Wednesday, 13 August 2014

Carius Interview

Frontstory.ru, a project by the same person that maintains iremember.ru, has a number of fascinating interviews. A recent addition is of a person that should be very familiar to most, if not all, of my readers, Otto Carius.

"Hello! Oh, I see you came with my photograph! Ochen khorosho [Carius periodically injects Russian phrases into the interview]! This is a dinosaur's photograph!

For your age, you look very good, not a dinosaur at all.

Are you recording at all times? I will have to behave myself!

Questions we ask are not only our questions, but questions of Russian military history enthusiasts that read your book and want to clarify some details, specifically about the first period of the war. I wanted to start the interview with a question on that battle at Malinovo...

Oh, Malinovo!

That day, two Heroes of the Soviet Union died there, battalion commanders. I have their photographs. I would like you to look at them. One burned in his tank, the other...

I can tell you right away, I did not see them.

Did you see the one that shot himself?

No. The soldiers did, they told me later. I did not see myself.

Your book says that you saw the medal?

Not personally. Those that did say they left it there. No one took it off! We never did that. The Americans did later, they took off everything.

I did fight the dead or prisoners. Furthermore, I did not shoot if the enemy was defeated and the crew was leaving the tank. We were shocked when we found out that in modern Bundswehr, the young tankers practice shooting at the crew that left the tank. My company did not do this.

In Dunaburg (Daugavpils) I remember one prisoner that lost his foot. I offered him a cigarette. he did not take it, and rolled himself a cigarette with one hand. I never understood how they do this. Makhorka! They were a bit primitive. Infantry, of course. You cannot call their technical forces primitive.

Many hundreds of Russians died pointlessly when they were thrown into battle without thinking. For instance, at Narva. 500-600 died per night. They were just lying there, on the ice. It was madness.

For us this happened more rarely, we could not allow ourselves such luxury, we had much less people. But there were cases when after an attack, there were only ten men left in the battalion. From a whole battalion!

Let's go back to 1940, Schleswig-Holstein. You trained to be a loader?

Yes, I was a recruit. We practiced everything a tank loader needs to know. On top of that, there was regular army training: marching, salutes, etc. We also had survival training. I am alive thanks to that.

How did the commander give you commands: hand signals, voice, or did you have a communication device?

We had a radio. Our enemies had more difficulty with communications, both the technology and staff. If it was otherwise, we would have lost the war in 1942. And, of course, the Russians had a problem with individual crewmen, I've never once seen a Russian commander open his hatch to look out in battle. This was fortunate for us and unfortunate for our enemy.

What did the loader do on marches?

The loader must make sure the gun is loaded on time, and the machinegun does not jam. If there is a jam, he must fix it. The loader is a poor man, he sees nothing and has no idea what is happening. The loader in a Pz38(t) Czech tank is completely blind, and in a Tiger as well.

Did you remove grease from shells?

Nothing of the sort was done. We loaded the shells as they were shipped to us.

You were supposed to load the shell into the tank?

Yes, I loaded them into the tank. 98 shells in a Tiger, the Czech tank had more.

How many armour piercing and how many high explosive shells did you carry in a Pz38(t)?

The Czech tank only had two kinds of shells, AP and HE. We usually had 50:50. Each crew decided how many they brought, it was up to the commander.

How good was the Pz38(t) for war in Russia?

Completely unsuitable! The tank crew consisted of four. The commander had to command, shoot, and observe. It's too much for the commander. If he is the commander of a platoon or a company, it was impossible, we only have one head! The Czech tank was only good for marches. The part "below the belt" is good, half-automatic planetary drives, good suspension. Wonderful! But only for driving.

The steel was bad. The gun, 3.7 cm, was too weak against a T-34. If the Russians weren't re-arming and had a T-34 earlier or if they used them correctly, the war would end in 1941, winter at the latest.

Do you remember your first battle with a T-34? Did you examine it after battle, climb inside?

We were not a front line unit. The front line units fought T-34s, we only heard of them. Frightening stories. It was impossible to understand why these tanks were a surprise for our commanders. We knew that the Russians developed tanks with Germans at Kazan. We knew nothing about the T-34.

Were your crewmen interchangeable?

Depends. We were lucky if we could always fight as one crew. If you are a commander of a company or platoon, you have to keep swapping. Whoever was displaced was damn furious, but you can't do anything about it, the commander needs a tank.

In one tank, could the driver shoot and the gunner drive, for example?

It's possible. Personally, I never had it happen. Sometimes I, the loader, would drive on a march instead of the driver. This happened because we were always driving and driving.

How were targets indicated?

The commander marked targets. A good gunner also observes the battlefield. The commander usually decides where to shoot.

During training, there were formats for orders, but usually we talked normally, just like we are now. We did not talk much. We had to be careful and observe. Especially the commander. For instance, I would put my hand on the gunner's left shoulder and he turned his gun to the left, his right shoulder, and he turned it to the right. All calmly in silence.

In modern tanks, the commander can take control, we did not have that yet. It is unnecessary, as the commander doesn't have time to interfere, he has other tasks.

Did you shoot while moving or when still?

Only when still. Shooting from the move was too imprecise and unnecessary.

What command did you give to the driver to stop?

Stop or Halt. Sometimes like that. There was no special command. The driver, I think, is the most important member of the crew. If he is a good driver, he knows how to stop, put the tank in a good position, hide the side and show his front if possible.

The Russians dug their tanks in. Did you?

Yes, sometimes, especially in that first winter when we were defending. There were not enough AT guns.

As a commander, did you clean the tank with your crew?

An interesting question. For instance, my tank commander...it was impossible to imagine that he would ever touch a shell or a gas canister. But I, I would always help load ammunition, fuel up, etc.

This did wonder for morale, a small trick with a huge effect. I also did this out of necessity, my comrades got tired.

Which commander?

The one that got shot, his name is in the book.

In 1941, you were recalled to officer school. Did you return with winter uniforms?

We did not get winter uniforms yet. The Russians had it already. Many died trying to pull valenki off corpses.

If you ask me how I survived the first winter, I can only answer that I did, but I don't know how. We spent the winter in the open, in -50 degree colds. No supplies, everything froze. For food, only horse meat and frozen bread. We had to chop it with an axe. No hot food. The word "hygiene" disappeared from our vocabulary. Snow, ice storms, no winter clothing. No tanks, only black uniforms. It's great with it in the snow! You sit there and you wait until you are shot by a Russian skier, with camouflage, perfectly trained to fight in the snow. And yet, I'm alive.

Did you have fleas?

Many! If someone claims they did not have fleas, they did not fight on the front in Russia. 100%!

Did you live in houses?

You probably know that Stalin ordered everything burned to leave nothing. That first winter, forget about it. Then we got tanks, and it was at least dry in there. But it was still cold, they were not heated.

It was worse for infantry. Hygiene was very poor. I do not know how we survived. Fleas! And no clean underwear!

My crew lived only in their tank from January 20th to April 20th, aside from two or three days when the tank broke and we had to fix it. We were completely unshaven. It was better for me, I periodically returned to the HQ and could at least wash my hands.

Once I managed to shave there, and my crew did not recognize me. They thought they were sent a fresh commander. Now you understand what we looked like?

The Russians would dig a trench, have the tank drive over it, and slept in it. Did you do that?

Sometimes, during short stops. It was forbidden when a bomb hit a tank and the whole crew underneath died. We did not do this anymore, and tried to hide in structures, cemeteries, and anywhere with some kind of depression.

