Germany vs SU WW2 (But no B-17s, etc))

[Perun]

33 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

So 16 percent arrived before the battle of Stalingrad, and some of that even before the Battle of Moscow. I keep pointing out the British Valentine tanks that took part in that action, which keeps getting blown off as irrelevant. Not to mention 151 wing which arrived in September 1941, and trained up the Soviets on their Hurricanes to guard Murmansk.

The point is, its not the quantity that arrived. Its that anything arrived before the decisive action, after the huge losses the Soviets took, which is continually blown off. Which of course, it has to be, because it threatens the purity of the Soviet victory in those actions.

Deliveries

 

 "Table of arrivals of tanks at the front lines in 1941, by type

 

Type	Domestic				British			American		Total
Month	KV	T-34	T-60	T-70	Mk.II	Mk.III	Mk.IV	M3 S	M3 L
Total 1941										20,740
Jan	126	206	348	-	-	16	-	-	-	696
Feb	165	420	260	-	-	-	-	-	-	845
Mar	105	338	84	-	-	-	-	-	-	527
Apr	320	702	576	-	134	144	-	14	32	1922
May	350	1003	898	-	255	171	-	30	16	2723
Jun	199	698	657	103	-	74	-	144	222	2091
Jul	299	1177	746	371	86	44	-	66	91	2880
Aug	178	1378	250	583	10	63	-	35	98	2595
Sep	45	598	-	439	-	72	-	54	43	1251
Oct	160	1100	75	640	-	10	-	24	5	2024
Nov	215	1312	-	838	85	163	-	187	61	2861
Dec	239	1678	48	1026	-	-	42	23	16	3072
Total 1942	Total domestic:  20,957				Total foreign: 2530					23,487

"

 

Via Alexey Isayev

This data is interesting on its own, but it's also interesting to compare to deliveries of foreign tanks. The first Matilda and Valentine tanks began arriving during the Battle for Moscow and were thrown into battle with little preparation. As you can see in the above table, once the situation stabilized a little bit it took some time before new units with British tanks could be properly outfitted. Large deployments of Matildas and Valentines only take place in April, four months after deliveries began.

A similar picture can be seen with American tanks. The first shipments arrived in January of 1942 and we start seeing a small number of these tanks on the battlefield in April-May, 4-5 months later. Once the pipeline was set up, it was not as hard to deploy new tanks. A bump shipments that came in May hits the front lines in June. A lot of tanks were tied up in delivery by the end of the year: 3875 foreign tanks were delivered to the USSR in 1941-1942, but only 2530 were actually fielded before the end of 1942.

You can see the same pattern with Soviet tanks. Evacuation of factory #183, the USSR's largest producer of the T-34 tank, began in September of 1941. The factory began to set up in the Urals in December-January, and by May of 1941 you see a spike in deliveries of T-34 tanks. Similarly, production of the T-70 was authorized in March of 1942 and we see these tanks begin to arrive on the front lines in July. 

 

https://www.tankarchives.ca/2022/10/deliveries.html?m=1

[Perun]

No one said that LL didnt help but this help wasnt so decisive that Soviets wouldnt won whitout it by them self. They could won and at the end they did thanksfuly. They had large number of partisan force which no one mentioned and they played big role in nazi defeat. 

[old_goat]

2 hours ago, Perun said:

No one said that LL didnt help but this help wasnt so decisive that Soviets wouldnt won whitout it by them self. They could won and at the end they did thanksfuly. They had large number of partisan force which no one mentioned and they played big role in nazi defeat. 

