Cheating at Statistics

“I must say, that the increase in dead and wounded was greatly inconvenient for German officials, filtering information from the front, and attempting to present it in the best possible light. As one of them admitted to me later, they worked on the principle of “Let us lose the war in reality, but we must win it on paper.”” - Hendrick C. Verton, In the Fire of the Eastern Front, The Experiences of a Dutch Waffen-SS Volunteer, 1941-1945

In the wake of the apparently controversial M4 vs Panther myth article, I was asked to write a similar article for the Eastern Front. However, since there is no “authority” on the subject that claims any kind of ludicrous ratio like Belton Cooper did for the Western, I’m going to have to do my own legwork.

Continue reading

Historical Accuracy: T-50 and Soviet Lights

The Soviet light tanks are being reshuffled from patch 8.6 to patch 8.7, as many of you already know. The ahistoric T-50-2 is going away, being replaced by the long-awaited MT-25. The T-50 is also being nerfed. Let’s look at how all of these adjustments fit into the pages of history.

The T-50 was meant to replace the T-26 as the RKKA’s infantry support tank. The task of designing it and building two prototypes was given to two factories: factory #174 and the Kirov factory. The results were somewhat different. Let’s look at what the two factories ended up producing.

Factory #174 followed the order more closely than its competitor. Its design was 13.5 tons in mass, was fitted with either a 300 hp or 250 hp engine (later upgraded to 350 hp), and had a maximum theoretical speed of 50 kph (trials showed a maximum speed of 52 kph). Two prototypes were built to these specifications, indexed T-50-1 and T-50-2. Later, the requirements for the tank were increased. The mass went up to 14.5 tons, and front armour was increased to 50 mm, both on the hull and turret. A subsequent order increased that requirement to 55 mm all around.

Riding on the success of the KV series, Kirov factory’s project bureau was a bit of a prima donna. Its design deviated from the project specification, which #174′s engineers took issue with. The result was a tank that weighed 13.8 tons, and was capable of reaching 65 kph on the same 300 hp engine as the #174 prototype. Kirov’s prototypes were not accepted into service, but fought to defend the factory during the Siege of Leningrad.

Kotin did not give up on his design, and proposed a new one: a 25.5 ton tank equipped with 60 mm of sloped armour, a 76 mm gun, with a maximum speed of 40 kph. Since this was basically a T-34 on torsion bars (and factory #183 could make a better T-34 on torsion bars), the project was rejected.

The MT-25 has nothing to do with any of these projects (as is correctly indicated by its research path). The tank was intended to take advantage of breaches in the enemy’s defense. Like the T-34, it was meant to tear through, and cause as much chaos in the rear as possible. In order to achieve this, it was planned with very high speed, maneuverability, and resilience (damage to half of the road wheels did not immobilize the vehicle). The maximum speed of this tank was 100 kph. The tank’s armament was a “47 mm gun and 3 machine guns”. It is unclear what 47 mm gun the designers had in mind. The schematics show a cannon highly reminiscent of the L-11 gun, the same as was mounted on early T-34s.

Now, let’s see where the in-game vehicles fit in. Let’s start with the obvious one, the MT-25. Its speed is drastically reduced from historical. I don’t have data on its armour layout, but the armament seems feasible. Anything carrying an L-11 could carry an F-34 or ZiS-4.

The T-50s become a bit more problematic. There are several historical designs, and several in-game ones. Let’s mix and match.

The pre-patch T-50 has a maximum speed of 60 kph, with engines ranging from 300-550 hp. The tank weighs 13 tons. The armour of the tank maxes out at 37 mm. This appears to be the initial factory #174 vehicle, before any of the upgrades, but with a fancy new engine. It is plausible that, with such an engine, it would reach 60 kph.

The post-patch T-50 has a maximum speed of 52 kph, with the same armour. The engines have been scaled back. Not only is the prototype engine gone, so is the “top” historical 350 hp one. Wargaming rounds up the tank’s mass to 13.5 tons.