When you returned from officer school, what tank did you get?

None, at first! I had to command a platoon of engineers, even though I knew nothing about mines and such. I had to learn as I went. This came in handy later. And then I was promoted to a tank platoon commander, a Feldwebel. We still fought with Czech tanks. Then I was promoted, and I was the commander of a platoon with PzIV tanks with 7.5 cm guns.

How did you start up tanks in the cold?

If the battery was ok, no problem. If it was too cold, the engine had to be heated up periodically. The infantry did not like it, as our "friends" would start shooting when they heard the engines, thinking we were up to something.

Did you start a fire under the tank to heat it up?

I never did it or seen it done.

Did you hear about anti-tank dogs?

Heard, but never saw them.

How effective were Russian anti-tank rifles?

They easily penetrated the PzIII and PzIV in the side. Then we had skirt armour, and they had to come closer. They were not guaranteed to work then. They were useless against a Tiger. They could do some damage, break a track, but I mean for the crew.

About the Tiger. How reliable was it?

Initially, there were growing pains. The first company with Tigers was used at Ladoga, near Volkhov. The terrain is nearly impassable for tanks, and it was winter. All Tigers broke down! This happens always, with every new technology.

A significant factor in a Tiger's reliability was the training of the driver. An experienced driver can reduce technical issues. At first, thank god, I had experienced drivers. Then we had young drivers for Jagdtigers, and it was a catastrophe. My personal tank #217 had to be blown up at Danzig, and it held out until almost the end of the war.

Did you have many losses from artillery, aircraft, or mines?

We had few losses from aircraft. Artillery is only dangerous when it shoots with an observer. Without an observer, they rarely hit, it was not dangerous. But when an observer sees you and corrects fire, then you have to move. Overall, long range artillery hits tanks rarely, the deviation is too large.

Were you more afraid of Russian AT guns or Russian tanks?

Artillery is more dangerous. I can see a tank, but an AT gun can be hidden so it cannot be seen. The Russians could hide so well that the gun could only be noticed when it shoots. This is bad.

You were an engineer. How difficult were the minefields, how hard to clear?

I was not there for very long. Mostly, we had anti-tank groups that fought tanks in close quarters. This was helpful as a tank commander, as I knew how dangerous mines were. If I was not an engineer, I would be afraid, but now I knew that nothing can happen.

In October of 1942, your division commander, Duvert, was removed. Was this fair, from your point of view?

1942...I was still in the 20th division. I wasn't very important then, I only knew my battalion commander, von Gest.

The Russians got SPGs in 1943 with 152 mm guns. How do you evaluate them?

Ah, yes, 15.2 SPGs! They were worse than tanks because their turrets did not turn. They were too slow, from a command point of view. We had some experience with them. They were slow, and shot slowly. If they do not hit on the first shot, they are a corpse! The enemy will not wait for them to reload.

And then the Germans were smart enough to build a Jagdtiger. Madness!

SPGs are good for support, with low calibers. 15.2 is huge, you can shoot the gunner through the barrel with a rifle.

They did not do us much harm. If you hit them from the side, they are an easy prey. However, I was knocked out by an SPG once. This happened at Narva. Suddenly, I am turning left, and an SPG shoots me from the right. My tank was completely destroyed. When you are hit with a 15.2 shell, that is very bad!

Could Sturmoviks destroy tanks?

Yes, with rockets. Honestly, they were imprecise. We had no losses from them, but they looked menacing. It was scary, but they did not hit.

You fought at Vyazma in the spring of 1942. Describe it.

It is an unpleasant memory, we had no rest, day or night. I was a communications officer, responsible for communications with the battalion HQ, and had to deliver messages by foot. I thought it was unpleasant.

The Russians were always attacking, especially at night. Day and night, we stood in defense, did not sleep, had poor supplies. The food was bad.

We kept hoping that the Russians would be ordered same as us. We had a tactic of tasks, they had a tactic of orders. If a Russian junior officer had an order to go somewhere, he would go there and light a cigarette, wait. If a German junior officer had an order to go somewhere and saw that the enemy was retreating, he would keep going. Big difference! The enemy learned this in 1944, and did this until Berlin.

Can you tell us about your first victory as a platoon commander?

I can tell you nothing about victory, but I can tell you my first mishap. The platoon was dining, and I stayed to guard. When the platoon finished, I wanted to leave, but then I turned around and saw that the infantry we were supporting rose up for an attack. This was evaluated very negatively.

You remember your first tank kill though, right?

First tank? Where did this happen...well, first, it was not me, it was my gunner. First tank...I remember, at Ladoga, Sinyavino.

This was already in a Tiger?

Yes, yes. On a Pz38(t) or a PzIV, I could not knock out anything. When we fought in a Pz38(t), a T-34's crew could calmly play cards.

Did you see Russian soldiers put a tank in first gear, jumped out, and the tank drove all the way to German lines?

I saw this at Nevel. I have photographs! It is definitely an exception.

If you release the gas pedal, the tank stops. They pressed it down with something, jumped out, the tank kept going. You can do this with a car. This confused us, it took us a long time to figure out what was happening.

As for how common this was, I cannot say. It definitely happened at Nevel.

This was a singular case?

Yes, this is what confused us. I never saw it again.

They say that the main quality of a tank is reliability?

I would say that they main qualities are mobility and armament.

What position would you give reliability?

I can only talk about my company. You mean Tigers, right? They say that it was unreliable often. In my company, barely any Tigers were lost in battle due to technical reasons. They mostly broke down on marches. I did not have a single Tiger breakdown in combat!

It depends on the driver. It's a 60 ton vehicle with 700-800 horse power. You cannot treat it lightly, you have to drive with feeling. Otherwise something breaks. I repeat, I have never had a Tiger break down in combat for technical reasons!

What can you say about the muzzle brake?

It reduced recoil.

Did it raise dust?

What a question! Well...you can say that. We got used to it.

Did you use Russian gasoline?

We never had problems with gasoline, there was always enough.

You had a stock of schnapps in your tank, where did you get it and how did it refill?

You read my book, I see. I added that as flavour.

We had a block of explosives in the tank, which we should use to blow it up if it could be captured by the enemy. We did not like it, and that is why I wrote that we had schnapps in that case. Our crew barely drank, but the company had crews that drank eagerly.

Our enemies...well, Russians drink vodka a lot. Unfortunately, the drank often. The Russians heat themselves up unnecessarily. This could not be changed, and their leadership did not try.

In the big game, Stalin was the most clever, even though his plans didn't work out. There was the pact with Hitler and the additional agreements, with a border at the Bug. I think he thought Hitler would get stuck in France and he would have time.

We finished up in time, and that was his mistake. We are making that same mistake now, the same one Hitler made. I hope it will not lead to the same results.

Even Bismarck said, we should support Russia, not America or Israel. In DDR, the slogan of our Chancellor in one speech was "learning from Moscow means learning to win!"

Now we have America and Israel. I'm not afraid that something serious will happen here, but it might in Africa or somewhere else.

In Afghanistan, when we leave, everything will stay the same. The Russians tried fighting there before us. It took us 11 years to see that nothing will change. And then Iraq. American CIA is everywhere!

Did you have a personal weapon?

I had a small 7.62 mm pistol, but I never used it. The 8 mm was too heavy.

Was there a submachinegun in the tank?

Yes, but I can't remember ever using it.