I just quote from here: https://www.operationbarbarossa.net/the-t-34-in-wwii-the-legend-vs-the-performance/#The%20T-34’s Performance in 1943

"One very significant point about these figures is that if we remove the 11 900 AFVs received by the Soviets via Lend Lease, and allocate all German WWII fully tracked AFV production to the Wehrmacht’s East Front forces (i.e. add those lost fighting the Western Allies), then the Germans would have only needed kill loss ratio of 2.45 to 1 in order to have destroyed all Soviet fully tracked AFVs that existed on 22nd June 1941 (23 300 AFVs) and all 99 150 fully tracked AFVs produced during the war (122 450 AFVs). This figure is well below the 2.94 to 1 kill-loss ratio historically achieved. These figures demolish another more recently fashionable myth relating to the East Front; specifically that the Soviets (largely due to the huge number of T-34s produced) could have won WWII without any input from the US or Commonwealth forces. This is before we even consider the effects of increased German production (of all weapon types) due to the absence of Allied strategic bombing, the direct effects of German air superiority on the East Front from 1943 onwards, the effects of the Red Army loosing over half its motorised transport, and the effects of 9-10 000 additional (and fully supplied) heavy 88mm flak guns on the East Front from 1941 onwards."

+ I'd add two more factors. First, Romania staying with axis. That means much more fuel for germans. Second, Hungary. We had a quite significant factory, the Weiss Manfred Steel works. Without absence of allied bombing, this factory could have been able to start production of 44M Tas tanks, somewhat better than T-34/85s. But even more there were talks with Germany to produce Panthers too... Also, absence of allied bombing means increased Bf-109 production in Győr too...

This is why I say, without LL, no way the soviets would win. Even with LL, probably only a draw in central ukraine, with both sides totally exhausted.

[Perun]

43 minutes ago, old_goat said:

I just quote from here: https://www.operationbarbarossa.net/the-t-34-in-wwii-the-legend-vs-the-performance/#The%20T-34’s Performance in 1943

"One very significant point about these figures is that if we remove the 11 900 AFVs received by the Soviets via Lend Lease, and allocate all German WWII fully tracked AFV production to the Wehrmacht’s East Front forces (i.e. add those lost fighting the Western Allies), then the Germans would have only needed kill loss ratio of 2.45 to 1 in order to have destroyed all Soviet fully tracked AFVs that existed on 22nd June 1941 (23 300 AFVs) and all 99 150 fully tracked AFVs produced during the war (122 450 AFVs). This figure is well below the 2.94 to 1 kill-loss ratio historically achieved. These figures demolish another more recently fashionable myth relating to the East Front; specifically that the Soviets (largely due to the huge number of T-34s produced) could have won WWII without any input from the US or Commonwealth forces. This is before we even consider the effects of increased German production (of all weapon types) due to the absence of Allied strategic bombing, the direct effects of German air superiority on the East Front from 1943 onwards, the effects of the Red Army loosing over half its motorised transport, and the effects of 9-10 000 additional (and fully supplied) heavy 88mm flak guns on the East Front from 1941 onwards."

+ I'd add two more factors. First, Romania staying with axis. That means much more fuel for germans. Second, Hungary. We had a quite significant factory, the Weiss Manfred Steel works. Without absence of allied bombing, this factory could have been able to start production of 44M Tas tanks, somewhat better than T-34/85s. But even more there were talks with Germany to produce Panthers too... Also, absence of allied bombing means increased Bf-109 production in Győr too...

This is why I say, without LL, no way the soviets would win. Even with LL, probably only a draw in central ukraine, with both sides totally exhausted.

This is becoming more and more interesting 🙂

Production for military mainly depends on frontline needs. I suspect that production figures would be slighty diferent for both Soviet and Axis historical production. For example Germans wouldnt need to produce such many 88 mm AA guns as they did in real history.

[Stuart Galbraith]

3 hours ago, Perun said:

Soviet front in 1941. was long 2700 km to 3000 km (my roughly calculation), so how much could one wing help

Yes, you didnt read WHERE it was. It was Murmansk. These Hurriances were turned over to Soviet Naval Aviation, whom were among the most successful Hurricane operators. One of them, Boris Safonov, was already an ace.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Safonov

So there you have the British going to try and help defend the main Soviet port bringing in Lend Lease to the Soviets at one of the most crucial periods of the war. Try as I might, I cant reject that as insignificant. And neither would any wholly Soviet or Russian historian of the Moscow Counteroffensive, because some of that material we brought in went to that.

