The fire control optics of many soviet tanks were inadequate, even to the T-54. and T-62. they were designed more for close in fighting, 1/2 mile or less, to be most efficient. excellent for a massed attack, but not too good out beyond 1,200 mtrs.
For the U.S., the armor doctrine of the 60’s and 70’s reflected this in the use of what was called “Battle Sight” the computer was set for HEAT ammo and the range set to 1,100 mtr. This was expected to produce a hit in most all situations of close range combat situations.And by eliminating the steps of indexing ammo, and ranging, it saved valuable time in target engagement.
Not only to Russian eh,… even to western,… leitz and zeiss are still the best optics you could possible have,…
Interesting,. to my curiousity,. why in the first place, they putting those 85, 100, 122 then?,. should they actually intend to use it at a closer range,…
shoot by chance?
My meaning was not in the refractive qualities of the optics, but in their simplicity. The fairly crude sighting was not very helpful at distance,and even when technology was available to make the later tanks, (the T-54 through T-62), far more effective in battle, they were not upgraded, but left as is, If I recall correctly the 54’s had no basket floor in the turret, requiring the crew to walk around with it as it traversed, feeding the main battery from the floor mounted storage. This made it a very slow firing tank.
Other tanks of the 50’s and 60’s had range finders, and ballistic computers, to allow for accurate, fast firing even at great range.One cannot expect the T-34 to have such equipment,and as its main battery was too small for reliable use at range,(tank to tank) but it was set up well for close engagements from 300-600mtr, and maybe with luck to 1,000 mtr, but accurate laying of the gun was far more difficult at that range. Several shots may be needed to gain a hit on target.
Now I’m not saying that the U.S. or the German’s had anything more sophisticated,(during WWII) except perhaps in the quality of the reticles, and mechanical function of the fire control equipment.And yes, the Zeiss, and Leitz lens elements.
thank you sir,. well explained and understood,… so it is then shoot by chance to hit the target yes,…
The size of the gun is immaterial if the fire control system is incapable of allowing the crew to put a round on the target in time.In a tank to tank engagement, the one to strike first is the winner 99% of the time. At 1,000mtr. even a tank is quite small through the scope,and there is no time to get picky about laying the gun, so it does often come to a “poke,and hope” situation.The only alternative is to close the distance, and lessen the chance for error in aiming.
In a massed armor assault,unlike a tank to tank fight, there is no need for concern, as at distance, when firing upon the oncoming formation, if you miss the one you aimed at, you may well strike another one near them. and once the lines merge, and mingle, its all shooting from the hip so to speak, at ranges down to 50 mtr. (this is where the T-34 would excell , and did, despite the slow traverse speed of its turret.)
Is it safe to say that,. heavier German tanks,. when engaging enemy,. they will prevail better in a longer range yes?,.and not at a close combat situation,… is this could explain also why on German tankers score more than allied counter parts? as they performed basic method of Anti Tank Unit,…
It would depend on which German tanks were taking part in the engagement. early on, there was only the lightly armored PKW 1,2,and 3, then when the 4 was introduced, thing became a bit more serious. The 2’s and 3’s were not heavily armored, and would be as vulnerable as any other tank of that weight.the crux was in the main battery weapon. Most of the early ones were small bore, 20mm to about 40-50 mm., with fairly short in calibers of length. (the bore diameter divided into the length of the gun tube.) This gave low muzzle velocities, and was a true shortcoming in most armored vehicles of the time.The short tube was a vestigial remnant of tanks being used only as infantry support vehicles It was thought that the caliber of the main gun should not be so great as to allow the muzzle to extend beyond the ends of the tank, to protect the tube from damage.This erroneous thinking was soon discarded once the realities of tank to tank fighting revealed the flaw.These early main battery weapons were not real fire breathers at any significant range.
