1. I don't know. Since the history already done, it hasn't left us another way. I have just one question for all armchair Napoleons: what are the practical benefits of such questions?
2. Another questions to beat the air. My point of view is following. All tanks are more or less equal because they are simply incomparable! One tank was lighter, the other was heavier. Which is better? I don't know. Do you?
3. This is still questionable. I have data that Dmitriy Fedorovich Lavrinenko had 52 confirmed kills for three months. He was killed in battle in December 1941.
In the George Forty's "Tank Action" book there is a mention about Guards Captain Konstanin Samokhin, during five months he was
credited with 69 German tanks, 13 other AFVs, 82 guns, 117 motor vehicles. He was killed on the February 23, 1942.
4. No. During the whole WWii the Russians had only two production rifles: the single-loading PTRD (Degtyarev's ATR) and the five-loading PTRS (Simonov's ATR). In August 1941, both rifles were accepted for service.
5. Yes they did have.
6. No, they look similar but they are different in fact.
7. All what I know, a pair Pz-III Ausf.G have been bought in Germany and shipped to the USSR after the non-aggression pact was signed. That speed was reached on the flat pavement road. That's all which have been documented. Unfortunately, there wasn't any additional information. You may suspect the document was faked, I can ask you: if you don't trust archival documents, what are you trust then?
8. No it wasn't. There are not any documented proofs. At the same time I admit that the British project brought some influence in the Soviet design.
9. No, it wasn't. There are not any documented proofs. The fact that the Grosstractor was tested in Russia cannot be considered as a proof. I admit however, it could bring a partial influence on the Soviet design but I'm still consider the T-28 as a "small brother" of the T-35 heavy tank.
10. Not one. I heard rumors that two T-28s were sold but I was unable to find out any documented proofs.
11. In fact, most of tanks had lesser speed, somewhat 43-45 km/h. Anyway, you should understand that all these characteristics are idealized. They depend of a year the tank was manufactured.
12. Why don't you ask Steven Zaloga instead? Without a doubt he would answer much better then me. Here is my explanation. From December 1941, according to GBTU's order, the T-34s scheduled to be manufacture with 60-mm frontal armor, but Soviet industry was unable to do it. When it become clear, the Russians attempted to fit some T-34s with additional 15-20 mm armor plates, usually 15 mm. Also, these plated allowed to be made of common (non-armor) steel plates. Thus, 45 + 15 = 60 mm. The armor thickness of various turrets was different. Welded turrets usually had a 45-mm armor; cast turrets were of 48-52 mm armor, some latest turrets were of 56-58 mm armor.
13. From October 1943, each tank had four sub-caliber rounds. HEAT rounds didn't use.
14. In tanks model 1940 and model 1941 there were 77 rounds. In tanks models 1942 with hexagonal turret there were 100 rounds: 21 armor-piercing rounds, 75 high-explosive rounds and 4 sub-caliber rounds (used from October 1943). Also, tanks could have some case-shot and shrapnel rounds (in this case the number of HE ammunition was accordingly reduced).
15. Here you are:
| 57 mm ZIS-4 | 76 mm L-11 | 85 mm D-5T (or D-5-T-85) |
| 57 mm ZIS-4M | 76 mm F-34 | 85 mm S-53 |
| - | 76 mm F-34M | 85 mm ZIS-S-53 |
16. Yes they had. From 1944 there were 4 sub-caliber rounds in every tank. HEAT rounds didn't used.
17. It had 55 rounds: 14 armor-piercing rounds, 36 high-explosive rounds and 4 sub-caliber rounds.
18. No, it wasn't changed. Some minor changes were made but it seems you're about more serious changes like armor thickness and angles, aren't you? If so, I may confirm that armor thickness and its angles weren't altered at all.
19. No, it didn't.
20. It was tested only. Three tanks were added to the "Special Tank Company #100" and tested on the Eastern front during Balaton Operation. Since it was single case, I do not consider it as "participation".
21. No, it had the torsion bar suspension.
22. No, it is false. The SU-85 had the 45 mm frontal armor. The SU-85M had the 75 mm frontal armor since it was based on the SU-100.
23. No, it is false. The SU-122 had the 45 mm frontal armor.
24. Sub-caliber ammunition occasionally used from autumn 1943. From 1944 there were 8 rounds in every SP gun. HEAT ammunition didn't use.
25. No, it didn't. The first 100 mm sub-caliber round was accepted after the end of the WWII.
26. Not as good as some further Soviet AFVs like the IS-2, the ISU-122 and the SU-100. However, the SU-152 was the first Soviet weapon that could defeat German "animals".
27. The Tiger could be knocked out even by a 152 mm HE round. Such a big projectile had enough explosion force to knock it out, may be not very well, may be not always, but it was able. All previous Soviet weapons were unable.
28. No, it didn't.
29. How many King Tigers fought on the Eastern front simultaneously? 100? 150? There were too little in number, besides by that time the Germans were far inferior in tactic and strategic and their mastodons were unable to do anything significant. All their victories were unimportant since the Germans couldn't fully exploit these benefits (in hope to get back superiority). They could delay Soviet advance for some hours, but not more. Same for Jagdtigers: they fought only a few battles in the Eastern Front - not enough to consider them as a important enemy.
30. No, it didn't.
31. It had 28 rounds: 10 armor-piercing rounds and 18 high-explosive rounds.
32. Such ammunition was very expensive for the Soviet industry. They didn't have it because it was considered as waste of materials and money. Common armor-piercing rounds (both AP and APHE) had enough force to penetrate most of German tanks.
33. This is still questionable. Only one can be said with certainty: the IS-3 did not participate the Eastern front theater. I heard rumors that some western source claims these tanks fought for Vienna and/or Berlin. Unfortunately, nobody could name these mysterious sources. Anyway, these tanks didn't fight any battles of the Eastern front simply because the very first unit was formed after the German capitulation.