The margin of error in that period was not so large we can keep retconning allied lend lease and support efforts, and say it didnt matter.

[Stuart Galbraith]

3 hours ago, Perun said:

Deliveries

 

 "Table of arrivals of tanks at the front lines in 1941, by type

 

Type	Domestic				British			American		Total
Month	KV	T-34	T-60	T-70	Mk.II	Mk.III	Mk.IV	M3 S	M3 L
Total 1941										20,740
Jan	126	206	348	-	-	16	-	-	-	696
Feb	165	420	260	-	-	-	-	-	-	845
Mar	105	338	84	-	-	-	-	-	-	527
Apr	320	702	576	-	134	144	-	14	32	1922
May	350	1003	898	-	255	171	-	30	16	2723
Jun	199	698	657	103	-	74	-	144	222	2091
Jul	299	1177	746	371	86	44	-	66	91	2880
Aug	178	1378	250	583	10	63	-	35	98	2595
Sep	45	598	-	439	-	72	-	54	43	1251
Oct	160	1100	75	640	-	10	-	24	5	2024
Nov	215	1312	-	838	85	163	-	187	61	2861
Dec	239	1678	48	1026	-	-	42	23	16	3072
Total 1942	Total domestic:  20,957				Total foreign: 2530					23,487

"

 

Via Alexey Isayev

This data is interesting on its own, but it's also interesting to compare to deliveries of foreign tanks. The first Matilda and Valentine tanks began arriving during the Battle for Moscow and were thrown into battle with little preparation. As you can see in the above table, once the situation stabilized a little bit it took some time before new units with British tanks could be properly outfitted. Large deployments of Matildas and Valentines only take place in April, four months after deliveries began.

A similar picture can be seen with American tanks. The first shipments arrived in January of 1942 and we start seeing a small number of these tanks on the battlefield in April-May, 4-5 months later. Once the pipeline was set up, it was not as hard to deploy new tanks. A bump shipments that came in May hits the front lines in June. A lot of tanks were tied up in delivery by the end of the year: 3875 foreign tanks were delivered to the USSR in 1941-1942, but only 2530 were actually fielded before the end of 1942.

You can see the same pattern with Soviet tanks. Evacuation of factory #183, the USSR's largest producer of the T-34 tank, began in September of 1941. The factory began to set up in the Urals in December-January, and by May of 1941 you see a spike in deliveries of T-34 tanks. Similarly, production of the T-70 was authorized in March of 1942 and we see these tanks begin to arrive on the front lines in July. 

 

https://www.tankarchives.ca/2022/10/deliveries.html?m=1

https://www.rbth.com/history/336417-us-british-tanks-red-army

The first ‘Valentines’ appeared in the Red Army at the end of 1941 and participated in the Moscow counteroffensive, doing well in Russian winter conditions. During the ‘Battle of the Caucasus’, these stocky British tanks became one of the main forces among Soviet troops – facilitated by the proximity of the front line to the Iranian route along which military aid from the Allies came.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

3 hours ago, Perun said:

No one said that LL didnt help but this help wasnt so decisive that Soviets wouldnt won whitout it by them self. They could won and at the end they did thanksfuly. They had large number of partisan force which no one mentioned and they played big role in nazi defeat. 

Lets talk about another role the British performed that is seldom talked about. British Special Operations Squadron 138 dropping NKVD agents into Bavaria to assist the Soviet war effort...

http://www.grahamhague.com/tempsfordhalifax14.shtml

Bear in mind, we only know about this one because it was brought down/crashed. The possiblity is there were other drops that we have never heard about because the aircraft came back.

Now, I for one would love to know how the Soviets could have got agents to Bavaria without Britain or America dropping them there.

Then there is the Enigma decripts, which Moscow found so useful in the build up to Kursk. Now tell me where they were going to get information like that from?