The T-50-2 is interesting. Obviously, it’s quite a bit faster than any of the T-50s (even the Kirov factory one!). Then again, it gets that fancy 550 hp engine. The historical blurb seems to suggest that the T-50-2 is Kirov’s prototype, so perhaps doubling the horsepower squeezed an extra 7 kph out of the design. As with the #174 design, none of the armour upgrades have been added.

Where does this leave us? Well, it leaves us with the two best T-50s missing: Kirov’s (with its 65 kph speed limit) and #174′s (with its 55 mm of armour at the same 52 kph speed limit). Maybe Wargaming is saving them for the moment where upgradeable hulls are implemented. Or, perhaps, an entire new Soviet light tree! With a little extra shuffling and finagling, it would be very possible to shove the upgraded #174 design into a tier 5 light slot (with medium matchmaking, like the Crusader), the Kirov T-50 into the tier 6 slot, and continue with crazy Soviet light tank projects from there.

Gloomy Teutonic Genius: Edward Grotte

In the late 1920s, the USSR discovered that they were kind of screwed as far as tank building went. The MS-1 tank was no longer capable of meeting the requirements of modern war, not to mention the aged tanks captured during the Russian Civil War from the interventionist forces.

The way taken out of the situation was very reasonable: hire foreign specialists, have them build tanks at Soviet factories, let Soviet engineers and workers gather valuable experience. Unfortunately, the foreign specialists gathered for the task were not so reasonable. One of these specialists was Edward Grotte. Grotte worked for the USSR for less than two years (March of 1930 – fall of 1931). However, he managed to produce a number of interesting ideas in the meantime.

In March of 1931, Grotte proposed two variants of a monstrous tank. 1000 tons, with either 3 or 6 turrets, armed with 304 mm, 152 mm, 76 mm, and 45 mm cannons (two of each!). 40 people serviced this mobile fortress. Front armour was 300 mm thick, the sides were 250 mm. The tank would be propelled to 60 kph by an assembly of engines totaling 24 000 hp. The tank would have electric controls and a hydromechanical transmission. If you thought that the T95′s double tracks were impressive, think again. Grotte’s creation had three sets.

grote-1

Grotte’s sketch of his 1000 ton tank project

 

Grotte’s main creation was much more reasonable: Tank Grotte, a medium breakthrough tank, was only 25 tons in mass, was armed with a 76.2 mm Grotte-Sechyantov gun and a 37 mm gun in a turret above it, kind of like the M3 Lee. Also much like the Lee, the main gun could not rotate all the way around. It was limited to aiming 10 degrees each way, with -8 degrees of gun depression. The 37 mm PS-1 gun in the turret could depress to an impressive -12 degrees. The tank also had five machine guns. The much more realistic 250 hp engine provided a maximum speed of 35 kph. An interesting feature of the tank was emergency brakes, meant to stop the tank as quickly as possible in the event of a damaged track. One of these tanks was built and tested, but proved too complicated and unreliable to mass produce.

grote-3

TG medium breakthrough tank: with tracks removed (top) and on (bottom).

 

In March of 1932, Grotte was back to heavy tanks. The TG-VI 3 was only 70-75 tons, a far cry from his kiloton monster. Armour of the tank was between 60 and 70 mm, and it was armed with two 45 mm guns and one 76 mm semi-auto gun or 100 mm gun. An 850 hp engine would push the tank to a reasonable 30 kph. This tank did not go very far, but far enough to serve as a base for the T-42 project. This tank was more optimistic, at 100 tons, with a 2000 hp engine for its rated 30 kph speed (or only 18 kph, if he only had the 850 hp M-34 engine). The T-42 had a 107 mm gun in its central turret (270 degree traverse), a 76 mm gun in the front turret (202 degree traverse), and a 45 mm gun in the rear turret (278 degree traverse). Since no bridge could hold this tank, it could be automatically brought into water-tight condition and ford a water hazard of up to 2 meters deep.

grote-2

T-42 tank

 

Grotte’s last contribution to the world of armoured warfare was the 1000 ton Ratte tank, cancelled by Speer in 1943.

