This blog is dedicated to bringing World War II era documents to the general public, with an overall focus on armoured warfare. Questions? Requests? Comments? Email me at tankarchives@gmail.com or find me on Twitter @Tank_Archives.
"December 8th, 1944
Description of the running in process of rifle regiment personnel from the 60th Guards Pavlograd Order of the Red Banner Division with SU-76M SPGs conducted on November 11th, 1944.
Based on the enciphered telegram delivered from the 32nd Rifle Corps on November 6th, 1944, the division performed running in of rifle regiment personnel with SU-76M SPGs.
"I.V. Stalin factory #92
September 8th, 1941
To the Chief Engineer of the Chelyabinsk Factory, comrade Makhonin
We developed and are currently manufacturing a coaxial 45 mm gun for the 107 mm ZIS-6 gun mount. The DT coaxial machine gun remains in its old place.
The tactical purpose of such a weapon is obvious: to avoid wasting 107 mm ammunition on targets that could be defeated with a 45 mm gun.
As the factory doesn't have a KV-3 tank, the prototype will be installed in a KV-2 tank turret.
Your designer comrade Schneidman informed us that you are making a new turret for the KV-3. Due to the obvious advantage of having a 45 mm gun in the KV-3 and minor changes required to the turret as a result of using this mounting, we ask you to widen the gun port and change the frame and gun mantlet in accordance to the attached blueprints. We don't have blueprints for the new KV-3 turret and are still working with old ones, but that shouldn't matter in this case.
At the same time, we ask you to develop ammunition racks for 107 and 45 mm rounds in the KV-3 turret. For this reason, we attach a dimensional drawing of a 45 mm round.
Attached: draft drawing of the coaxial mounting on two pages, dimensional drawing of the 45 mm round.
Factory director Elyan
Chief designer Grabin"
The Wehrmacht was stuck at Moscow in the winter of 1941, and leadership of the Reich had time to think while its troops developed frostbite. The first encounters with the T-34 and KV-1 tanks showed that Soviet engineers were much better at implementing thick shell-resistant armour and powerful tank engines. A whole commission arrived on the front on November 18th, 1941, to survey the situation. The commission included the head of the Tank Commission Ferdinand Porsche, his deputy and director of the Steyr company Oscar Hacker, head of Department #6 of the Ordnance Directorate colonel Sebastian Fichtner, the civilian head of Department #6 engineer Heinrich Kniepkamp, and high ranking representatives of leading arms companies: Krupp, Daimler-Benz, Henschel, MAN, and Rheinmetall. They examined Soviet tanks and evaluated the harsh conditions of winter and the lack of roads.
No one doubts that this examination had a significant effect on further development of the German tank school. But what were their conclusions? How did Soviet tanks influence German tank building? There are many different opinions about this, right down to calling the Panther a poor copy of the T-34. What was the real change to the German way of building tanks after the fall-winter of 1941?
With the debut of the Panther in 1943 the Pz.Kpfw.III and Pz.Kpfw.IV were threatened with cancellation. Their chassis would be used to make StuGs, a vehicle that could not be replaced with the Panther. However, Guderian himself wrote a treatise in defense of the humble Pz.Kpfw.IV.
"Notes for the Fuhrer's report (September 5th, 1943)
Pz.Kpfw.IV tank or assault gun?
Despite arriving reports, the assault gun has practically no advantages over the Pz.Kpfw.IV tank, as the assault gun:
"Order to the People's Commissariat of Tank Production #764s
Chelyabinsk
November 13th, 1942
On the creation of an SPG design group
In accordance with the order issued by People's Commissar of Tank Production comrade I.M. Zaltsman on the creation of SPGs on the KV and T-34 tank chassis, I order to:
One of the most popular topics of discussion in Soviet tank circles is their use in the Great Patriotic War. As strange as this may sound, the production and use of Soviet tanks during the war is not a very well studied topic. This is caused by shallow surface level research and resilience of "common knowledge", little of which overlaps with any facts. There are so many of these myths that it's impossible to cover them all in a single article. Let's examine only the first half of the Great Patriotic War and misconceptions linked to this period.