[Perun]

28 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yes, you didnt read WHERE it was. It was Murmansk. These Hurriances were turned over to Soviet Naval Aviation, whom were among the most successful Hurricane operators. One of them, Boris Safonov, was already an ace.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Safonov

So there you have the British going to try and help defend the main Soviet port bringing in Lend Lease to the Soviets at one of the most crucial periods of the war. Try as I might, I cant reject that as insignificant. And neither would any wholly Soviet or Russian historian of the Moscow Counteroffensive, because some of that material we brought in went to that.

The margin of error in that period was not so large we can keep retconning allied lend lease and support efforts, and say it didnt matter.

And who said that didnt matter? Soviets didnt won the war ONLY because LL.

[Perun]

20 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Lets talk about another role the British performed that is seldom talked about. British Special Operations Squadron 138 dropping NKVD agents into Bavaria to assist the Soviet war effort...

http://www.grahamhague.com/tempsfordhalifax14.shtml

Bear in mind, we only know about this one because it was brought down/crashed. The possiblity is there were other drops that we have never heard about because the aircraft came back.

Now, I for one would love to know how the Soviets could have got agents to Bavaria without Britain or America dropping them there.

Then there is the Enigma decripts, which Moscow found so useful in the build up to Kursk. Now tell me where they were going to get information like that from?

Soviets bombed Berlin with their own bombers so they could sent their spies with them.

And about Kursk they had their own spy network

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, Perun said:

Soviets bombed Berlin with their own bombers so they could sent their spies with them.

And about Kursk they had their own spy network

All the way to Bavaria? Look at a map.

[Perun]

30 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

All the way to Bavaria? Look at a map.

Yermolayev Yer-2 for example

[RichTO90]

4 hours ago, Perun said:

And who said that didnt matter? Soviets didnt won the war ONLY because LL.

Nor did ONLY the Soviets win the war. The ALLIES won the war. Absent Lend-Lease and the Western Allies it is unlikely the Soviets could defeat the Germans and their allies.

BTW, toluene, other chemials, and bulk propellants and explosives were probably more important than tanks, motor vehicles, or aircraft.

[old_goat]

19 hours ago, Perun said:

This is becoming more and more interesting 🙂

Production for military mainly depends on frontline needs. I suspect that production figures would be slighty diferent for both Soviet and Axis historical production. For example Germans wouldnt need to produce such many 88 mm AA guns as they did in real history.

Also, just think about it. German air superiority alone would be a gamechanger in this scenario. Historically, germans really suffered from lack of supplies. On the eastern front, IL-2s greatly contributed to that. Just imagine this threat greatly reduced...

18 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

The first ‘Valentines’ appeared in the Red Army at the end of 1941 and participated in the Moscow counteroffensive, doing well in Russian winter conditions. During the ‘Battle of the Caucasus’, these stocky British tanks became one of the main forces among Soviet troops – facilitated by the proximity of the front line to the Iranian route along which military aid from the Allies came.

Also, the quality and combat value of british and american tanks was quite good. These were far more useful than soviet light tanks which were quite numerous, but in practice, they were utter worthless junk. And in my opinion, M3 Lee (despite its unpopularity in SU) was actually somewhat better than T-34/76. Shermans were definitely better.

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, old_goat said:

Also, just think about it. German air superiority alone would be a gamechanger in this scenario. Historically, germans really suffered from lack of supplies. On the eastern front, IL-2s greatly contributed to that. Just imagine this threat greatly reduced...

Also, the quality and combat value of british and american tanks was quite good. These were far more useful than soviet light tanks which were quite numerous, but in practice, they were utter worthless junk. And in my opinion, M3 Lee (despite its unpopularity in SU) was actually somewhat better than T-34/76. Shermans were definitely better.

I think British Armour generally has got a bad rap. Ok, nobody will hear me praising the Cruiser designs. But after all the T26 was originally a British design, the Soviets seem to like that.. The matilda II, whilst it had a mediocre gun by 1942, the armour remained generally good. Valentine arguably was nearly the ideal Soviet light tank (If it had a bit more speed it would have been even better). As for the Lee/Grant, it had an excellent gun and was mechanically reliable. Yes, the package wasnt the best, but what the hell, looking at the T28, its not like the Soviets could complain about awkward designs having built a few of their own.