KV-1S and High Caliber Guns

I have read lots of people complain that the KV-1S is ahistoric, and should not get any larger gun than 76 mm, citing that the only KV with such a gun was the KV-85 (when questioned on the difference between a KV-1S and a KV-85, they fall silent). To clear up any difficulties some people may have with nomenclature, here are some choice bits from the archives.

kvas-85

CAMD RF 38-11355-1377, page 195, fragment

“To arm new “IS” and modernized KV-1S tanks, four 85 mm “S-31″ guns were received, and one “D-5″ gun, designed and produced by factory #9.
The “S-31″ gun has a recoil length of 540 mm, and a large, non-compact mount, which makes it difficult to install in a tank.
The “D-5″ gun has a recoil length of 300 mm, and a compact mount, with a relatively low line of loading. The ballistic qualities of both guns are the same.
Aside from the specified characteristics, the “D-5″ can also be converted to a 122 mm caliber by swapping the barrel and breech.”

And, of course, here is an oldie but a goodie:

kvas-122

CAMD RF 38-11369-106 page 56, fragment

“Installing a 122 mm “S-41″ howitzer on the KV-1S will make a weight difference of _____ compared to the KV-1S with a 76.2 mm ZIS-5 gun (43.5 tons), and will be equivalent to _____ tons.
All specifics of installing an 85 mm gun in the KV-1S and IS tanks are applicable to the changes in the turret and fighting compartment that come with installing a 122 mm howitzer (refer to the TsAKB project “S-31″).”

Hopefully that clears up any confusion as to what KV had what kind of gun in it.

 

Edit: it appears that people are somehow more confused about the KV-1S and its armament now.

kv-1s-122

Here you go, a KV-1S with a 122 mm D-25T gun. If you don’t like it, there is a bigger gun Wargaming can put in.

 

Ensign’s Q&A #8

Welcome to another edition of my Q&A! The previous one can be found here.

Q: Could you present a case for adding the Object 279 as a tier 10 heavy tank?

A: Well, the ridiculous armour angle would rival American heavy tanks for hull-down headaches. UFP and up, it’s a possible addition to the game. The only problems come when looking downward. The quadruple tracks would be a problem. On the T95, they are treated as only two tracks, but on this tank, they are much more further apart. Even if the developers do the same thing as the T95, there is still the issue of the fuel tanks in the middle of them. All of that UFP and front turret armour won’t do much when your tank burns from every shot to the relatively unprotected gas tanks. Even if you figure out how the 279 fits within game mechanics, the only way we’d ever see one at tier 10, is if we get a severely gimped version, like with the IS-7. Since SerB admitted the IS-7 to be his biggest mistake, I doubt we will see the Object 279.

Q: Could you write more about the T-32? I remember reading that some of them fought in the late stages of the Spanish Civil War, and that the design was unsuccessful because it was still a convertible tank.

A: The T-32 (or A-32, as it is more often called) was a further evolution of Koshkin’s ATG resistant tank projects. The government order was for a tank that is protected from guns with its speed, which built on the BT-7M. The result of that was the A-20. On his own initiative, Koshkin developed another tank, without a convertible drive, but with a more powerful gun, and more armour. His second prototype was weighed down to 24 tons (original mass was 19 tons) to test the reliability of its components. The tests were successful, and the development of a tank with a high velocity 76.2 mm gun and 45 mm of highly sloped front armour began. The result of that was the A-34, the precursor to the legendary T-34.
As for the A-32 seeing combat in the Spanish Civil War, that is very unlikely. Only two were built, in the spring and summer of 1939. By the spring of 1939, the situation of the Republicans was so grave, that it is highly unlikely that the Soviets would send them an untested prototype of a brand new tank.

Q: What was the BT-IS? Did the IS stand for Iosif Stalin?