Once the longer main gun tubes began appearing, velocities, and hit/kill ratios ,began to rise. This catalyzed the up armor programs for all vehicles fielded at the time,with some being relegated to scouting, and recon duty because they were no longer viable skirmish machines.This also brought about the newer, more heavily armed, and armored German tanks.
so, now to your idea, at this point, the German tanks, had sufficient firepower, and protection to better withstand the opposing fire at distance, and to deliver higher hit/kill ratios. German face hardened, hot rolled armor was difficult to hole, sometimes even at closer ranges. (a sad truth faced by all Sherman, and Stuart crews.) Smart gunnery held some degree of sway, but one on one, there was no contest. This balance swung the opposite direction with the advent of the heavy Soviet tanks and tank destroyers. where their huge main guns, could at most ranges hole the German armor, or at least produce enough damage to influence the outcome of an engagement. And then, it came down to who can get the first hit the fastest, which brings us back to interior turret layouts, and fire controls. The better one’s fire control, the higher the first round hit/kill probability. A few seconds matter more than the bore diameter of the gun, or the round it fires.
German face hardened, hot rolled armor was difficult to hole, sometimes even at closer ranges. (a sad truth faced by all Sherman, and Stuart crews.) Smart gunnery held some degree of sway, but one on one, there was no contest. This balance swung the opposite direction with the advent of the heavy Soviet tanks and tank destroyers. where their huge main guns, could at most ranges hole the German armor, or at least produce enough damage to influence the outcome of an engagement. And then, it came down to who can get the first hit the fastest, which brings us back to interior turret layouts, and fire controls. The better one’s fire control, the higher the first round hit/kill probability. A few seconds matter more than the bore diameter of the gun, or the round it fires
.
Fully agreed, that why the Js-2 in 1944 as sometimed the Black beast for the german panzer it had a 122 mm gun and a stereoscopical rangefinder.
But more important his crew was definately better trained that those of the T-34 in 1941-42.
How true my friend, it took real guts, and presence of mind to win in a one on one battle in the early 40’s, (and a large load of luck) by the 70’s it was more like a video game, rangefinders, connected to a computer that took into account the ammo being fired, the bore wear of the tube, and through these the gun was set to land a shot on target by the gunner just placing the aiming cross on the target. Add to that the fierce munitions available, APDS,and HEAT, and all one need do is touch the opposing tank, and he is holed.A first round can be fired in as little as 5 seconds,(3 using “Battle Sight”) the whole deal being over in 12- 15 seconds. The doctrine being for two rounds into the enemy before closing fire.
Though in these modern times the whole business is different with the Chabham armor. Now, as in the 40’s you really have to work for the kill.
Items sold for export are marked Germany, Deutchland is for domestic consumption.
By my reference I believe this is a late 1942 to an early 1945 model of T-34. Several facts give that away but most notably the cylindrical external fuel tanks on the hull sides are a dead giveaway.
(T-34 Mythical Weapon by Robert Michulec and Mirostaw Zientarzewski)
The treaty was essentially broken with Russia and Germany in 1941.
I have no explanation of the bearings other than prior to Germany’s invasion of Russia armor experts from Russia had even toured German tank factories and it’s possible an exchange of material had gone on up to that point?
Destroying a T-34, one of his crew captured, ww2 amateur video of german soldier.
Minute 1:00 to 2:50.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyVy0IESPW8
one other important factors to do so was the increase of the speed of the rounds up to 1500m/s with flat curve trajectory to allow such settings.
I found this in the net
I don’t know is it real. This is Googletranslation from Swedish:
T-34 airborne tank was an attempt to obtain a 1945 wagon that could be transported by air.
T-34 was based in part on T-34 medium with three wheels on each side that made the wagon
very bad terrängegenskaper(crosscountry?) why there was no production of the vehicle.
Does anybody has any infos?
Hahaha, that looks funny. If the Soviets made many of those(and made them work like a normal T-34 or a T-34/85) they could have been much better than the normal sized ones; easier to conceal and produce.
it was a awsome tank
![34battle2xs6[1].gif](https://discuss.ww2incolor.com/uploads/default/original/2X/3/3197dfa3c17c7e5cd67f055447a6894627e8a1c7.gif)
That’s Chevan’s sig…
i would rather be in a t-34 then a sherman getting attacked
Excelent video showing 50 mm german antitank gun in action against the T-34.