Red Army myths

I think he said they was successfully hit by those calibres from sides or even from behind, because T-34 poor visibility and poor Soviet tactics.

Sure, because we had small number of AT guns and tanks, we wasnt able to act tactical most of the time as Germans did. Even if having less tanks or guns then Soviets, Germans still have enough (especially in first phases of the war, up to the last part) to use them eficient

Well, i agree they had better tanks in some aspects as protection and mobility especially, partially fire power as well, but inferior as ergonomy and comand and coordination.
The fact they wasnt able to stop or defeat the Axis in first years is then a confirmation of Soviet lack of combat abilities, because if they had both the superior number and superior quality in some aspects, what else can be?
Just when they was able to rebuild their army as number and get more tanks and more experience, and the Allies actions started to divert German troops or wear their industry, they was able to turn the tide. Even so, the bullet get very close to their ears, if they would be alone vs Axis they would be defeated i think in 9 cases from 10

Yes, i agree with this

Corect, but, Soviets had too tanks or armour able to fight Panthers and Tigers, like SU-152 or ISU-152, KV-1, KV-2 etc. Then German tanks at Kursk/Orel was mostly P-IV, Tigers was a minority, and Panthers even less, not to mention that Panther wasnt even ready. And Soviets main tank there was T-34, theoretically at least better then the main German one, P-IV. And, in larger number

Corect again. And this was the main quality of Red Army, the quantity of its troops and weaponry. And when even that didnt work, it was the Allies help, both as direct material help (more then 11.000 armour vechicles) and indirect one, but diverting other German troops on other fronts.

Sure, Germans relied at some point to same tactics, throwing everything they had in war, and losing it due their own weaknesses, rigidity in thought and some delirious doctrine who made them sometimes to lose the sight of reality. And ofcourse they did made strategic mistakes as well, but that was sometimes forced by the sheer number of their enemies in both fronts

This post has been edited by udar on April 23, 2012 08:25 pm

Not really. The SU-152 was quite poor AT wise. I've just read the memoirs of a soviet lieutenant who fought the war on this, Kursk included.
Accuracy was very poor, reloading slow and it focused on explosive not penetration power. Sometimes the dazzled Germans would bail out, but sometimes, they recovered and put an 88 through the SU.The author states that when they received the SU85 they were relieved.

At Kursk, the Germans were superior tank wise. The Tigers both in protection and firepower, the Panther although unreliable shoot superbly and the Mark IVs L43 and L48 guns outgunned the T34. Add the Elephants and the mix is explosive.

German tank fired on concealed Russian tanks even at 2500m. The others refrained until less than 300m.

Udar, I was reffering to the article "The T-34’s Performance in 1942" and especially at the table called "Causes of T-34 losses from June 1941 to September 1942 (expressed as % of total)", where a procent of 54,3 of T-34 losses is caused by 50mm L/60 guns shots of Pz.III Ausf. J/L tanks.
And from the books I mentioned (actually I mentioned the authors!) describing the Pz.III and Pz.IV tanks performance, I dare say that such a percentage of losses connected to the Pz.III tanks is impossible! Is much safer to assume that the percentage is result from adding the Pz.IV Ausf. F2/G and the Pz.III Ausf. J/L tanks kills (with probably 80% chances to be caused by the Pz.IV!). The author insistence on the analysis of this table is a mistake, it's obvious for everyone who has read books about the Pz.III tank that it was almost powerless against the T-34!

In the first years ? What happened after 5 months at Tula when Guderian's 2nd Panzer Army was effectively routed by T34s ? Or Moscow ?

Reading German soldiers memoirs talks about desperation when facing T34s and KV tanks while they consider their own P3 and P4 as inferior. P1 and P2 aren't even mentioned.

German tanks at Kursk was mostly P-IV, Tigers was few (i think less then 300 from almost 3000 tanks bring there by Germans), and Panthers even less. Sure, they had some "Elefant" tank-hunters as well, but overall the Soviets enjoyed superiority in numbers and have tanks and armoured vechicles able to fight against German tanks.

SU-152 and KV-2 was able to knock out even the Tigers and Elephants, and T-34 was surely able to take out of battle a P-IV.
Not to mention that Soviet airplanes enjoyed too a numerical superiority (IL-2 vs JU-87, to count the ground attack planes more used), Soviet known well before (thru Lucy spy ring) the German plans and forces involved and bring there way lot more artilery and infantry, plus laid down fortifications and trenches and lots of mine fields.

Even so their losses was way bigger then German ones, which show, as i said, a lack in fighting abilities and a lack in better suited armoured vechicles. Not very ergonomical, had a poor visibility and lack comunication betwen tanks.

