Optimise the Red Army for World War 2

[marathag]

Thanks for that bit of creative writing. It was funny to read something that the ideological idiots in the Soviet Union might have said. On a serious note, if they had the time the T-34M would've been a big improvement, but they would've needed a few more months of peace. By 1941 all armies should've been convinced a 3-man turret was the way to go. But with the T-34 one revolution at a time was enough comrade.

With proper input of noticing what the British were doing with the A9, would have been worth losing some of the slope of the side armor from a roomier hull, and have a 3 man turret from the start. Armament, would have two types, the high velocity 57mm for AT use, and most with the L11 76mm and its wider selection of ammunition. The larger hull also allows each tank to be radio equipped, just as the larger T-28 had been.

 

[Bougnas]

With proper input of noticing what the British were doing with the A9, would have been worth losing some of the slope of the side armor from a roomier hull, and have a 3 man turret from the start. Armament, would have two types, the high velocity 57mm for AT use, and most with the L11 76mm and its wider selection of ammunition. The larger hull also allows each tank to be radio equipped, just as the larger T-28 had been.

Radios were a production problem, not a problem of room in the vehicle. Similarly the T-34 didn't even require a change in sponson slope to mount the larger turret ring, the T-34M only switched to reduced slope because the whole hull became narrower thanks to the space savings of ditching the coil spring suspension.

 

[marathag]

Radios were a production problem, not a problem of room in the vehicle. Similarly the T-34 didn't even require a change in sponson slope to mount the larger turret ring, the T-34M only switched to reduced slope because the whole hull became narrower thanks to the space savings of ditching the coil spring suspension.

Though could compare the space devoted to Radios in the M4 Sherman to the T-34/76, and note the Soviet trial reports with the 1940 model and trouble with the radio install.
The larger upper hull also helps with ergonomics.
Room for radio, room for turret basket, maybe room enough to get the fuel tank out of the crew compartment

 

[ObssesedNuker]

Lack of purges leading to Soviet doctrinal developments on defensive warfare not being disrupted, resulting the proper realization of a defense-in-depth by the early-40s. We also see an improved training cycle and less gutted engineer corps improving the efficiency of weapons development/production. Combine that with a more measured expansion of the Red Army in the '39-'41 period that does not overwhelm the ability of the training infrastructure to handle them.

Of course, the big flaw in the above is twofold. First, it requires not just one, but two PoDs (both a lack of purges and a more measured and rational expansion of the armed forces). Second, it rests on the assumption that the aforementioned Soviet doctrinal developments move in the right direction and don't take any "wrong" turns like they sometimes did both before and after the purges. This is far from guaranteed. After all, people generally forget that the Germans managed to get it right the first time largely through a combination of luck and some very intensive pre-war training exercises while the Anglo-French and Americans made plenty of doctrinal missteps of their own that took the hard experience of battle to correct.

 

[Capt Thunderbolt]

Thanks for that bit of creative writing. It was funny to read something that the ideological idiots in the Soviet Union might have said. On a serious note, if they had the time the T-34M would've been a big improvement, but they would've needed a few more months of peace. By 1941 all armies should've been convinced a 3-man turret was the way to go. But with the T-34 one revolution at a time was enough comrade.

Surplus T34M were fitted to standard T34 type hulls.

That's a lot simpler than changing whole hull for torsion bars ( higher wider hull with narrow tracks)

The turret bustle is the best place for radio. Not ammo. And no rotatory joint btw commander and hull radio.

57mm would become a serious consideration. Higher penetrating, better range, but needs a long slower HE-FRAG round. Overall probably a better armourment?

That assumes 57mm ZiS2 gun, and flow on.
Rifle division AT has 57mm, and possibly a mixed 57mm and 76mm direct /semi direct arty bn?

Same for regt, combine AT and inf gun companies, to have mixed fire (AT and Apres) to break up attacks.

122L19 howitzers changed to 122L30 gun-howiter, for much better divisional gun.

 

[marathag]

For better driver vision

 

[Belisarius II]

With proper input of noticing what the British were doing with the A9, would have been worth losing some of the slope of the side armor from a roomier hull, and have a 3 man turret from the start. Armament, would have two types, the high velocity 57mm for AT use, and most with the L11 76mm and its wider selection of ammunition. The larger hull also allows each tank to be radio equipped, just as the larger T-28 had been.