It's easy to dismiss the T-62 tank. It was not produced in the numbers that its predecessors, the T-54 and T-55 enjoyed, nor did it have the technical novelties of the T-64 tank that came just a few years later. Discussion of this tank in Western sources usually boils down to a list of its drawbacks and a brief description of its lackluster performance in various Middle Eastern wars. Nevertheless, the tanks were used well into the 21st century not only by Soviet client states, but even by ex-Soviet nations, despite availability of more recent vehicles. The latest book by James Kinnear and Stephen "Cookie" Sewell takes a look at why this is the case.
The Red Army was undergoing a pretty radical reorganization in the summer of 1941. Fans of the theory that the USSR was about to attack Germany and Hitler merely delivered a preemptive strike will be disappointed to find out that not only did the Red Army not consider itself in any situation to fight a war in 1941, 1942 wasn't looking much better either. Compare the number of tanks on hand to the number of tanks required according to authorized strength.
|
Tank type |
Authorized strength |
On hand as of Jan 1st, 1941 |
% Authorized strength as of Jan 1st, 1941 |
Expected inventory as of Jan 1st, 1942 |
% Authorized strength as of Jan 1st, 1942 |
|||
|
Peacetime |
Wartime |
Peacetime |
Wartime |
Peacetime |
Wartime |
|||
|
KV |
2100 |
2100 |
243 |
11.5 |
11.5 |
1093 |
52 |
52 |
|
T-34 |
4200 |
4200 |
350 |
8.3 |
8.3 |
2850 |
67.8 |
67.8 |
|
BT |
5487 |
8273 |
7752 |
141.5 |
93.7 |
7752 |
141.5 |
93.7 |
|
T-26 |
13,802 |
15,872 |
9987 |
72.3 |
62.9 |
9987 |
72.3 |
62.9 |
|
T-50 |
|
|
|
|
|
500 |
|
|
|
T-37/ T-38 |
2420 |
3681 |
3596 |
152 |
100 |
3596 |
182 |
116.7 |
|
T-40 |
|
|
100 |
|
|
800 |
|
|
|
Armoured cars |
5298 |
6853 |
4461 |
84.2 |
65 |
6271 |
118 |
91.7 |
Total as of January 1st, 1941: 22,530 tanks (of those 59 T-35 and 443 T-28), 4461 armoured cars
The appearance of the heavy IS-2 tank was an unpleasant surprise for the Wehrmacht. The Germans could no longer rely on the qualitative supremacy that Tigers and Panthers enjoyed in 1943. The first battles with Soviet vehicles showed that the time of "big cats" was at an end.
For some reason, infantry hitching a ride on tanks is a tactic stereotypically associated only with the USSR. In reality, infantry from all nations did this, even those that produced APCs such as Germany. This was not an ad hoc maneuver either, but a tactic officially described in field manual. For instance, manual 130/2b "Motorized company of an infantry motorized division" signed by General Walther von Brauchitsch on October 11th, 1941, states:
"190. To defeat an enemy positioned in cover, it is sometimes reasonable to mount troops on tanks that would be able to defeat the concealed enemy firing from their vehicle or in close combat. In this case, equip them with hand grenades, pistols, submachine guns, and flare guns.
Communication with tanks is achieved through the normal signals (attachment #2). However, regardless of this, one must carefully negotiate cooperation between the tank crew and the troops that ride the tank ahead of time."
Even though mass production of SU-100 tank destroyers began in September of 1944, their debut in battle was delayed until January of 1945. Front line troops would no doubt have been glad to have a new methods of hunting German "beasts", but this way crews would go into battle having mastered their vehicles and built cohesion within regiments and brigades. It was three SPG brigades, the 207th, 208th, and 209th, that made up the main users of the SU-100 during the battles at Lake Balaton that began in March of 1945. These crews could now present a well balanced opinion on their vehicles.
The Pz.Kpfw.Tiger Ausf.B or King Tiger was the heaviest mass produced tank of WWII. The British had almost no warning before encountering this formidable machine on the battlefield, but it wasn't too long before captured vehicles were inspected and the threat was properly assessed. Find out what the British discovered in my latest article on Warspot.net.
https://warspot.net/372-all-the-king-s-horses
F.16 Op.2154 D.4"Top Secret
To the People's Commissar of Armament of the USSR, comrade D.F. Ustinov
On your orders, we report on the issue of replacing the D-25 gun in the IS tank with the D-10T.
