Saddling the iron horse: How Soviet tanks were born and bred

[delete1]

Saddling the iron horse: How Soviet tanks were born and bred

Russia is today considered one of the world’s leading nations in tank design, but in the early 20th century it lagged well behind in the field and had to make up an enormous technical gap between itself and the leading powers of the era. The story of how the Soviet Union caught up with its rivals in the space of just a few years is a remarkable tale of opportunism and determination.

http://rbth.com/defence/2015/05/11/sadd ... 45845.html

[Mad Russian]

The Soviet's never lagged behind anyone in tank design. At the worst they were in the same league as everyone else. The only issue with most tanks of the era was they didn't have a radio.

I read somewhere that in the first few months of Operation Barbarossa the Germans only captured 4 radios.

Good Hunting.

MR

[ivanov]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

The Soviet's never lagged behind anyone in tank design.

They did. Well into 1930's Soviet Union didn't possess well designed domestic built tanks. As the article points out, the first good Soviet tanks like BT were influenced by Walter Christie's design. Until Stalin's massive industrialization programs Red Army had very few tanks and till the beginning of the war, it still didn't develop sound doctrine of the tanks use. First Soviet tank force was organized in enormous brigades, and then into a gigantic tank corps, that proved too big and too heavy.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: katukov


They did. Well into 1930's Soviet Union didn't possess well designed domestic built tanks.

That was 2/3 of all the nations that had tanks in their inventory. The German tanks were the only ones with radios. That was the main difference between all of them. Almost without exception all the nations were experimenting with infantry support tanks, armor pure tanks and hybrids. Many nations thought bigger was better.

Before taking the Soviets down a level for all their different projects you should note the Germans. Who had basically the same types of vehicles on their own drawing boards and in addition, used Czech tanks through the end of 1941 because their own tanks were lagging.

I know this will come as a surprise to many of us, me included at times, but just because something is put on the internet doesn't make it true.

Good Hunting.

MR

[ivanov]

The tank development didn't commence in the 1930, it wasn't limited to Soviet Union and Germany and it shouldn't be viewed only from the WW2 perspective. In the 1920's Soviet Union and Germany weren't seriously developing domestic tank designs ( each of them for different, reasons ) and if the article mentions that at some stage SU lagged behind in this field, it refers to this simple fact ( Germany also lagged behind UK or France for a long time). To anyone interested in the subject I recommend the books of Russian authors such as Vladimir Beshanov or Mark Solonin.

[Tazak]

The interwar period saw tank design vary wildly between the bigger nations and world wide only a handful of 1930's designs ever survived Darwin's law during the war.

The British high command didn't hold much value in work Fuller & Liddell Hart did on tank doctrine until the Germans showed the world "blitzkrieg" until then they had either 'cruiser tanks' whose mission was 'antitank role' equipped with 2pdr guns with mainly AT rounds and nearly no HE ammo or close support tanks who carried more far more smoke than HE rounds.

Never underestimate the Russians, they have repeatedly shown they are capable of having some surprising edges in technology ERA/APS and they were experimenting with thermal imaging in 1963 but felt IR technology was the way forward so abandoned further research (okay they missed a trick with that one).

[ivanov]

ORIGINAL: Tazak

The interwar period saw tank design vary wildly between the bigger nations and world wide only a handful of 1930's designs ever survived Darwin's law during the war.

The British had some good designs. For example the Vickers Mark E. While it didn't enter the service with British army, it's license was bought by the Soviets and the Poles. Improved licensed Soviet version entered the production as T-26 ( 12 000 built ). Polish version was known as 7TP, and was superior in almost every aspect to the German Panzer II, however it lacked the radio.

Vickers Mark E


imagen jpg


T-26


sube imagenes


7TP


sube imagenes

ORIGINAL: Tazak
Never underestimate the Russians, they have repeatedly shown they are capable of having some surprising edges in technology ERA/APS and they were experimenting with thermal imaging in 1963 but felt IR technology was the way forward so abandoned further research (okay they missed a trick with that one).

I appreciate your effort in bringing this discussion back on the Cold War tracks [:D]

[Tazak]

ORIGINAL: katukov

The British had some good designs. For example the Vickers Mark E. While it didn't enter the service with British army, it's license was bought by the Soviets and the Poles. Improved licensed Soviet version entered the production as T-26 ( 12 000 built ). Polish version was known as 7TP, and was superior in almost every aspect to the German Panzer II, however it lacked the radio.

The British returned the favour when they saw the BT series using the Christie suspension, and borrowed the design aspect for the A13 cruiser tank

I appreciate your effort in bringing this discussion back on the Cold War tracks [:D]

I try [;)]

[delete1]

Interesting discussion!

Here a couple of more interesting articles. Of course as MR mentioned "just because something is put on the internet doesn't make it true", but at least it comes as starting point for a nice exchange of information.

Out of invaders’ reach: Uralvagonzavod, heart of Russia’s tank industry

In 1936, construction of a giant new factory was completed in the taiga of the Urals region in a record period of five years. The timing was perfect, coinciding with the outbreak of the war in 1941 and providing a strong production base for hastily evacuated factories from the Soviet Union’s European part. Over the years, the Uralvagonzavod plant became the heart of the USSR’s tank industry.

http://rbth.com/defence/2015/07/13/out_ ... 47707.html)

Christie’s chassis: An American tank for the Soviets

Keen to catch up with the military technology of the Western powers at the turn of the 1930s, the Soviet Union seized the opportunity of purchasing the chassis of a groundbreaking new tank from U.S. engineer John Walter Christie. Although the vehicle required further adaptation for the battlefield, by World War II it had become one of the most common tanks in the Red Army.

American engineer John Walter Christie had his share of flunked designs while creating a fundamentally new and effective tank for the U.S. military in the 1920s. First his vehicle was too cramped for the crew and shook too much when in motion. Then the U.S. Marine Corps rejected his amphibious variant. Christie’s passion, however, was for designing speedy light-weight tanks that could launch lightning strikes at the enemy and then drive a deep wedge through the breach. The same tactic was favoured by the Soviet military command, and so the two sides were destined to pool their resources ahead of the Second World War

http://rbth.com/defence/2015/05/18/chri ... 46135.html)

[Mad Russian]

So then, what can we learn from the Ukrainian theater at the moment?

I believe the important lessons are in tactics and procedures as well as capabilities. The West has a set idea of what they believe the Soviet military is capable of. You never know for sure if those perceptions of a nations military forces are accurate until they are in combat. The equipment is often the hardest to judge because it's effectiveness is subjective to the equipment it's facing. An example would be the M1A1 vs an Iraqi T-72 instead of a Soviet one. Such things as tactics, training levels, EW application, etc. are easier to judge. IMO, this is where both NATO and the Soviet Union gain valuable insights into the other sides capabilities.

I used WW2 examples in my earlier posts to make the points clearer. Most people know about PzII's and T-26's and if they don't they are easily researched. I'm happy to come back to the modern day discussion with you.


Good Hunting.

MR

[Tazak]

2 good example are:

The 1973 yom kippur war - this saw 1960's NATO vs WP equipment pitted against each other, on paper the arab forces had the advantages to overrun the Israeli forces (and nearly did in the beginning) but better tactics and training/morale gave a key edge to the Israelis

The first gulf war between Iran and Iraq, saw western equipment vs soviet equipment, during operation Nasr on paper Iran had the advantages but poor planning/recon/use of ground/support lead to Chieftain tanks taking heavy losses to T55 tanks