A: Yes, the IS stood for Iosif Stalin, but the BT-IS tanks predate the heavy tank with a similar name by nearly a decade. The first BT-IS was the BT-2-IS, a 1934 project to improve the very flawed BT-2 tank. The prototype made all 6 wheels propel the tank in wheeled mode, instead of just two, and had a slightly redesigned hull with additional gas tanks. The tank was more agile and more survivable under fire than the BT-2, but the lack of synchronization between the road wheels and lower reliability led the project to be abandoned.
A similar project was undertaken with the BT-5-IS, in 1936. The tank also had higher off-road performance than the BT-5, and additional gas tanks. A brand new feature was the ability to convert the tank from track mode to wheeled mode without leaving the tank, in just 15 minutes. Unlike the singular BT-2-IS, 10 were built.
The BT-5-IS model 1938 project improved the BT-5-IS further. The armour was thickened and sloped at the expense of some gas tanks. No BT-IS was mass produced, but improvements from the projects were used in the BT-7 and BT-7M projects.

Q: Is it true that the V-2 engine was designed as an aircraft engine? Can you write on its history? Does it have disadvantages?

A: The engine was built as a multi-purpose diesel engine by the Kharkov Locomotive Factory (originally intended for heavy bombers, but insufficiently powerful for them). Five modifications existed by the start of the war: V-2 (BT-7M), V-2-34 (T-34), V-2K (KV-1 and KV-2), V-2V (Voroshilovets tractor), and an experimental “half” (V-4) modification for the T-50 tank. In later years, the engine was forced to higher horsepowers, such as the V-2SF and V-2SN using a centrifugal supercharger (borrowed from an aircraft engine). V-2 type engines continued to be developed for Soviet heavy tanks throughout the war. Descendants of the V-2 engine are still produced today (with not that many changes), for tractors, boats, trams, hovercrafts, locomotives, heavy trucks, and a large number of other vehicles.
Disadvantages of the engine design compared to modern alternatives include a high use of oil, loud noise, and complicated components that could be designed better today, with the use of superior manufacturing technologies. The aircraft roots of the engine also used aluminium, which was in short supply during the war, and sometimes replaced with other alloys.

Q: During the siege of Leningrad, the Kirov and Bolshevik plants produced tanks despite a lack of resources. Can you write something about these improvised constructions?

A: I have read of T-34s and KV-1s built with gasoline engines from older model tanks that were still in storage, when shipments of V-2 engines were interrupted. There were also plans to make T-34s with 45 mm guns, in the event of a shortage of 76 mm guns, but none were produced. Experimental tanks, such as the T-50 and KV-220, also took part in the siege.

Ensign’s Q&A #7

Old-time FTR readers should know how this works, but, if you’re just joining us, here’s how this works. You send questions to tankarchives@gmail.com, and I will periodically answer them. My area of expertise is tank battles on Eastern Front and Soviet tanks, so keep your questions in that general area.

Previous answers: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

 

Q: Why does the BL-9 in-game have a muzzle brake? Is it a real gun?

A: The recoil generated by shooting a 25 kilogram shell at 1000 meters per second is considerable, and if you didn’t have a muzzle brake, the recoil mechanisms would have to be huge, and it wouldn’t fit into a tank. The BL-9 on the ISU-122BM doesn’t have a muzzle brake, since it has more room to recoil in, similar to how the A-19 fit into the ISU-122 without a muzzle brake.

The BL-9 is a real gun. The tank version of the gun is also a real, but slightly different gun (the TD version was the OBM-50, the tank version was the OBM-51), with the same characteristics.

Q: Are the IS-8 and Object 268 sized correctly in-game?

A: In relation to each other? Yes. The hulls are different sizes in real life.

Q: Is the ST-II (twin-gun ST-I) real? What tier would it fit best at?

A: Yes, it is.

As for the tier, it’s an interesting question. The tank was built with a very high ROF in mind, 15 RPM, from the D-30 or D-10 gun. These guns have horrible penetration in game. It could be a tier 8 (since it would be a faster firing, more accurate IS-6), but I can’t see it doing too well at higher tiers without some kind of penetration buff. Seeing as how the current ST-I is languishing at tier 9 with a fictional gun that robbed it of all of its advantages, the ST-II’s fate will probably be all around poor, unless that part of the tree is significantly rebalanced.

