Russian industry produced thousands of tanks but no APC’s. Was this due to philosophy of attack or some other reason? Of course, halftracks could be considered the only thing approaching a modern APC in usage but the Red Army did not use these. I would like some information about this.
I think the russian army did used land-leased american half-tracks ?
It all boiled down to production capacity. To build APC’s would have cut into the tank production programme. Clearly this could not be allowed.
US Lend Lease half tracks and White Scout cars were very popular with the Soviets.
They were well aware they lacked these vehicles and as soon as the war ended set about building APC’s.
Cheers, Ade. (A keen WW2 RKKA re-enactor ;))
Yes it actually was a lack of philosophy of “Tuhachevskij starategy”.
As fair as i know the initual plan of red Army was to use the simple trucks for transporting of the soldiers and wearponry behind the tanks armies.The Red Army had enough simple trucks, but many of them were lost in first period of war.Later whan Land lise has been accessible - the very useful were American trucks.
Additionally armored Studebekkers were widely used as a platform for BM-13 “Katusha”.
In this moment of war it has been considered to use simple trucks for transportation of infuntry in rear areas.
But in attack usially soviet infantry prefered the Tanks. They sited from adove and move with tanks:)
Therefory you might often see the simular photos
Not very comfortable but enough effective:)
But untill the end of the war the SOviets feels a lack of the Special APC.
The soviet mass production was concentrated on the Tanks an Self-propelled guns.
Immediatelly after the war the soviet industry had began to produse the APC
The first was the BTR-40 ( 1948).The prototype was the american Scout Car M3A1
As pointed out, Soviet production was really focused on couple of “products” - locomotives, tractors etc were not considered critical. Had the war lasted several years longer, one-sided production may have created problems.
_
Quite frankly, they didn’t consider their combat troops as valuable a commodity as other countries did. It was cheaper to supply more recruits than to build/use specialized vehicles to transport and protect them. “Let 'em walk behind a tank” was what you’d have heard Soviet commanders say. More likely, “Soviet troops have no business cowering behind our glorous armour. They should be charging at full run against the enemy.”
Just do not need to spread the pro-nazy ideas in spirit of doctor Goebbels:)
Specially for you to know- the infantry always should attack the enemy line behing the tanks “at full run”.
Beeing in APC ( even armored) would be TOO Good target for enemy artillery.
One shot and everybody in APC is dead. Compare with of tanks - the armor of APC is very weak.
The Soviet troops were trasported with the trucks in rears.
Indeed the Red Amry have enough trucks befor the war.
During the war the lend lise provided trucks- so soviet economy was concentrated on tank prodactions.
This was very true decision in that time- the APC did not played the serious role as tanks and self-propelled artillery had, even in Allies armies.
Here is one more argument agains the wheeled APC for Red Amerny service.
As you know the whells vehicles are pretty effective only on good roads. This is permissible for the Western Europe and USA.
However in the russian conditions this is quite uneffective.
As you know the speed of the T-34 is over 50 km/hours, its cross-country ability is very high. No one trucks or Wheeled APC could not be even compared.
So the Red Army soldiers simply prefered to travel from above armor of the tanks then use the Trucks and Jeeps:)Especially during flood spring/ autumn seasons.
The GErmans have developed the special half-track APC SdKfz 251.
However it was relatively expensive and unrealible vehicle. The Fully track APC were used relatively rare.
Just the Kangaroo APC on chassis of Sherman, Churchil., primiraly for the military recognizions unists.
But this way was not righ- you need the tank shassis to produse one APC.
But combat value of Tank is much more higher then APC one.SO you need to reduse the tank production for the APC - this is very expensive way.
Only after the ww2 were developed effective the special Track APC like M113, BMP-1/2 or Bradley,
Those are good points. APC technology was still in its infancy. The American Half-Track was a good vehicle, but I think it was expensive and produced at the the sacrifice of other vehicles and equipment. And I think the nature of armored warfare was still misunderstood as the Germans managed to drive deeply into France with mostly tanks and few accompanying infantry to support them. Had the French bothered to produce more anti-tank guns or had they invented a “Bazooka” like device giving the infantry a truly effective weapon, things might have been a little different. The advent of individual soldiers carrying relatively small weapons that could kill tanks is what later necessitated soldiers in AFVs staying with the tanks… And I think we can point to the fact that the Germans also had no true APC widely available…But the USSR did have a number of M-3s…
Actually it did used the number of lend lise half-tracks during the was.
That’s i dig up.
Что касается Советского Союза, то, по американским данным, ему было передано 1158 полугусеничников. В том числе: 342 единицы М2, два-М3, 401 - М5 и 413 - М9. По последним данным, опубликованным российскими исследователями, СССР получил 1200 полугусеничных бронетранспортеров, из которых в бронетанковые и механизированные войска Красной Армии направлено всего 118.
Все они поставлялись в 1942 году и распределялись между разведывательными подразделениями и командованием танковых корпусов и армий. Основная же масса этих машин направлялась в артиллерию (главным образом в истребительно-противотанковую), где использовалась для буксировки орудий, в том числе 85-мм зенитных пушек 52К образца 1939 г. и 100-мм противотанковых пушек БС-3 образца 1944г." (М. Барятинский).