But even if they were crap, they were on hand, there, when the Soviets needed them. And if the German offensive into the Caucasus had been successful, it might have proven fatal for the Soviets. First because it meant much of their oil supply was overrun. Secondly because it gave the Germans access to Iran, which was just itching to make up its mind about whether to join in. Im not convinced that the Germans had the forces to go into the rest of the middle east themselves. But as we are assuming Britain was staying out the war, the italians are not fighting them. They would have had enough forces to give it a try. Suddenly there is a lot of oil up for grabs.

I remember the producer of 'The World at War' saying that only an alliance could have defeated the Germans. The more I think about it, the more clearly apparent this is.

 

 

 

[old_goat]

16 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

As for the Lee/Grant, it had an excellent gun and was mechanically reliable. Yes, the package wasnt the best, but what the hell, looking at the T28, its not like the Soviets could complain about awkward designs having built a few of their own.

Not just that. The M3 was not an ergonomic nightmare like the T-34/76. It had a good quality, reliable radio. And more importantly, it had a dedicated commander. So despite the awkward design, weaker armor, and subpar optics, it still was a better tank. 

16 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Im not convinced that the Germans had the forces to go into the rest of the middle east themselves. But as we are assuming Britain was staying out the war, the italians are not fighting them. They would have had enough forces to give it a try. Suddenly there is a lot of oil up for grabs.

I think ukraine could have been a better ally for germans. If Hitler had given Bandera what he wants immediately, well, I think that could have been the end of SU. Not only more (and quite motivated) soldiers to the front, but also significantly less partisans in the territory of ukraine.

16 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I remember the producer of 'The World at War' saying that only an alliance could have defeated the Germans. The more I think about it, the more clearly apparent this is.

This is a fact. Proven by history. 

 

Edited June 12, 2024 by old_goat

[Perun]

2 hours ago, old_goat said:

Also, the quality and combat value of british and american tanks was quite good. These were far more useful than soviet light tanks which were quite numerous, but in practice, they were utter worthless junk. And in my opinion, M3 Lee (despite its unpopularity in SU) was actually somewhat better than T-34/76. Shermans were definitely better.

Why did Germans "copied" T-34 if M3 and M4 was better? Why didnt they take Grant and Sherman as model for Panther?

[old_goat]

1 minute ago, Perun said:

Why did Germans "copied" T-34 if M3 and M4 was better? Why didnt they take Grant and Sherman as model for Panther?

Because the T-34's general design was far superior. The problem with T-34 was that it had huge number of smaller design flaws that made it a rather mediocre tank on the battlefield.

 

[Perun]

-The M4A2s used by the Red Army were considered to be much-less prone to blow up due to ammunition detonation than their T-34/76 but had a higher tendency to overturn in road accidents and collisions or because of rough terrain due to their much-higher center of gravity.

-Under Lend-Lease, 4,102 M4A2 medium tanks were sent to the Soviet Union. Of these, 2,007 were equipped with the original 75 mm main gun, with 2,095 mounting the more-capable 76 mm tank gun. The total number of Sherman tanks sent to the U.S.S.R. under Lend-Lease represented 18.6% of all Lend-Lease Shermans.

-The first 76mm-armed M4A2 diesel-fuel Shermans started to arrive in Soviet Union in the late summer of 1944. By 1945, some Red Army armoured units were standardized to depend primarily on them and not on their ubiquitous T-34. Such units include the 1st Guards Mechanized Corps, the 3rd Guards Mechanized Corps, 6th Guards Tank Army and the 9th Guards Mechanized Corps, amongst others. The Sherman was largely held in good regard and viewed positively by many Soviet tank-crews which operated it before, with compliments mainly given to its reliability, ease of maintenance, generally good firepower (referring especially to the 76mm-gun version) and decent armour protection, as well as an auxiliary power unit (APU) to keep the tank's batteries charged without having to run the main engine for the same purpose as the Soviets' own T-34 tank required.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease_Sherman_tanks#Service_history

[old_goat]

Yes, the Sherman was a significantly better tank than the T-34. On paper their stats were nearly identical, but in practice, the design flaws of the T-34 made a huge difference. The Sherman also proved its superiority in Korea, when the two types faced each other. 