Did you notice the T-34 with a long gun right away?

When we saw one, it was not a surprise. We knew about them and waited. It was even more dangerous than its predecessor.

And the IS-2, I think, was more or less unnecessary. With its two piece shell...very heavy, likely. I never saw one move.

The T-34...that was a great tank!

During the war, did you know about Wittmann?

Yes, Wittmann was always in newspapers, spoke at some factory or a school, at party meetings. He was a notable propaganda figure.

Did you know that his victories were not as they seemed?

The propaganda was revealed after the war. We did not know anything.

I think I earned as many awards as Wittmann because I was very young! [laughs] I was also in newspapers. The photo I signed for you was in every newspaper.

But agree, it is suspicious when a whole crew had a Knight's Cross. A condition for receiving a Knight's Cross is making your own decision in combat, personal participation, and tactical success. I must ask, how is a radio operator capable of making tactical decisions? A driver? A loader? How can a radio operator or driver or loader earn a Knight's Cross? Even the gunner cannot, since he takes orders from the commander. And yet, they all had one.

Is it true that the officers had a "sore throat", and strived for a Knight's Cross?

Yes. My company commander, my predecessor, had this. First the battalion commander had one. He honestly earned it, in attacks. Then my platoon commander got one, and then me.

No one else in the battalion had a Knight's Cross!

After a battle, my commander was almost court-martialled for cowardice. He was pulled out of his tank, I had to take command. You can read about it in the book. He avoided trial because Strachwitz was transferred. Otherwise things would have gone poorly. He even told the fusilier-grenadier battalion commander "I will get a Knight's Cross today!", but it turned into a catastrophe. Yes, that happened...

You know me, you've read in my book how I got my Knight's Cross. The battalion lined up, I stood with a picture in front of the hut. I feel ill, I caught something...

I would have never worn medals in peacetime. But in wartime, medals give a small but noticeable benefit, at least for my company.

Khorosho, I remembered this. Imagine: a young Lieutenant, no medals. His Captain comes up to him, orders something. Of course, the Lieutenant must say "Jawohl!"

But if the Lieutenant has a Knight's Cross, he can say "Great idea, come back tomorrow". I could even refuse an order. This was good for my company.

When we were resting, the Knight's Cross was hanging on the wall in the company office. Awesome for morale!

Why would you not wear it in peace time?

I carried it only for my company. In peace time, it is unnecessary. I will try to explain it simply: if you score three goals and everyone only talks about you, the team looks bad! Plokhoy! Same with the company. Right now, in these meetings, I think wearing my medals is not appropriate. It was only important to me because of my company! We wore our medals to represent it. That is my opinion that I still hold to this day. I think if I had other opinions, I would not have survived the war.

You read Tigers in the Mud, how I was lying in the trench. Then the loader jumped out of the tank...that cannot be understood. And that medic...he volunteered. He would not have left me there. [Carius is referring to the chapter "Between life and death", where an episode is described in which Carius suffers several bullet wounds]

How did you leadership treat you, as a cavalier of the Knight's Cross? Did they await new heroisms?

No no, nothing like that. I don't even want to talk about it. You only have to fight your fear. The ones that thought they were heroes died. You have to fight fear,  fear is a pre-requisite for bravery!

Sorry, what was the question?

How did you leadership treat you, as a cavalier of the Knight's Cross? Did they await new heroisms?

We were more trusted. We could get our way. Like I said, we could say "no" once in a while.

I want to give an example. When I was wounded, it was a bad time for my company. My replacement was always ready to go into battle. A nice boy, highly motivated, but a newbie. He did not have an Iron Cross, nothing at all!

The grenadiers would walk all over him. An infantry captain or major would come and told him to do something, and he replied "Jawohl!" at everything, even if it was utter nonsense.

I couldn't do anything. I was helplessly lying in the Kubelwagen and knew nothing. 

These medals also had a downside. I had to command a Jagdtiger company, and they were completely unfamiliar to me. Imagine, you are some driver, and you get a new commander, with Oak Leaves on his Knight's Cross. What will you think? He'll kill us all, but he'll earn some medals with our bones!

This is what happened in 1945, before the very end. The company Haupt-Feldwebel told me. In my first announcement, I tried to explain that my goal was to minimize losses before the end of the war, as it was already lost. Only then did they start to trust me.

Did the Knight's Cross play a role in your life after the war?

Negatively. First, I had to run, as the French were looking for me. I still had friends among them after the war, they warned me that I had to run or end up in a camp. Then I received permission to study at Mainz, and lost it a week before starting. Then I took the refusal and sent my brother to Freiburg with it, to a pharmacy boss, so he could find a place for me. He was a real good German from Koenigsberg. He told my brother he'll take me, even though the lab had no places left. I was a little lucky.

Today, at meetings of cavaliers, they throw eggs at us. Foreigners respect us, but locals treat us like criminals. That's how it is in Germany. In Munster, where my mother is from, they took down all memorial boards except for Bundswehr ones. No traditions!

People would put "murderer" stickers on our cars. You can do this because of democracy. Abroad, in Russia, they say we have freedom of opinion. Here, if someone who had served his country has something to say, he'll get his mouth shut.

I remember in the DDR there was a slogan: "learning from Moscow is learning to win". They say that Merkel studied in Moscow, in her time. I was always fascinated with Russian culture. Even in the smallest of villages, oh how they danced! I still see it. And the music! Fascinating.

The Russians in villages always said "Stalin is good, war is bad". They did not know what Stalin had in mind. 

I am a soldier, I can't say anything bad about the civilians. We helped to gather the crops when advancing. Stalin though up "scorched earth". 

When did the word "untermensch" appear, before the war or during?

Yes, in propaganda, it was used all the time, and now everyone thinks that's what we believed, but we were as critical as today. We laughed at propaganda, although we should have cried. Understand? There could have been nothing like that in the front, no "untermenschen"!

Russian prisoners starved. That's normal. We were hungry too. It was too demanding. Understand that if you get 50 or 100 thousand prisoners, you cannot feed them, no logistics will manage.

And these kind Western Allies...they burned what supplies we had. In Rheingau, and other places. I have no complaints about the Russians or Eastern Europe. It is the Western Allies that were the most horrible. They had everything, and destroyed what little some people had.

Did you hear about the Commissar Order?

Everyone heard about the order, but I never seen it executed. I even have a photo where a captured commissar sits on my tank. In the worst case, it was carried out in the rear. Nothing like that could happen at the front lines, but anything could happen in the rear.

And your Ilya Erenburg? Too much, even for nazis, just impossible.

When did you learn about Erenburg?

From leaflets, thrown from airplanes, "sewing machines".

The leaflets were in German?

Of course, we did not speak Russian.

Was there hatred? When you shot, was it at a target or a person?

I had a will to live. It was a self preservation instinct. Any soldier had it. The best evidence of what I said is that we did not shoot anyone who could not defend themselves. For instance, the crew of a knocked out tank. We only shot when we were in danger.

Was there hatred?

I cannot say. There was compassion. Compassion!

Russian veterans dreamt of what would be after the war. Is that what you talked about with your comrades?

We always said that after the war we'll kick the ass of everyone that stayed home, propagandists and party members. Our motivation was "keeping the enemy away from the borders of the Reich". It is hard to positively evaluate the Russian army, but the French, for instance, fought much worse. The German army is at the top, regarding discipline, humanity, combat readiness. Many of the things the Allies allowed themselves were unthinkable for us at the front.