It was as well the Allies invasion in Sicily who draw Germans (well, Hitler actually) attention there, including by diverting troops from Kursk, which enable Soviets to win at the end, mostly because they had numerical superiority.

I think you contradict a little in your response, regarding Panzer III with 50 mm gun (J/L variants).

That gun was able to destroy a T-34 from 300-500 m i think, and obviously from flanks. But, the author said that because of T-34 weaknesses, meaning poor visibility from the inside and lack of comunication betwen tanks, as well as lack of training or tactics, German tanks was able to win many times even being inferior in mobility, armour and firepower.

Sure, a P-IV equipped with a longer, high velocity 75 mm gun was fairly equal if not better as firepower to a T-34/76. The Soviet tank was better as armour and mobility, but German one was beter as ergonomy and coordination.

A P-V Panther was better then a T-34/85 in almost all aspects, except maybe reliability, due to simplicity of the later.

However, Germans continued to have superior ratio in battle vs Soviet tanks, despite the later superiority in number, and if wouldnt be the Allies involvement (like bombing the German factories and later diverting German troops on other fronts), Germans would be able to knock out all the Soviet tanks produced during the war, despite their huge numerical superiority and sometimes their superior quality in some aspects

Well, Soviet losses (both in human and material numbers) kinda show that. It wasnt ofcourse a linear evolution of things, and Germany/Axis had its shortcomings as well.

As i said, i dont consider Germans some invincible army, they surely had their weaknesses as i pointed in other posts. Is just that Red Army had too many of such, which sometimes are covered by propaganda.
It is not something unusual however, some Germans did the same, blaming their failures on whatever they find around, except their own mistakes and weaknesses or lack of abilities. Everyone did this, everywhere and in all camps

Udar, it seems we talk about different things or you do not understand what I mean!
So I explain: its completely unlikely that more than half of the total number of T-34 tanks destroyed in battle, could be destroyed between march and september 1942 by Pz.III Ausf.J/L! Any explanation or justification for such a hypotesis is ridiculous, given the fact that the germans have modified the Pz.IV Ausf.F tanks for using the long 75mm L/43 gun precisely because of ineffectiveness in the fight of the Pz.III lang (Ausf.J/L). If the Pz.III lang would have achieved such success in the face of T-34, a progressive replacement of roles between the Pz.III and Pz.IV from 1943 would have had no justification! If you look at the table that I quoted, you'll understand that this is completely wrong! The author's conclusions, although relevant, are based on an obviously wrong table, so that they can only be wrong too! If the table would have indicated as a majority percentage of T-34 destruction the 75mm L/43 gun of the Pz.IV, a better gun then the T-34 one, the conclusions would have been completely different!
More that that in the footnotes is written:
"This table should be treated with caution, and some of the figures appear dubious. For example, it is highly likely that more T-34s were destroyed by long 75mm guns and these could easily have been mistaken by Soviet intelligence as long 50mm guns."

Yes, you are right, i didnt understand it seem, and i was in a hurry when i answered.

I think Germans used the P-III (improved already with the 50 mm long gun) because at first there was many lighter Soviet tanks, like BT-7, T-60 etc. P-III was able to fight sometimes even against T-34, but as T-34, an obviously better tank regarding armour, mobility and firepower, began to be encountered more and more, Germans upgraded their P-IV and mostly take out of service the P-III.

P-IV with 75 mm L/43 gun, even weaker as armour and mobility, was able to overcome many time the T-34, who lacked coordination (and radio station on board) and had a poor visibility and ergonomy for crew.

Russians responded with the modernized T-34/85, but German P-V Panther was still better (probably the best pverall tank of WW 2), except maybe reliability (as it was hurried in war).

P-VI Tiger had an even better/heavier armour then Panther, a bigger gun and same good optics and ergonomy, being better then KV-2 and IS-2 as firepower and roguely equal as armour protection i think.

Still Soviets produced lot more tanks (beside receiving over 11.000 armoured vechicles from Allies) and still their losses was huge, and just the opening of another fronts and Allied help (thru bombardments in Germany and material help send to USSR) help them to win.

If not that they would lose all the tanks and armoured vechicles they produced. It was a close shot for them, and they was helped by their numbers, the big space behind, to retreat there, and by Allied help.

They didnt had any significant superiority regarding the quality of their tanks (maybe IS-3 toward the end of the war to represent some advance, still not significant better then Tiger i think).