[Perun]

...

T-34-85: The Improved T-34 That Would See Use For Decades
This later version of the T-34 had an enlarged three-man turret with an 85mm gun. This model of the T-34 was a better tank than the 75mm first gen Shermans, but about equal the later models with the 76mm gun. The M4A3 76 HVSS tanks would prove to be more than a match for the T-34-85s they met in Korea, and would really come down to crew quality.

...

https://www.theshermantank.com/sherman/how-the-sherman-compare-to-its-contemporaries/

 

Interesting site.

We should take into consideration that this site use US sources. Russian sources state that T-34 was better.

Edited June 12, 2024 by Perun

[bojan]

2 hours ago, old_goat said:

Yes, the Sherman was a significantly better tank than the T-34.

T-34-76 vs M4 - yes, mainly due the 3-men turret and radio in every tank.

T-34-85 vs M4 (76) - not really. Even reliability often quoted for Sherman was based on the conditions of it's use, and variations in maintenance, area of operation etc could make large difference in reliability.

I think I have posted that before, During 1955 manuevars in Yugoslavia (WW2 production) T-34-85s needed something like 30-50% more maintenance hours than M4s. But those M4s were overhauled in early 1951-52s before MDAP delivery (and were considered "zero hours", while T-34s were 10-11 y/o (they were 1944-45 production) oldest one in June 1944), did not have any kind of overhaul and suffered from a lack of spare parts. When postwar made/rebuilt T-34-85s arrived in 1962. it was they that needed less maintenance than Shermans.

So question of reliability highly depends on conditions of use, availability of spares (if you can change problematic parts as soon as they show problem every 100 hours of use you don't care, if you can not change part that shows problem after 150 hours of use - you care a lot, despite second one being "more reliable"), how old and how much used was tank etc.

  

Just now, Perun said:

We should take into consideration that this site used US sources. Russian sources state that T-34 was better.

JNA has also considered them ~equal, and JNA Sherman version (M4A3E4) was not the top of the line (through differences were not large in practice). Only reason for retiring Shermans and keeping T-34s was standardization of fuel and (some) spares with T-55s.

Edited June 12, 2024 by bojan

[RichTO90]

6 hours ago, Perun said:

Why did Germans "copied" T-34 if M3 and M4 was better? Why didnt they take Grant and Sherman as model for Panther?

Maybe because they didn't? Just what parts of the T-34 were"copied" by the Germans?

[RichTO90]

4 hours ago, bojan said:

JNA has also considered them ~equal, and JNA Sherman version (M4A3E4) was not the top of the line (through differences were not large in practice). Only reason for retiring Shermans and keeping T-34s was standardization of fuel and (some) spares with T-55s.

Differences in combat performance in Korea were more likely due to superior crew training, unit cohesion, and logistics support than anything inherent in the tank. Same as in France 1940. The USSR in 1941-1943. And so on. Unless there was a significant technical overmatch as in a few cases in World War II, it usually comes down to the crew and support. And even in those cases of overmatch in World War II there are indications that crew training and cohesion could overcome that disadvantage, sometimes as simply as getting the first shot in.

[bojan]

Yes, I think it is pretty clear that 76mm Shermans and T-34-85 were quite close in performances, with some advantages one or other, but none of those were big enough to bring any kind of decisive advantage.

[R011]

Soviet tank commander Dmitry Loza who operated Soviet, British, and American ranks rather liked the Sherman (M2A2 (75) VVS and M2A2 (76) HVSS).  He seems to have thought they were better in many ways to the T-34.   He didn't much like the Churchill and Matilda, though.  Their performance in Ukrainian and Russian mud was quite unimpressive.