Q: Do you think the IS-4 should be renamed to the IS-4M?

A: It would be a more correct name, but the elited version doesn’t fully represent the IS-4M, so it doesn’t really matter.

Q: Was the Object 263 an SPG?

A: Not much information is available on it, but, seeing as how many Soviet TDs were equipped with artillery sights, it is possible that it could be used in an SPG role.

Q: I noticed that the IS holds less than 30 122 mm shells, and the KV-1 can hold 50. Are howitzer shells smaller?

A: Not all shells of the same caliber are the same length. A howitzer shell often holds less propellant than an equivalent caliber gun shell, and, as a result, does not need to be as long.

Q: Did the KV-1S have the D-25T historically?

A: Historically, the KV-1S was able to mount the IS turret as a modernization measure, before enough ISes could be built. I think only one KV with a D-25T was actually built, though. A high powered 122 mm gun was also developed for it (almost as good as a BL-9), so if the D-25T isn’t historical enough, I’m sure the developers can bump it up a little.

kv-1s-122

That’s it for this edition! Send in your questions to tankarchives@gmail.com

Historical HEAT Ban

Lots of people that play WoT started crying out about HEAT needing to be removed as soon as it became available for credits. Turns out, use of HEAT shells was forbidden in the early stages of the war on the Eastern Front.

“After meeting with the general staff and divisional commanders of the 4th Panzer Group, Feldmarshal von Kluge once again asked to allow the use of “red-tipped” shells, giving the following as the reason:

“Holding back Russian tanks in an attack, particularly T-34s and heavy tanks, demands great effort on the part of our exhausted and battle-worn infantry. The existing methods of fighting T-34s and heavy tanks are insufficient. If the infantry’s load is lightened, they can resume completion of their objectives, despite their smaller numbers. ”

I can only support this request.

General von Bock”

German HEAT shells were indicated by red tips. Some sources refer to them as “PzGr rot” (Tank Grenade Red). Let’s take a look at Franz Halder’s diary, again mentioning HEAT shells.

“December 22nd, 1941. 184th day of the war.

Forces of the south flank of the 4th army, south-east of Kaluga, are encircled by the enemy, who is also advancing on Tarusy. The condition on this section of the front is grave. It is not known when this crisis can be resolved. Regardless, the order to retreat was not given. The only order given was on the use of HEAT shells. {349}

{349} Hitler still disallowed use of these new shells”

“January 11th, 1942 (Sunday). 204th day of the war.

Hitler: hold Merdyn and cover the breach in the north. Attempt to do so before the front at Merdyn wavers. Move forces from the rear. Advance with the 9th army to cover the breach at Rzhev. There is no time for preparations of defensive positions. Any time we manage to win is to be used to cover breaches in our lines. Holding Suhinichi takes priority. Should we use shells with the red tip? {407} A counterattack from the south still remains our goal.

{407} Those were the markings of a HEAT artillery shell.”

Shirokograd, in his book “Russia and Germany: a history of military cooperation” reveals the reason for this was that Hitler was protective of his shiny new shells: “In late 1941, the 7.5 cm and 10.5 cm le.G.40 received new HEAT shells, which enabled them to penetrate Soviet T-34 tanks. I must point out that the Germans had HEAT shells since 1940, but Hitler forbade their use so they did not fall into enemy hands.”

Hitler’s fears weren’t entirely unjustified. Captured APCR shells for French and German guns were a great boon to Soviet APCR development. 

Spherical Tanks

About two months ago, Wargaming put out a fake news post on spherical tanks: the ShT-1A and ShT-2T. They went as far as making a fake historical article on them, as well as fake wiki pages. Apparently, people will believe anything, since I’m still seeing Google searches for those tanks.

However, spherical tanks are very much real. During my last Q&A, interest was shown in them. Here are a bunch of spherical and rolling tanks that were actually designed, and some even built!

Additionally, Yuri Pasholok, Wargaming’s historian, is working on a book about Soviet spherical tanks, titled “Stalin’s Steel Balls”. Keep an eye out for that one.