes made to a design that improve its characteristics according to the new tactical-technical requirements without interfering with production and acceptable according to economic and supply considerations.
10. In order to better describe work performed in the past years on modernization and development of new designs, let us briefly describe the state of armament in 1925, analyze it, and attempt to evaluate the modernization work based on this analysis.

...

In 1925, support tanks with a special domestic tank motor were sent to the Bolshevik factory with the aim of producing the first batch in 1928. Work proceeded mostly as follows:

• 1926: working blueprints were finished, production began.
• 1927: trials were performed, the first production batch was organized.
• 1928: mass production of the MS-1 began, working blueprints of the T-12 maneuver tank were completed, work on a one-man tank began.

Modernization of existing B and M tanks was scheduled.

Existing tank	Modernization	Replacement
B tank (breakthrough)	Planned	T-12
S tank (maneuver)
M tank (support)	Planned	One-man tank

Foreign achievements

	Maneuver		Support
	England	USSR	Czechoslovakia	USSR
	Vickers	T-12	KN convertible drive	MS-1
Mass (tons)	12.2	16	8.5	5.9
Crew	5	4-5	2	2
Fuel capacity (liters)	410	-	100	100
Range (hours)	10	8	8	11
Cannons	1	1	1	1
Machineguns	4	3 coax	1	1
Maximum speed	25	25.5	14.2	16
Front and side armour (mm)	14	22	13	16
Roof armour (mm)	8	12	10	8
Maximum traversible trench width (meters)	1.83	2.6	1.8	1.8
Maximum fording depth (meters)	1.2	1.2	0.8	0.8
Maximum grade (degrees)	40	40	35	40

Armament of tanks and armoured cars

In 1926, the following weapons were available:

1. 37 mm Hotchkiss tank gun
2. 57 mm Hotchkiss tank gun
3. 0.303 inch Hotchkiss machinegun

The last two weapon types were captured.

As a result of proving grounds trials, it was discovered that existing cannons and machineguns were hard to use, and a series of improvements for the 37 mm Hotchkiss gun was defined. 

Orders were made for a 45 mm tank gun that could replace captured armament. Work began on using Fedorov machineguns instead of captured ones.

1927:

A special shoulder stock was designed for the 37 mm Hotchkiss gun, with sights and a trigger mechanism, and production started for existing tanks. At the same time, changes were made to the gun mantlet to increase horizontal traverse range.

A new mount for 37 mm Hotchkiss guns was designed and tested for new tanks and armoured cars.

A mount for two coaxial Fedorov Avtomats was tested, and a mount for the Degtyaryev machinegun was designed. Orders were made for a high power 37 mm tank gun.

1928:

The Degtyaryev tank machinegun mount was designed and entered production for both new vehicles and replacement of machineguns captured vehicles. Production of a special 37 mm tank gun started.

A 45 mm gun is being tested for maneuver tanks and replacement of captured B tanks.

A universal stock for 37 mm Hotchkiss guns with an optical sight was designed.

Supplies of tank columns:

Aside from battle vehicles, it is necessary to equip tank units with tracked tractors and trailers, capable of following a tank unit on marches and transporting personnel (commanders, scouts, communications personnel, support personnel) with their belongings and supplies (ammunition, fuel, lubricant, etc). The speed of these tractors should be no less than that of tanks, and their off-road performance should allow them to follow tanks on any terrain.

It is necessary to limit the number of different types of these tanks due to our limited manufacturing capacity and to reap the benefits of having one chassis. This suggests that such a tractor should use as many existing tank components as possible.

Initially, a light tractor based on the standard MS-1 tank was developed, with a maximum speed that is equal to the maximum speed of the tank, even when it is towing a trailer. The trailer is in development, with the aim to make it compatible with existing trailers in order to provide mechanized transport for artillery.

Conclusions

1. By 1929, after four years of research, design, construction, and trials, tank building work is underway at three factories. The RKKA will receive its first domestically designed support tank, smallest in its weight class, with an air cooled engine, with high off-road performance, high speed that allows it to support infantry and cavalry on marches and in battle, armour that is invincible against regular riflemen, with armament that allows it to complete objectives for the tanks of this type (fighting infantry and enemy positions at ranges of effective fire during tank attacks). Tanks are capable of fighting against tanks with analogous armour at straight shot ranges. Experimental 37 mm guns that are more appropriate for a modern battlefield are in development, and orders for production will be made after they finish trials.
   Simultaneously with production of the tank, the issue of tractors and auxiliary vehicles is being solved.
2. An experimental maneuver tank has been designed and is being assembled.
3. The first tankette is finishing trials. Its components and design, first used in our industry, will be studied in the summer of 1929 to obtain data required for a design to be assembled in 1930 that will be acceptable for use by the army.
4. When the three required types of tanks are completed, the issue of arming the RKKA with tanks that match our closest enemies will be resolved.
5. The path of motorization of the RKKA is inevitable, as we cannot afford to provide an advantage to our enemies. This challenges the AU to design new tanks that fully match the requirements provided by the RKKA, which need significant technical and tactical research to define.
6. Artkom's current priority is increasing the movement speed of support tanks without decreasing other combat characteristics.

The issues of radio communications, AA defenses, poison gas protection, smokescreens, and transport on wheeled trailers on roads will be solved in the near future."

V. Lehn collection

The B tank in question is a British MkV tank. Presumably the S tank is a Whippet, and M tank is an FT-17.

T-34 Modernization

"Decree of the Committee of Defense within the Council of Commissars of the USSR
Moscow, Kremlin

On the production of T-34s with torsion bar suspensions

The NKSM (factory #183) must produce two experimental T-34 tanks with the following features by April 1st, 1941:

1. Individual torsion bar suspension.
2. Road wheels with internal shock absorption.
3. 1600 mm turret ring with protection from jamming and lead fragments.
4. A commander's cupola on the main turret with a dead zone of at most 10 meters.
5. A 5 man crew, of which 3 are in the turret (commander, gunner, loader) and two are in the hull (driver, radio operator).
6. Maximum speed: 65-70 kph.
7. New 600 hp V-5 engine (modernized V-2-K).
8. Other tactical-technical characteristics remain the same as defined by decree #428 on December 19th, 1940.
9. Perform factory trials by April 1st, 1941. Present the tanks for proving grounds trials on May 1st, 1941. 

NSKM and NKO must supply the KO with suggestions on producing this improved T-34 tank.

NKSM (Mariupol factory) must produce two hulls and two turrets by February 1st, 1941.

Chair of the Committee of Defense within the Council of Commissars, K. Voroshilov

Secretary of the Committee of Defense, M. Pugayev"

CAMD RF 38-11355-41