Did you learn anything from the Russians?

I did not need to learn anything, I knew everything already. What can I say about Russians? Their positives are loyalty to their country, selflessness, even for villagers. If I had to choose where to live, it would not be in the West, only the East. Chaikovskiy and Dostoyevskiy are much closer to me than Western composers and authors. Tolstoy! I have all of Chaikovskiy's symphonies. I also like Rakhmanin. 

Is war the most important event in your life?

War hammers at your character. Some broke, some became stronger. We were humble and not as demanding as modern youth. Now they want too much, they are egotistical and materialistic. Now, the most important thing for me is health, and then peace. 

War is the worst alternative in politics, but the world learns nothing. Now there are more wars than there were then. I don't understand it, I think sometimes that we are going back to the middle ages.

What makes a good soldiers?

Discipline. Carrying out that what is written in his soldier's book. Proper behaviour towards civilians and prisoners. Humane behaviour, normal!

If you want to know how serious our punishments were, read the military codex. If they were caught. Rapists were executed, if they were caught, of course.

What makes a good officer?

Humility, and concern for his soldiers. Lead by example! Conscience and loyalty. Self-assuredness, but also humility. Do more, advertise little. Be bigger than you claim. I think that is very important for an officer.

We are sure that you succeeded.

I hope. I think that otherwise I would not have a stream of visitors since I returned from imprisonment. Petra is my witness.

One of my feldwebels is in Vienna. His wife called and said that he was in the hospital. There were 20 other men in his room, and he had poor care. I drove to Vienna, went to the chief doctor. He was transferred to a room for two! That's camaraderie! Or Feldwebel Kerche! He lived in the Bavarian forest like in the furthest Russian village. Mud, no roads! I wanted to surprise him with a visit, I drove to see him in 1952 when he returned home. I went to see everyone who came back. His mother slept in the hallway, chickens walked around her, very primitive. They had four children. Such poverty! I told him "You will have nothing! If you want to raise your children, go to the Bundswehr!" Two officers served in Bohn, one was my inspector, and another a reserve battalion commander. I tried to convince them to take Kerche. They said "yes, yes, we need drill sergeants". Then another officer came to me and asked if he was clean, if he did any crimes. I vouched for him. As a result, one of his children became a doctor in Freiburg, another was in the BMW Observation Council, his daughter has three stores and three houses in Ingolstadt. Another daughter is a director of a mall. We dragged them up, raised them!

Another comrade was a general in the Bundswehr. He also dragged everyone up. He was a devoted tanker, and became a general. Now he is in a retirement home. And he did not even want to go to the Bundswehr! But he could not go to university because he was too old when he came back.

But my greatest achievement? My greatest achievement is dismissing my company on April 18th so they could return home and avoid capture.

Interview: A. Drabkin
Translation to Russian: A. Pupynina
Transcription: V. Seleznev
Editing: S. Smolyakov

Tank Shopping

"A note from the RKKA HQ Chief comrade Shaposhnikov to the People's Commissar of Military and Naval Affairs of the USSR and Chairman of the Revolutionary War Council of the USSR, K.E. Voroshilov on purchasing tanks abroad.

December 13th, 1929

According to your task #01924 from December 10th of this year, I propose these thoughts on purchasing tanks abroad. I discussed them with comrades Uborevich, Halepskiy, and Berezin.

1. Overall desires

It is desirable to buy prototypes, blueprints, and technical aid from one country. At the same time, investigate the possibility of buying 60-100 medium tanks.

If this is not possible, consider purchasing a tank in one country and technical aid in another. Buying a medium tank without blueprints or technical aid does not resolve the issue of building a medium tank.

2. Types of tanks and countries

Medium tank: The most desirable is the model 1927 Vickers tank with a convertible drive (England). In America, the 1940 Christie and Medium TS (model 1927), both with a convertible drive, or at least the latter with tracks only.

Small tanks: Purchase the American TE-1 convertible drive tank. It is desirable to purchase the Renault #27 tank in France and the two-person Carden-Lloyd tankette in England.

Large tanks: It is necessary to purchase the large Vickers tank in England. It is also desirable to purchase an all terrain tank destroyer with a speed of up to 30 kph and a powerful gun (at least 45 mm).

Aside from tanks, it is desirable to purchase at least one AA SPG and one six-wheel (three axle) armoured car.

When purchasing, pay attention to improved visibility systems, periscopes, and observation devices, as well as methods of maintaining accuracy when the tank is shaking (naval type gyroscopes).

3. Methods of purchase

It is impossible to determine methods of purchase precisely. Each case should be solved separately by comrade Berezin and his staff.

4. Staff

It is desirable to put Halepskiy in charge of the purchasing. With him, send a comrade from VSNKh, preferably Budnyak. In addition, one or two engineers. Halepskiy recommends comrade Topilov (VKP(b) member, UNM tank department chief), and comrade Begunov (VKP(b) member, member of the scientific-technical department of UNM).

RKKA HQ Chief, B. Shaposhnikov"

RGVA 31811-1-38

Tuesday, 12 August 2014

American Trailer

"Conclusions of the GBTU Tank Directorate on Trials of the American Diamond-T Company Tank Transporter with Trailer

According to orders of the GBTU chief, Lieutenant-General of the Tank Forces comrade Vershinin, the NIBT proving grounds tested the transporter with trailer from October 10th to December 5th, 1943. During these trials, the quality and capacity for various tasks in the Red Army was evaluated.

  1. T-34 and KV tanks fit on the trailer comfortably for transport.
  2. Loading functional tanks onto the trailer is easy and does not need additional equipment. It takes 10-15 minutes to load a tank. When a tank drives up the ramps, harsh vibrations can be observed, which shear the bolts of the anti-slip covers on the ramp and rear section of the trailer.
  3. The presence of a powerful winch (up to 10,000 kg of tension) allows loading tanks with nonfunctional suspensions (no tracks). When loading T-34 or KV tanks with no tracks, the tension surpasses 10,000 kg, which requires special blocks to be used.
  4. When loading tanks without nonfunctional suspensions, it is necessary to block the trailer limber from turning when moving backwards. No such stopper is included in the design, and it must be produced domestically. 
  5. A T-34 can be held down by 4 cables, included with the trailer. A KV tank, due to its large size and low placement of tow hooks, cannot be attached securely with available equipment. In order to securely hold a KV tank, new hooks must be welded onto the trailer to replace front and rear loops.
  6. Off-loading broken tanks with functional suspensions is done using another vehicle or transporter. Off-loading broken tanks with nonfunctional suspensions should be performed with simultaneous help from another vehicle and the winch.
  7. The mobility of the vehicle is limited by the poor ground traction of the transporter and low clearance (190 mm) of the trailer. It is only possible to transport tanks over hard roads. On packed snow, soft, and wet terrain, the wheels slip. The maximum grade when carrying a T-34 is 6-7 degrees.
  8. When the trailer is loaded with a weight of 20,000 kg, the maximum speed of the vehicle is 34 kph, average is 30 kph. 
  9. 144 L of fuel is consumed when carrying a KV tank for 100 km. 
Aside from the primary purpose of the vehicle (carrying tanks), it can be used for other purposes.
  1. The powerful winch can be used for freeing stuck tanks.
  2. The transporter can carry cargo with other trailers. Using its winch, the transporter is capable of traversing terrain impassable for trucks.
Conclusions

Trials of the Diamond-T company tank transporter have shown the following results:
  1. The transporter and trailer can be used to transport domestic tanks weighing up to 45,000 kg over roads with hard surfaces.
  2. The transporter and trailer can transport tanks to repair bases, meaning they should be assigned to recovery units.
  3. When railroads are unavailable, the transporters can be used to move large amounts of tanks from one region to another.
  4. The transporter without the trailer can be used to pull out stuck vehicles and carry cargo.
  5. Based on the aforementioned performance, I consider it necessary to import Diamond-T transporters with trailers and use them in the Red Army.
Senior Assistant of the Chief of the 6th GBTU TU Department, Lieutenant-Colonel Dorofeev
Assistant of the Chief of the 6th GBTU TU Department, Engineer-Captain Zakhartsev"



T-34-85M

Many of the improvements found on the T-43 project carried over to the T-34-85. In 1944, factory #183 decided to carry over a few more.