I'm confused. Are you suggesting that the T-34 should've had 2 guns in a very big turret? Fitting a 57mm gun along with the 76mm would make any tank cramped. Isn't this sort of a regressive move?

 

[marathag]

I'm confused. Are you suggesting that the T-34 should've had 2 guns in a very big turret? Fitting a 57mm gun along with the 76mm would make any tank cramped. Isn't this sort of a regressive move?

No, kind of the difference of AT/Close support-- like the 75mm Sherman and 17 pdr mix the British used.
Tanks normally should be shooting at infantry for the breakthru, but do need to deal with enemy armor when it appears
In 1940, it's hard to get a decent DP gun on a medium tank.

The early 76 has slightly less AP performance, but the 57mm flatter shooting. This is important, as the early T-34 only had a 2.5X magnification sight and nothing much in the sight to assist with rangefinging.
So the 57mm would be more effecting for the precise targeting needed for AT work

 

[Belisarius II]

No, kind of the difference of AT/Close support-- like the 75mm Sherman and 17 pdr mix the British used.
Tanks normally should be shooting at infantry for the breakthru, but do need to deal with enemy armor when it appears
In 1940, it's hard to get a decent DP gun on a medium tank.

The early 76 has slightly less AP performance, but the 57mm flatter shooting. This is important, as the early T-34 only had a 2.5X magnification sight and nothing much in the sight to assist with rangefinging.
So the 57mm would be more effecting for the precise targeting needed for AT work

I understand the difference in the performance of the 2 guns, but are you saying the T-34 should be armed with both?

 

[CaptainCalvert]

Germany used 37 or 50mm AT tanks with 75mm close support.
The British used 2 pounder and (not very good) 3" or 3.7" CS and later the Firefly/75 combo, while the US used 76mm and 75mm (and arguably the 105 as Close support).
Indeed the Soviets did field a T34/57 though in limited numbers.
I don't see any suggestion they should be, would be or could be using one of each just a mix of the two types. expected one of each in the same turret.

However, a twin turret variant like the Vickers 6E A or Polish 7TP A (but a bit bigger) might be quite amusing in something like World of Tanks.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

I don’t see much point in investing in a 76.2mm AND a 57mm armed T-34 any more than the OTL Soviets did. Ultimately, the F-34 armed T-34 was able to kill any commonly fielded German tank well into 1943, without sacrificing the anti-infantry firepower that outfitting the ZiS-2 entails. If whatever improved Red Army we’re speculating into existence (with the T-34M or the historical T-34/76) shuts down the German advance well-enough, then the Soviets should have the additional industrial breathing room to up-gun to the 85mm in mid-‘43 when the first Panthers and Tigers start hitting the field in serious numbers any way.

 

[tomo pauk]

IMO:
- 3-men turret from the get go for any 25+ ton tank
- use the equivalent of the 76.2mm USV gun & ammo as the 'sharp end' of the alt-T-34 and alt-KV-1 - these will deal with anything under 40 tons Germans can field, as well as any soft target the tanks usually are tasked to destroy
- upgrade to 85 mm by winter or 1941/42 in turrets; 100-107 mm as per SU-100, and 122 cannon or 152 mm gun-howitzer on the KV chassis; skip the SU-122 (howitzer on the T-34 chassis)
- have the long 76.2mm tank gun (derivative of the AA piece; roughly equivalent to the 75mm L48 KwK) on the back burner in 1939, when the 88mm AA piece is being introduced
- move to the 85mm-armed T-43 mid-war

 

[marathag]

Kwk 42 75mmL70 weight with mount 1860kg 2000 round tube life 6 rpm 12,000RM cost

KwK 36 88mmL56 weight with mount 1760kg 6000 round tube life 10 rpm 18,000RM cost
The weight is interesting, and the actual tube, muzzle brake and breech was roughly 330kg more on the Kwk36. The Kwk42 had far higher recoil and needed a more robust system than in the Tiger

 

[marathag]

I don’t see much point in investing in a 76.2mm AND a 57mm armed T-34 any more than the OTL Soviets did. Ultimately, the F-34 armed T-34 was able to kill any commonly fielded German tank well into 1943, without sacrificing the anti-infantry firepower that outfitting the ZiS-2 entails

I used to think the same over the role of the 57mm, till I reconsidered the state of Soviet optics. Yes, by 1943 the 76mm had been effective in improved form from the earlier, going from the 2000fps MV of the 30 caliber long L-11 to 2200fps of the42.5 caliber long F-34, but that still isn't as flat shooting as the 73 caliber long 57mm with 3300fps

While a near miss with a 76mm shell is likely to be effective against infantry, a near miss with 76mm AP is just a miss with an armored target.