The USSR has got about 1158 half-truck APC :
342 M2,
2 M3( !!!),
401 M5,
419 M9.
Most of them have been used as artillery tow for AT/AA artillery units
The Red Army has recieved only 118 half-trucks that were used mostly for reconnaissance aims and for transportation the hight-command stuff of Armies.( i.e as the pesonal carrier of hight generals:))
So in fact the Soviet Infantry did not ever see the Lend lise APC.
They had to use the armor of tanks or trucks.
The Soviets also received a number of British Bren Gun carriers, equiped with Brens and Boys anti-tank rifles. While some definatly saw frontline service, I suspect most were used behind lines as tractors or for driver training.
I did read one account from an American Airman who was in a POW camp liberated by the Russians, where he mentions talking to a Russian gunner on an American half-track. But that meeting occured well behind the front line.
Every so often you see photos of Soviets driving American jeeps, half-tracks or DUK scout cars.
I’m sorry not only are you insulting in your adressing of fellow forumers but you’re either ignorant or blatantly lying.
Zhukovs most famous quote and actual tactic of clearing the minefields was having infantry go through them, other than that theres the case of Stalins line in 1941 and the fact that russian troops in Stalingrad were in the critical weeks issued one gun per 3 man team ( no its not Holywood movies but historical facts ).
Russian high command didnt care nor did it value lives of their soldies and squqandered them generously, even if 3 russians died for a single german it was an acceptable attrition rate.
That is one reason why russians didnt build any IFV the other one is lack of resources and technical knowledge.
Despite the common belief Russia was quite strapped for resources losing a third of its factories and having to rely on lend lease to provide more specialized materials and parts, Russians all the way up to 1943 could not afford R&D to build an actual personnel carrier, every APC not built was a tank or an artillery piece that was actually built and soldiers were the least valuable of all army assets in Russia.
Zhukovs most famous quote and actual tactic of clearing the minefields was having infantry go through them, other than that theres the case of Stalins line in 1941 and the fact that russian troops in Stalingrad were in the critical weeks issued one gun per 3 man team
It was not only Zhukov,… his best buddy as well
Until recently the Russians had claimed that they lost 10,000 men during the battle for the Seelow Heights and 100,000 in Berlin. The actual figures are unknown. Yet no less than 30,000 Red Army soldiers were killed at Seelow, and the staggering figure of 600,000 killed in Berlin seems more plausible. Konev complained at one point that he was losing 1,000 men a day because Zhukov’s artillery failed to shift fire when asked. Zhukov denied that allegation, stating that Konev was not using his troops intelligently
But you did mentioned;
Russian high command didnt care nor did it value lives of their soldies and squqandered them generously
That is a fat blatant lie, germans used SDKFZ series halftracks for all duties from towing to transport even narrower tracks did not really stop the vehicles from being effective, tracked or halftracked APCs had splendid offroad capabilities in Russia.
That my good sir is rubbish, Greyhounds which passed through muds of Ardens, muddy roads that were just as bad as russian ones moved at 30 mph ( see malmedy massacre report ) whereas T-34 as with most tanks could not exceed 10 mph in the same conditions due to its weight, the 50km/h speed is the one T-34 could achieve in best possible conditions not its general offroad speed.
Red army soldiers preffered squat, they were ordered by Zhukov to ride atop tanks, then other commanders mimicked him, this again reflected lact of respect towards troops safety as such way of transportation left them exposed and resulted in high casualities.
I’m sorry ? Rare ? Both 250 and 251 were built in thousands and used in every role from troop transport through mortar carrier to anti-tank versions, despite the front wheels being unpowered they were extremely reliable and usefull vehicles with excellent offroad capability, they contributed greatly to the success of blitzkrieg.
Actually no, halftracks which did the job just fine in Russia did not require any sort of tank chassis, neither did 3x3 greyhounds which coincidentally were fully whelled and did splendid offroad and in conditions equal to the russian ones.
Russians did not built APCs because they didnt value the lives of their men, because they didnt have resources and most importantly because the employment of APCs required sophisticated strategies that eluded russian general staff hellbent on winning by attrition rather than skillfull strategy.
The tables of organization & equipment of the RKKA for 1942-45 show most of the halftracks used by reconissance units. A few seem to have been part of the tank and assualt artillery regiments but for what purpose I’m unsure.
The US Army found them unsuitable for use as assualt vehicals. The usual tactic was to dismount the infantry and use the MG mounted on the halftracks for supporting fires. Perhaps the Germans did the same as they added many infantry support and AT/AA weapons on their halftracks.
The Gemans frequently had infantry riding tanks. Particularly from 1942. In the winter of 1944-45 The US army begain mounting riflemen on the tanks. For both the US Army and Germans photographs and eyewitness accounts of this practice are common. The eywitness accounts also make it clear the prefered practice was to dismount before the shooting started.
A very wise practice if, among other things, there was any risk of canister shot being fired in their general direction.
Obviously.
Your flapping bladder performs the same function as lips on other people. It is how you make words and sentences, which are all just piss in the wind.
Did you get a particularly good bottle of Polish hooch tonight, or have you spent your unmissed absence from the forum dreaming up this and your other pearls of Polish insight?
My understanding is that Poland is largely Catholic.
You might benefit from seeing a priest
Or a psychiatrist.
You see and you were laughing at me when I said that Stalin was afraid of Polish intervention. Were not you?
Well, I don’t want to reopen old wounds but, so far as Covenanter is concerned, you do have a point. 