The loses in both humans and material was huge (around 10 millions soldiers dead, not counting the wounded and the prisoners, the armour vechicles losses appear in that article), and this is where i tend to agree with the author. Red Army wasnt anything special regarding combat qualities, which was reflected to their weaponry too.
Even when they was qualitatively superior in some aspects, it was the quantity who make them successful at the end

Looks like you have your mind already set about superiority of late war German tanks and the fact that SU would lose against Germany if not for the Allies so there is no point in continuing the discussion.

I will just point out that there is no general consensus which is better between Tiger and IS-2, and this can generate lengthy discussions without any conclusion.

See for example:
http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/sho...ead.php?t=85223
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=100861

Many of those who beleive that the Tiger was the best tank of the war conveniently forget how incredibly complex that interleaved running gear was. If they got any clods of dirt, ice/snow or even rocks in there, they quickly lost their efficiency and often failed altogether. If one of the inner rollers broke, changing it was a nightmare. Yeah, it had all sorts of bells and whistles and assortments of gubbins, but the running gear was its an Achille's heel. The Tiger Tank was Usain Bolt in ski boots. Good looking, full of potential, but hobbled.
The Russian IS2 on the other hand, although not that sophisticated, was more mobile.
Radu

The IS 2 was 12t ( or 23t vs. the KT ) lighter, more mobile, much better mileage and fuel consumption, lower, height, better armor protection all around and a gun adequate for a breakthrough tank ( punch through defense lines, not fighting other tanks ). It was probably the best tank of the war ( JS3 also ) considering its purpose.

Had they wanted it to fight other tanks, they could have used an 85mm or even 100mm tank gun.

@ Dragos

I can easily answer you in the same style, "you have your mind already set about superiority of late war Soviet tanks and the fact that SU would win against Germany/Axis alone and without any Allies involvement and help so there is no point in continuing the discussion".

Except that i was showing some numbers who speak by themselves (if that article is correct regarding the numbers, and i dont see why not)

Look some quotes:

"Soviet output during WWII was 99 150 fully tracked AFVs (including all types of assault and self-propelled guns) produced from June 1941 to May 1945, and an additional 11 900 tanks and self-propelled guns received via Lend Lease.(22)

..............This is Germany production........................

"A total of around 49 900 fully tracked AFVs out of a total production of 89 254 AFVs of all types. This represents around 50% of Soviet fully tracked AFV production during WWII. It should be remembered (a fact that seems to be often forgotten) that Allied strategic bombing reduced German AFV production by at least 10% in 1943, 40% in 1944 and even more during 1945, exactly when German AFV production had peaked."

"One very significant point about these figures is that if we remove the 11 900 AFVs received by the Soviets via Lend Lease, and allocate all German WWII fully tracked AFV production to the Wehrmacht’s East Front forces (i.e. add those lost fighting the Western Allies), then the Germans would have only needed kill loss ratio of 2.45 to 1 in order to have destroyed all Soviet fully tracked AFVs that existed on 22nd June 1941 (23 300 AFVs) and all 99 150 fully tracked AFVs produced during the war (122 450 AFVs). This figure is well below the 2.94 to 1 kill-loss ratio historically achieved. These figures demolish another more recently fashionable myth relating to the East Front; specifically that the Soviets (largely due to the huge number of T-34s produced) could have won WWII without any input from the US or Commonwealth forces."

So, in a one on one, Germany/Axis vs USSR, USSR will lose, if we look at that numbers.
If we look at the numbers of deaths, and how many soldiers they lost (including prisoners and wounded, other millions), Red Army looked quite different from the propaganda image in which they tried to depict themselves.

Combat quality was rather poor, and relied mostly on large numbers of troops used as cannon fodder, forced many times to battle by NKVD "death squadrons" from behind (not that Germans didnt do the same at some point).
Some weaponry categories was good, but tactics and training for use them was poor so this lead to huge number of losses.

Their biggest quality was their quantity and the big space they have behind, to retreat. Then German mistakes (especially rigidity in though and sometime a cut from reality way to see the things, based on their own propaganda or indoctrination, because in reality they wasnt quite all around superior to others, sometimes even contrary) and Allies help make them win at the end.

@ Radub and PaulC

Well, IS-2 was simplier and a bit more reliable then Tiger, and was more mobile. However, it has a weaker gun for AT role (i think the 88 mm Tiger gun had better penetration and was able to knock out a IS-2 before IS-2 122 mm larger projectile be able to take out the Tiger), weaker fire control and less ammo. Not to mention a much longer time for reloading compared with Tiger, which had almost 3 times more ammo and better optics and fire control.
Armour wise, maybe IS-2 have a better all around protection, but still Tiger had the better frontal protection, which in head on battle count the most.