T-34-85M tanks, first variant (minor modernization) and second variant (major modernization).

"1. Introduction

According to order of the People's Commissar of Tank Production and the Commander of the Armoured and Mechanized Forces of the Red Army #344S/091 issued on May 28th, 1944, the commission formed by this order tested two modernized T-34-85M tanks and one serial T-34-85 tank produced at factory #183 in May.
  • 1st variant: thickened upper front plate, without modification of fuel tanks.
  • 2nd variant: thickened upper front plate and fuel tanks moved to the rear of the tank.
Before the start of mobility trials, the tanks were tested at the factory over a range of:
  • T-34-84M #4427 (1st variant): 1204 km (according to speedometer)
  • T-34-85M #43601 (2nd variant): 1188 km (according to speedometer)
  • T-34-85 #44512 (serial production): 90 km (according to speedometer)
Note: the distances measured with T-34-85M speedometers are not accurate, as they have drive wheels with 5 bars (instead of 6 on production tanks), without modification to the speedometer. As such, the factual distance travelled is 12% less.

All trials were performed in accordance with the program approved by the Deputy People's Commissar of Tank Production and GBTU KA chief, with the exception of off-road testing, which was replaced with testing on destroyed dirt roads. Trials were performed at the Kubinka station of the Western railroad, from May 24th to June 10th, 1944.

Conclusions on the comparative trials of the two T-34-85M modernized tanks and the serial T-34-85 tank produced at factory #183

Modernizations of the T-34-85 tanks include:
  1. First variant:
    1. Increase of the upper front plate to 75 mm from 45 mm.
    2. Change of the gear ratio of the conical pair to 1.562 from 1.857.
    3. Thickening the driver's hatch to 100 mm from 75 mm and the DT machinegun ball to 90 mm from 60 mm.
    4. Decreasing the drive wheel diameter to 530 mm with five bars instead of 634 mm with six bars.
    5. Decreasing the thickness of the hull floor, roof, and over-track hull floor to 15 mm from 20 mm and the lower rear plate (connecting the floor and rear armour) from 45 mm to 15 mm.
  2. Second variant:
    1. Aside from the aforementioned changes, instead of six fuel tanks placed in the fighting and engine compartments, two fuel tanks, 190 L each, are placed behind the gearbox. The total size of the main fuel tanks remains at 540 L.
    2. Due to the changes to fuel tank layout, the rear of the tank is altered. The lower rear plate is increased in height by 400 mm, and thickness reduced from 45 to 30 mm. The slope is preserved at 45 degrees. The side fuel tanks are protected by 45 mm armour at 0 degrees and skirts from sheet metal instead of 45 mm side armour at 45 degrees on the serial tanks.
Based on the trials of the modernized and serial tanks, the commission reached the following conclusions:

1. Armour:
The armour is increased [repeat of the armour increases]while maintaining the tank's weight by reducing the thickness of the least vulnerable parts of the tank, the floor, engine compartment roof, and overtrack hull floor. This increases the tank's protection while having no negative effect on its handling and performance.

Drawbacks of the modernized T-34-85M tank's armour include:
  1. The increased thickness of the DT ball mount weakens the armour due to a larger welding seam perimeter, which causes increased pressure on the armour and decreases the margin between the UFP and DT by 30-40 mm.
  2. The second T-34-84M tank has lower protection from the rear due to the use of flat 45 mm armour instead of 45 mm armour at 45 degrees. Placing sloped armour in this location will increase the tank's weight by 150 kg.
  3. The thinner floor armour makes the tank more vulnerable to mines.
It is considered necessary to:
  1. Change the armour layout of the second T-34-85M tank, placing the rear armour plates at 45 degrees instead of 0 degrees.
  2. Maintain the thickness of the front floor at 20 degrees.
  3. Use a fixed machinegun instead of a DT in a ball mount to increase protection from the front.
2. Change of the conical pair and drive wheel

The change of the gear ratio to 1.562 from 1.857 and replacing the drive wheel with a 5 bar one has a negligible effect on the performance of the T-34-85M tanks. 

Drive wheels with 5 bars perform significantly more poorly than drive wheels with 6 bars. The smoothness of the track movement is reduced, due to the reduction in wheel size and reduction of distance between bars. Track teeth were observed hitting the bars. As a result, there was an increased degree of wear on the drive wheels and tracks. During trials, four track links from both tracks had to be removed. The alteration of the gear ratio with the aim of reducing load on the transmission is unnecessary, as:
  1. The weight of the modernized tank does not exceed the weight of the serial tank.
  2. Gearboxes on tanks produced by factory #183 have passed every trial and worked reliably since August of 1943, which indicates that the transmission is not overly loaded.
  3. A drive wheel with five bars installed due to the gear ratio change increases the load on the transmission due to the abnormal bar engagement and makes the tracks perform more poorly.
  4. A gearbox with an altered gear ratio makes a third type of gearbox installed in T-34 tanks, which would complicate delivery of spare parts.
In order to increase the performance and reliability of the T-34-85M, factory #183 should use 5-gear gearboxes and serial 6-bar drive wheels.

3. The transfer of the fuel tanks from the fighting and engine compartments to the rear (variant #2)

Moving the fuel tanks decreases the tank's chance of catching fire, increases the ammunition capacity to 60 shells and 33 MG disks (from 56 shells and 31 disks), and improves the crew work environment due to an increased size of the fighting compartment.

At the same time, moving the fuel tanks to the rear complicates installation and removal of the transmission. Replacing the brakes is not possible without removing the fuel tanks and their armoured cover. Calibration of the brakes and friction clutches, as well as access to the starter, are all made more difficult. Filling up the gearbox with oil is not possible without a special funnel or hose.

Since, during trials, the brakes and friction clutches had to be adjusted frequently, and the design of the fuel tanks makes this action difficult (the fuel tanks themselves were damaged thrice during trials), this variant cannot be recommended for production. 

The variant with altered fuel tanks can be accepted into production only if the transmission can take 500 km between calibrations, improvement in maintenance complexity, improvement in the reliability of the tanks themselves, and alteration of their design according to the proposed changes to rear armour.

4. Balance mechanism of the driver's hatch.

The new balance mechanism was in an unusable condition, having jammed. Reliable and convenient use of this mechanism is not possible.

5. Single pull-rod controls of the friction clutch and brakes.

The single pull-rod controls installed on the serial tank worked flawlessly and without issues. The agility of the tank using these controls decreases, due to a design flaw. The main disadvantage of this method is the lack of friction clutch and brake separation. When the brakes are applied, the clutch is disengaged. As a result, the driver cannot apply all his force to the brakes, and must apply some force to keeping the clutch disengaged. The brake moment generated this way is insufficient, especially when a complete stop is needed. This drawback can be resolved using the single pull-rod control mechanism from the KV tank.