A 57mm is more likely to get hits. flatter shooting, lower flight time making hitting moving targets easier.

 

[marathag]

And by 1943, the Soviet Optics would be improved with new sights with higher magnification and better light gathering and clarity, but I would rather they be on 85mm guns by this time, that would have HVAP at the speed of the earlier 57mm and regular AP at 2600fps

 

[marathag]

For the lighter T-50/70/80 and so on, would change the role slightly of these to be closer of the US M8 GMC, infantry support with a light 76mm gun
like the KT-76 a coaxial belt fed MG, than the one man turret and 45mm gun.

These would be regular turrets, not the open top dogma of McNair here.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

I used to think the same over the role of the 57mm, till I reconsidered the state of Soviet optics.

That can be solved by either better crew training so the gunner knows to take into account the greater "lob" on the F-34s trajectory or - even more easily - revamping the optics so it takes that into account. But again, until Tigers and Panthers start showing up, the F-34 can do the job just fine of killing any German tank on the field. A marginally greater increase in accuracy isn't worth the much more significant crimping of T-34 production with a parallel line of tanks fitted with a completely different gun.

 

[marathag]

That can be solved by either better crew training so the gunner knows to take into account the greater "lob" on the F-34s trajectory or - even more easily - revamping the optics so it takes that into account. But again, until Tigers and Panthers start showing up, the F-34 can do the job just fine of killing any German tank on the field. A marginally greater increase in accuracy isn't worth the much more significant crimping of T-34 production with a parallel line of tanks fitted with a completely different gun.

I don't know of any country that was practicing on moving vehicular targets before the war. Training is cheap, but every country seemed to skimp here
British did put effort on practicing shooting on the move at stationary targets, that ended up crippling limitations in design

US also started with free elevation with the M2 and early M3, but was working on the one axis automatic stabilizer, but was considered 'secret' so barely trained crews on how to use it-- again, on stationary targets

but early in the the war, it seems tat many gunners of Allied nations were rushed into combat, with having only fired live rounds on a real range only several times, everything else was classroom theory.

USSR had near a half dozen different T-34 Turret designs as it was, depending where they were built, so different types wouldn't be any more trouble than with the Shermans with 75mm, 76mm, 17pdr and 105mm main armament

Better Optics would be ideal, but that is probably harder to upgrade than just a change in gun tubes. But even with better optics, is still harder to hit with a more arcing trajectory than a flatter shooting one, as that takes much of the range estimation error out of the picture.

 

[Bougnas]

For the lighter T-50/70/80 and so on, would change the role slightly of these to be closer of the US M8 GMC, infantry support with a light 76mm gun
like the KT-76 a coaxial belt fed MG, than the one man turret and 45mm gun.

These would be regular turrets, not the open top dogma of McNair here.

Just don't make the T-60/70/80 at all, historians found that it was possible and more practical to just build T-34s at the nearby factory (instead of stopping at 1000) and set up the GAZ factory as a repair/truck/spare parts factory. These light tanks were not doctrinally necessary and were just a way for GAZ to participate in tank production even though in hindsight this was not necessary and the resulting vehicles were very bad.

 

[HexWargamer]

The Soviets massivly out-numbered the Nazi's in tanks, aircraft and men. The tanks were adequate, the aircraft somewhat less so but the troops were their real problem. They had good reason to fear their own side, especially the 'commisars', more than the enemy. This led to a lack of initiative and, even amongst the commanders, a fear of 'making the wrong decision' so leading to a 'pass it up the chain' approach.

The 'problem' the Soviets have is that oppressed men with parents and grandparents who have been starved to death by the Soviet system and seen their unit commanders 'purged' and sent to the Gulags tend not to make very enthusiastic soldiers. It took them a while to discover that Hitler's death squads were worse than Stalin's ....

Removing Stalin might well save the Red Army but it could equally lead to actual revolts by some of the oppresssed nations at some point during the 1930's ...