Nevertheless, at least one tank regiment was sent to the Far Eastern Front just before the action against Japanese forces. However, Soviet battle records didn't confirm the presence any IS-3s in action.
34. According to theoretical data a 100 mm gun had better armor-piercing capability, but according to practical results 122 mm gun was superior, especially with its heavy projectile with the blunt tip. Besides, the high-explosive force of the 122 mm projectile was enough to damage tank's running gear and, to crack tank's armor.
35. The ZIS-3 gun was not antitank gun, it was divisional field gun. It could penetrate Tiger's side from 350-400 metres with an AP projectile. Tiger's front cannot be penetrated at all.
36. No, they had the same ballistic.
37. Only a minor differences concerning their installation. In fact, it was one gun: the 76 mm KT gun, where "KT" means "Kirovskaya tankovaya" (a gun developed by Kirov's factory). It was named KT-26 if installed in T-26's turret (T-26A and BT-7A), and it was named KT-28 if installed in T-28's turret (T-28 and T-35).
38. Yes, you are absolutely correct, this is the additional armor. In 1941, after detailed examination of the KV-1, its protection considered to be insufficient for tank of the such class. Since Soviet industry had many problems with manufacturing of thick armor, it was decided to increase KVs armor by fitting additional armor plates. All existing and all further KVs must been fitted with additional armor.
39. No, A.Morozov was Chief-engineer, that means he didn't design any part of the T-34 at all. That was an administrative post. The hexagonal turret was developed by the group of common Soviet engineers.
40. The DT only. DTM means "modernised DT" which has appeared in post-war time.
41. Both engines are good. The diesel fuel is much cheaper, this is especially important for a powerful tank engine which consumes tremendous amount of fuel. From the other hand, diesel engine more expensive in manufacture and also it demands more maintenance. The petrol engine is cheaper itself, but petrol fuel is much expensive then diesel. Also, petrol engine easier to operate and maintain. If concern the WWII era, I must say that the Russians did manufacture diesel fuel since it doesn't require HI-tech industry to be produced. Curiously, but the Germans didn't use diesel engines in Panzerwaffe because they could manufacture synthetic petrol but couldn't manufacture synthetic diesel. Also, 90% of their diesel fuel was consumed by the Kriegsmarine. Which engine is more powerful? The idea of a diesel engine supposed the engine to be much powerful. Look at the rail engines, heavy tracks, vessels etc. All of them use diesel engines. As for fire hazard, the petrol is easier to ignite, but easier to extinguish. The diesel fuel is harder to ignite but harder to extinguish. The war practice shows that in 90% cases the diesel could be ignited as well as petrol. So the problem was not "which is harder to ignite", but "which is easier to extinguish". Besides, the Germans used a petrol fuel with some chemical elements being dissolved in it and making the fuel harder to ignite. Burning diesel fuel causes terrible burns on the skin, the petrol doesn't cause such severe burns. Information about severe burns after diesel fuel was provided by Svetlana Vasil'evna Mrzha, medical officer, lieutenant-colonel in retirement, veteran of the GPW.
42. It depends of what you want. The Christie's suspension is very simple and cheap, it is good for untrained industry with limited possibilities. Unfortunately, the Christie's suspension is very high, this depends of tank's weight: the heavier tank the higher suspension should be. The torsion suspension more expensive and demands advanced industry to be properly manufactured, but it doesn't increase the tank's height.
43. This is incorrect question. First of all, the driving wheel itself does mean nothing because its location depends of location of the gearbox. And second, many Soviet tanks and SP-guns had the gearbox in the front. There are: T-26, T-27, T-37, T-38, T-40, T-50, T-60, T-70, T-80, ZIS-30, SU-76. So the correct question is: what advantages/disadvantages the gearbox location gains? Advantages of the frontal location of the gearbox: it can be of greater dimensions; the absence of control rods from the driver's station to the gearbox (these rods did brake often); the cardan shaft could be used also to traverse the turret. Disadvantage of the frontal layout: big problems with repairing the gearbox; to dismount it was needed to dismount the turret first. Advantages of the rear location: easier to maintain and repair the gearbox; since the gearbox was removed from the nose there is a chance to bevel the frontal glacis (BT, IS-3). Disadvantages of the rear location: a gearbox of limited dimensions could be used; the necessity of the electric motor to traverse the turret; unreliable control rods could broke in any time.
44. That was because the WWII era radios required an operator to do a lot more work than modern radios, the most of tanks had additional crewmember dedicated to be the radio operator.
45. The rubberized tracks provided much lower squeaking during movement, in addition they provided floating action of the tank's driving gear. At the same time, they were expensive and moreover, they could burned out if ignited. So the whole track could collapse and tank could be immobilized and quickly destroyed. Additionally, I may say that the Americans used their rubberized tracks and were quite satisfied their performance. From the other hand, the Russians and the Germans did use completely steel tracks and were satisfied too. The Russians, by the way, had an opportunity to test rubberized tracks and were disappointed by their performance. So, there isn't a simple answer.
46. There are two main reasons. First of them: the less engagement angle the longer path should the projectile pass to penetrate the thickness of the armor plate. And the second: the less engagement angle the bigger chance that projectile bounce off armor surface. For additional details I would suggest you read this page
47. 6'th Independent Guards Heavy Breakthrough Tank Regiment: 21 tanks;
11'th SGHBT Regt: 21 tanks;
14'th SGHBT Regt: 21 tanks;
29'th SGHBT Regt: 5 tanks;
48'th SGHBT Regt: 11 tanks;
71'st SGHBT Regt: 21 tanks;
72'nd SGHBT Regt: 18 tanks.
Prepared by:
|