Conclusions.
  1. Considering the necessity of increasing the front armour of T-34-85 tanks, in order to supply the army with these tanks more quickly, approve the modernized tank with an increase of front armour from 45 mm to 75 mm immediately.
  2. Leave the front of the floor at 20 mm.
  3. In order to improve the robustness of the front plate, consider using the IS and T-44 type machinegun in the front, instead of a machinegun in a ball mount.
  4. Other changes to the armoured hull should correspond with the first variant (#4427).
  5. Due to the poor reliability of 5 bar drive wheels that reduce track lifetimes and lack of reason to have three incompatible gearboxes, use production gearboxes and 6-bar drive wheels.
  6. The second variant cannot be approved for production without major revisions, as the fuel tanks are unreliable and make service of the transmission and starter difficult, as well as weakening the rear armour of the hull.
  7. As it is important to remove fuel tanks from the fighting compartment, the factory should continue work on this variant, keeping in mind suggestions given by the commission.
  8. Continue work on the driver's hatch balance mechanism to provide reliable and convenient opening of the driver's hatch."

However, the follow-up ballistic tests demonstrate that the "necessity of increasing the front armour" wasn't all that necessary. The tank can now resists shells from a Panther at a distance of 720 meters and a King Tiger at 1800 meters, but the turret is still just as vulnerable as always. A suggestion is made for 90 mm of frontal armour that would "allow, at least within a narrow arc, to get within point blank range of the enemy", but the additional weight of the front plate and turret armour would definitely negatively impact the maneuverability of the T-34-85. The fateful phrase "The modernized T-34M tank has no significant advantages over the production model" puts a big fat X on the project. 

Interestingly enough, an American report on losses of 75 mm Shermans (report No.12-No.2, Operational Research Section) comes to the same conclusions. "For instance, up-armouring the front of the tank so that in the cases considered it would have given 50% protection on this face, would only have decreased penetrations by 15%. In consequence, if changes are required, it would appear wiser to use the extra weight-carrying of the 75 mm Sherman to take a better gun; ie., to make German tanks more vulnerable rather than to attempt to decrease our own vulnerability." 

Sunday, 10 August 2014

Captured T-70

Photographs of KV and T-34 tanks that have been modified for service in the Wehrmacht are very widespread, but photographs of "lesser" vehicles? Not so much. Here's a picture of a T-70 in German service.


This tank has been through at least one re-fitting by a German mechanic. This is evidenced by the MG-34 replacing the coaxial DT machinegun, German style headlight, and, of course, a Balkenkreuz on the front armour, above the transmission hatch.

Saturday, 9 August 2014

ST-II

"The heavy ST-I tank is a powerful combat vehicle, equipped with a rapid-firing high caliber gun and sufficient armour. This design is an improvement to the previous tank, mostly in the areas of increased accuracy and rate of fire, and has the following novel features:
  1. Installation of two guns of identical (medium or high) caliber, and two machineguns (or low caliber cannons). These four guns give the tank unprecedented firepower, increasing its combat value.
  2. Two guns provide very high rates of fire when serviced by two loaders, using a special rapid-fire ammo rack (shells and propellant are loaded pointing in the direction of the guns in the turret bustle).
  3. The tank can strike a moving target immediately, due to the ability to fire a second shell immediately as the first one lands near the target. This allows for faster ranging in.
  4. If one gun is out of action (misfire, semi-automatic mechanism fault, failure to extract, breakdown, loader error, etc), the second gun continues firing, and the tank remains in action.
  5. The coefficient of armour, engine power, and weight compared to the gun doubles. Accuracy when firing at moving targets or on the move increases, as aiming is done by one person with the ability to follow up a shot almost instantly. 
The tank surpasses two tanks of identical firepower, as it would not be possible to attain such a high rate of fire and accuracy. All other mechanisms of the ST-II are equivalent to the ST-I.

Engineer Ganin
Engineer Chasovnikov
June 11th, 1945"
CAMD RF 38-11350-396

ST-I

"Existing domestic and foreign heavy tanks have a series of drawbacks in the design of their fighting compartments, suspensions, etc, which lower their combat value. The main drawbacks are as follows:
  1. Gun and fighting compartment:
    1. Insufficient rate of fire at low or medium calibers.
    2. Lack of gun or turret stabilization, making firing on the move difficult.
    3. The capacity of ammunition racks is small.
    4. Existing large caliber guns fit into turrets with difficulty.
    5. Increasing the muzzle velocity of a shell with the same shell mass and gun size is impossible.
    6. The position of the commander in relation to the loader in modern tanks has drawbacks. The gun's oscillations, recoil, case extraction, and the loader's work all annoy the commander and distract him from observing the battlefield. Forward vision is limited.
    7. The turret gun mount is complicated and brings little benefit.
    8. Even if an AA machinegun is present, it is impossible to simultaneously fire upon enemies on land and in air.
    9. The issue of effective ventilation is not fully solved, which is important with powerful, rapidly firing guns.
    10. Many tanks lack a foot-operated smooth electric or hydraulic traverse mechanism,
  2. Hull and suspension:
    1. It would be difficult to seal the turret and gun port for underwater driving on heavy tanks.
    2. Underwater driving equipment is complicated and unreliable in case of emergency.
    3. The road wheel diameter and track position is not optimal on some heavy tanks.
This heavy tank design resolves the aforementioned drawbacks, and has the following novel features:
  1. The large or medium gun mount and two coaxial machineguns (or low caliber autocannons).
  2. Crew placement:
    1. Driver: front hull
    2. Commander and gunner: front of the turret
    3. Loaders: rear of the turret
      This position of the commander provides superior visibility and a calmer workspace.
  3. The turret bustle contains a rapid fire ammo rack. This design works for one piece and two piece rounds (a tandem design with springs). This allows the removal of extra motions from the loading process, drastically increasing the rate of fire.
  4. An oscillating spring-loaded centering roller is mounted on the gun guard rail, reducing the loading effort and increasing the rate of fire.
  5. In order to boost the muzzle velocity of the shell without changing the propellant or the gun dimensions, a special muzzle attachment is used.
  6. In order to stabilize the gun in the vertical plane, which improves gun accuracy on the move, a special elevation mechanism is used. 
  7. In order to stabilize the turret, which improves gun accuracy on the move, a special turret rotation mechanism is used.
  8. In order to protect the tank from aircraft, one loader has a semi-armoured AA machinegun (low caliber autocannon) mounted above him, with a stock, improving accuracy. When the loader is firing on airborne targets, the commander can continue observing the battlefield, the second loader can continue to load the gun, and the gunner can continue firing on ground targets. A prototype of the design proposed by the author has been built.
  9. In order to conveniently rotate the turret, a lever is used, allowing the gunner to use the electric/hydraulic turret traverse mechanism with a hand or a foot.
  10. The electric traverse mechanism is of the Ward-Leonardo or Ampledin type. The commander also has access to the traverse controls, allowing him to turn the turret when marking targets.
  11. The gun mount method is optimal using a box-like frame, in which the gun carrier is installed. The frame is welded to the turret. This eases gun installation, preventing jamming, etc.
  12. A breech-loading mortar can be used to conceal the tank with smoke or shoot fragmentation mines at infantry. The commander can fire signal flares through the mortar barrel.
  13. There are three hatches: one above the commander cupola and one for each loader. This ensures that the crew can exit the tank quickly, and that the commander can continue working when the AA machinegun is being used.
  14. A stabilized commander's cupola (that remains on target when the turret is turned) can be used.
  15. Sights:
    1. Gun: monocular refracting sight with adjustable magnification and field of view.
    2. AA gun: collimating sight, and an iron sight, used mostly to calibrate the collimating sight.
  16. In order to clear the fighting compartment of gases, the shell catcher railing is hollow with holes, which suck in the gases using a fan.
  17. An intake fan is located above the gun.
  18. Air-consuming components in the turret can be fed from the engine compartment.
  19. The commander has a rotating chair with a footrest.
  20. The loaders' seats are removable.
  21. Most of the ammunition is located in the turret, in the rapid fire ready rack.
  22. The gun port assembly is reliable and technologically simple, allows for watertight sealing, safe from gases and bullets. 
  23. In order to provide watertightness of the turret ring, inflatable hoses are present.
  24. In order to provide the ability to drive underwater, a flexible floating hose is available for the engine air intake, or a rigid removable pipe. The exhaust can be fed directly into the water, or into the air through another pipe. When the exhaust feeds into the water, a one-way valve is desirable.
  25. When the tank is underwater, the air pressure inside increases to prevent accidental leaks.
  26. A hatch in the turret bustle allows removal of the gun.
  27. Large diameter road wheels with the tracks resting directly on top of them are used, resulting in a more reliable suspension and higher performance.
Engineer Ganin
Engineer Chasovnikov"

Thursday, 7 August 2014

World of Tanks: Today in History: Battle for Guadalcanal

On August 7th, 1942, the battle for Guadalcanal, an island in the south of the Pacific Ocean, began. By that time, the Japanese achieved significant gains while fighting in New Guinea and the Philippines, and were actively bombing the Australian Port Darwin.

Guadalcanal was captured by the Japanese in May of 1942 nearly without resistance. The island was strategically important for the Allies as a foothold for a future offensive against Japan. Because of this, the American response to this was prepared in a hurry. A strike by port workers and problems with supplies meant that heavy artillery and tractors had to be left behind. The Marines had a week's worth of food, poor stocks of medicine, and ammunition for ten days. Mosquito nets and repellent were unavailable. The landing was nicknamed "the low-budget offensive".

The capture of Henderson Field

On the morning of August 7th, 1942, 11000 Marines commanded by Lieutenant-General Alexander Vandergrift landed on the island. They were in for a surprise: while the Japanese air force and navy were a force to be reckoned with, their infantry was disproportionately poorly equipped and unsuitable for combat. The most difficult part of the offensive was the 24 hour-long march through the jungle swamp to the unfinished airport at Cape Lunga.

The construction of this airport was started by 2000 forcibly transferred Korean workers. By August, it consisted of an uneven span of cleared jungle and two poorly flattened stretches of land about one kilometer apart.

After the construction site took fire from the sea and was attacked by naval aircraft on August 8th, the Japanese commander of construction and combat units, Kanae Mondzen, panicked and gave an order to retreat. Abandoning construction equipment, materials, cars, and supplies, the Japanese moved 3 kilometers away from the airport. The Americans, having occupied the site, formed a defensive perimeter, unloaded their equipment, and finished the construction that the Japanese were struggling with for four months in two weeks. The new airport was called Henderson Field. On August 20th, it received its first air group, a squadron of F4F Wildcat fighters and a squadron of 12 Douglas SBD Dauntess dive bombers.

On August 21st, about 900 soldiers commanded by Colonel Kiyonao Ichiki attempted to attack the airport, but catastrophically underestimated the amount of American marines. Instead of 2000 soldiers that were expected, they were met by 11000. The attack stalled, and by dawn, the Americans counterattacked. By noon, the battle turned into a beating. The Japanese were powerless against light M2A4 tanks with 37 mm guns and machineguns that would have seemed laughable in Europe. Canister shot and machineguns literally mowed down the jungle, along with anyone hiding in it. The Japanese suffered total defeat. Ichiki could not stand the shame and committed suicide.

Tokyo Express

In late August, the Japanese sent additional forces to Guadalcanal. The Japanese ships that went from the Shortland Islands through the New Georgia Sound received the nickname "Tokyo Express" from the Allies.

Japanese forces and equipment were delivered on destroyers and light cruisers that could not carry much cargo, but were more resistant to bombs. The garrison was supplied largely at night with containers that were hurriedly thrown overboard. Everything that was not scooped up by teams on the shore was blown away and lost. Ships were lost as well. The bottom of the sound was peppered with dozens of ships: destroyers, transports, even battleships and carriers.

Things were shaky for Allied forces as well. Their supply ships did not have time to unload. Captured vehicles were of typically low pre-war quality. Poor quality fuel was only compatible with captured vehicles. Disease put more men out of commission than actual combat.

The operation was in a shaky equilibrium.

A 600 mile trek

The airport was bombed by 20-40 Japanese D3A1 Val and G4M Betty bombers daily, even though they had to make a 600 mile trip one way. The bombing runs were ineffective, but this did not deter the Japanese.

In these conditions, the "Cactus" air group, aircraft based on Henderson Field, proved themselves. Even with little fuel, the group provided cover for the airfield. Each failed bombing attempt was a drain on Japanese resources, and far from every damaged plane could survive the 600 mile journey home.

The Americans flew in pairs. An F4F was sturdy enough to survive in a Japanese A5M2's sights for a while. While the Zero pursued one plane, another would get on its tail and tear it to shreds in seconds. The Americans were strictly forbidden from abandoning their partner and getting into duels. An American pilot that was shot down was promptly retrieved, while Japanese pilots became MIAs.

After several weeks of bombing, Henderson Field became a primary target for the Japanese. Special fighter groups were formed to lure the Americans, and two waves of bombers guaranteed that the second wave could not be intercepted. The Japanese did not know that most of their bombs hit the husks of shot down American planes, placed as decoys.

On the night of October 14th, the Japanese attacked the airfield from sea, with fair success: two battleships, Kongo and Haruna, destroyed 48 out of 90 American airplanes, but Henderson Field remained out of Japanese hands.

General Hyakutake's Fatal Mistake

By October 17th, the Japanese amassed 20000 men on the island, under the command of general Harukichi Hyakutake. He also underestimated his enemy, thinking that he was facing no more than 10000 marines, while the actual amount was about 23000. 

The decisive offensive at the end of October was rescheduled three times. The Japanese were forced to abandon their artillery. One unit was not alerted about the schedule change, and all of its tanks were lost when it attacked without support. For two days, Hyakutake's forces unsuccessfully pummeled the Americans with front-line attacks, after which the general ordered a retreat. The Japanese lost about 3000 men dead, while the Americans only lost about 80. 

November was marked with a counter-offensive and repeated failures to restore supply lines to teh Japanese garrison. The actions of the Japanese resembled a bad comedy: destroyers and cruisers threw barrels of food and medicine into the water at full speed with the hope that some might make it to shore. Up to 50 men died of disease and starvation daily. From December 4th to 7th, the remaining 10652 men of the Japanese garrison were evacuated by sea. On February 9th, the Americans declared the island free of enemy forces. From this point, and until the end of the war, initiative remained in Allied hands.

Article author: Mikhail Lapikov

Mikhail Lapikov is a historian and a member of an archive group. Currently he is collecting and cataloging documents on the actions of the Americans in the Pacific Theater during WWII.

Sources:
  • Timothy L. Cubb. CACTUS Air Power at Guadalcanal.
  • Charles L. Updegraph Jr. US Marine Corps Special Units of WWII.
  • Notes on Jungle Warfare from the U.S. Marines and the U.S. Infantry on Guadalcanal Island, 1942.
  • Harmon M. F. Army in the South Pacific.
Original article available here. 

Wednesday, 6 August 2014

World of Tanks History Section: SU-152, Soviet Beast-Killer

During the Soviet-Finnish War of 1939-1940, the Red Army hit a powerful defensive line in Karelia, the Mannerheim Line. Soviet soldiers were greeted with an unpleasant surprise: concrete pillboxes that could onl be destroyed with large caliber artillery.

Delivering a heavy and clumsy gun to a battlefield is not an easy task. The best solution is a gun that can drive into battle by itself. Soviet commanders remembered that work on self propelled artillery has been slowly coming along since 1931. The topic was dusted off. Two factories, Kirov and #185, got to work. By Spring of 1940, experimental vehicles have been designed: SU-14-2, T-100Y (SU-100Y), and KV-2, which may be called a tank, but was more of an assault gun with a turret. The SU-100Y did not make it in time for the war, but work on bunker busters continued. When the Great Patriotic War began, the design center was moved from Leningrad to Sverdlovsk.

From three barrels to one

The basis for the SU-100Y was the T-100 heavy tank, which lost out to the KV and did not enter production. This also put a cross over the SU-100Y. All heavy SPGs had to use the KV chassis.

In November of 1941, the Chelyabinsk Kirov Factory (ChKZ) designed the KV-7 assault tank, a vehicle with an immobile casemate carrying three guns. The project was curious, but its combat usefulness was doubtful. In fall of 1942, the Red Army GAU ordered ChKZ to develop a large caliber SPG, placing the ML-20 152 mm gun in the KV-7 hull. The project was headed by Lev Sergeevich Troyanov, the most experienced Soviet designer of SPGs.

Troyanov decided to install the casemate on a KV-1S heavy tank chassis. The wooden model and project documentation were ready at the end of 1942. In early January of 1943, the project was scheduled for a demonstration to the client. By this point, it was indexed KV-14. Two projects were demonstrated. First was designed by the factory #9 design bureau chief Fedor Fedorovich Petrov. The project was more complete, but needed many modifications of the KV-7 hull and the gun. Working blueprints for Troyanov's project were only partially complete, but his project required significantly less modifications to mass produced tanks and guns.

Stopping power

On the day after the demonstration, Joseph Stalin signed an order of the State Committee of Defense to build a prototype of the new SPG by January 31st, in less than a month. Kirov factory not only managed to deal with such a harsh quota, but finish a week early.

Trials of the new SPG were conducted from February 1st to February 5th. The KV-14 drove to the proving grounds at Chebarkul. This was a difficult trial: the SPG drove through a snowed-over highway in temperatures of -42 degrees. Water got in the engine, it kept stalling. The SPG travelled the 85 km from Chelyabinsk to Chebarkul in 13 hours.

After 234 shots, no defects were discovered in the gun or mount. The gun could not achieve the requested 3-4 RPM, but the result of 2.8 RPM was also not bad. No defects were found in the engine or transmission. There were design flaws that needed work, but by February 9th, the KV-14 was adopted into the Red Army.

And so, the USSR received an SPG with no equal anywhere in the world. It had a powerful gun, the armour of a heavy tank, and what was no less important for a fighting machine, a compact size. What's most important is that the Red Army received a universal SPG, capable of dealing with any combat mission. From the end of April of 1943, the vehicle was indexed SU-152.

The Beast-Slayer's debut was at the Battle of Kursk, in which 24 vehicles of this type took part. The small numbers did not make a large impact on the flow of events, but it turned out that, of all Soviet vehicles of the time, only a shot from this SPG could guarantee the destruction of any German vehicle of the time. It was not necessary for a 152 mm shell to penetrate enemy armour. Hero of the Soviet Union Major Sankovskiy demonstrated the combat potential of the SU-152: his vehicle destroyed 10 tanks in one battle.

The SU-152's effectiveness is also highlighted by the fact that it remained in service with Soviet tank forces until 1958.

Yuri Pasholok's book "SU-152 and other SPGs on the KV chassis" was referenced when writing this article.

Original article available here.

Tuesday, 5 August 2014

Lavrinenko's Gunslinging

Many have heard of Soviet tank ace Dmitriy Lavrinenko. Of course, I like to double check kill claims whenever enough details are given about a battle from both sides, so let's get to one such episode in his career, the battle at Gusenevo on November 19th, 1941. The Soviet description (from Katukov's memoirs) is very colourful, despite being overshadowed by a tragic event.

"In this tragic hour, Dmitriy Lavrinenko was close to Panfilov's command post. He saw how the HQ commanders, heads bared, carried out the general's body on a greatcoat, heard how a guard leapt out from the house and yelled, grabbing his head, "They killed the general!"

At this moment, eight German tanks appeared on the highway by the village.

"Into the tank! Quickly!" Lavrinenko yelled to the driver, Bedniy.

What happened next could only be explained as an emotional outburst. The tankers were so shaken by Panfilov's death that they were driven not by tactical considerations, but by revenge. Like mad, they rushed towards the enemy. The German tankers were stunned, they thought the Soviet tank was going in for a ram. The vehicle stopped, tens of meters away from the enemy column. Seven shots point blank, seven torches lit up. Lavrinenko came to his senses only when the trigger mechanism jammed and he was unable to shoot the eight fleeing tank.

He saw how fascists were climbing out of their burning vehicles, rolling around on the ground to put out the fire on their clothes, running into the forest. Lavrinenko shoved his hatch open, jumped out of the tank, and chased the fascists, firing from his pistol while running.

Only when the radio operator, Sharov, cried "Tanks!" did Lavrinenko come back. As soon as the hatch closed, several shells burst nearby. The armour was peppered with shards. Ten enemy vehicles were rushing from the forest. The driver grabbed his levers, but the tank was rocked with an explosion. A breach formed in the side armour. When the smoke cleared, Lavrinenko saw blood on Bedniy's head. The driver was dead. A shard hit Sharov in the stomach. With difficulty, he was pulled from the top hatch, but died immediately after. It was not possible to remove Bedniy's body, the tank caught fire and shells started bursting."

Once we clear away all the flowery parts, this episode becomes pretty straightforward: Lavrinenko's tank ran into a recon force, destroyed seven of them, and then was knocked out by the main tank force. Let's see what the German description of the battle is, from the combat diary of the 2nd tank division, provided by zhur_from_rkka:


Laconic, but this is all the information we need.

"Battle group 2 reported at 18:50: 5 tanks destroyed north-west of Gusenevo. 5 of our own light tanks were knocked out by the 34-tonner. 1 34-tonner escaped north-east despite several hits."

Hm, 5 out of 7, a bit of an overclaim. However, the German account is quite fantastical: Lavrinenko's single tank turns out 5 tanks destroyed, with a bonus one that escaped! This extra tank can at least be explained. By November 19th, Lavrinenko's tank platoon was down to just him and a BT-7, which could have very well been upgraded to a T-34 like we're seen before.

As for the T-34 being evaluated as a 34-ton tank, that's another common mistake.