"Report by the Commander of Armoured and Mechanized Forces of the Red Army
To the People's Commissar of Defense I.V. Stalin on the equipment of a heavy IS tank brigade
November 20th, 1944
I report that:
As per your orders, one heavy IS tank brigade with two regiments of 21 IS tanks each and one regiment of 21 ISU-122 will be ready by December 5th of this year.
There are 65 combat vehicles in the brigade in total.
"State Committee of Defense Decree #4873ss
January 1st, 1944
On installing 85 mm guns on T-34 tanks instead of the 76 mm F-34 gun
To improve the artillery armament of the T-34 tank, the State Committee of Defense orders to:
The SU-152 is an often misunderstood vehicle. Some think that because of its thick front armour and relatively short gun it engaged enemies point-blank, but in reality it was actually a long ranged fighter, engaging enemies from 1500-2000 meters. In my latest video I explore the tactics behind SU-152 regiments and how they evolved over time.
As soon as a new enemy tank appears on the battlefield, it is critically important to study it and find out which of its strengths can be mitigated and which weaknesses can be exploited. In case of the Panther tank, the British spared no effort. A Panther shipped from the USSR was tested before British troops ever met one in the wild. In addition to tanks captured throughout the war, several Panthers were assembled under British supervision and taken back to the UK to perform thorough trials. Read what the British learned about this German beast in my latest article on Warspot.net.
Work on Soviet heavy tanks split into two directions in 1944. One was the development of a new heavy tank, called Object 701. The second was the improvement of the IS-2 heavy tank, which later split into a minor and a major modernization projects. The former led to the creation of an IS-2 tank with a straightened upper front hull. Finally, a third tank came up in the spring of 1944 on factory #100's initiative. This tank was called IS-6 and turned out to be the odd man out.
"Reminder to tank destroyer battery commanders
"To the Chief of the 6th Department of the GABTU BTU, Engineer-Colonel comrade Kovalev
RE: the condition of the KV-13 as of October 19th, 1942
I report the following on the condition of the KV-13 as of October 19th, 1942:
"State Committee of Defense Decree #2889ss
February 14th, 1943
Moscow, Kremlin
Topic: on the formation of heavy SPG regiments within the Reserve of the Supreme Command
The State Committee of Defense decrees that:
"Brief conclusions drawn from usage of [self propelled] artillery regiments within the Central Front
...
The following main conclusions can be drawn from the use of self propelled artillery in offensive and defensive fighting against numerous enemy tanks and infantry:
On the offensive:
"Copy #1
"Characteristics of penetrative ability of guns and mines against enemy tanks
Based on combat experience and trials
1. Experimental firing against the 88 mm "Ferdinand" self propelled gun gave the following results:
A) Armour:
The use of multiple engines, suspensions, and transmissions on one type of tank was a unique feature of American tank building. The same thing happened with the prospective replacement of the Medium Tank M4. Development of three types of transmission and several types of suspension theoretically allowed the military to choose the most reliable variant that would then enter production. The result was unexpected. The Medium Tank T23 was chosen as a result of trials, but it never replaced the M4, although some of its elements came in handy.
Even as an avid military history enthusiast, I don't come across discussion of Japanese tank warfare very often. This is not very surprising: people's imagination is captured by armoured titans like the Tiger tank or massive large scale clashes like the Second Battle of El-Alamein. The Pacific theater of WWII had space for neither heavy tanks nor large battles. Tank units in this region largely consisted of vehicles that would have been considered obsolete in Europe at the time. Discussions of tank warfare in the region usually boil down to one-sided beatings handed out by Sherman tanks against their much lighter armed and armoured Japanese brethren.
In his latest book David McCormack goes beyond such superficial comparisons and starts at the beginning of Japanese armoure warfare: the purchase of a Mark IV, six Whippet, and thirteen Renault FT tanks at the tail end of WWI. As the title promises, the prologue dives deep into the political battlefield between the innovators and traditionalists of the Japanese army. The book covers both the attempt to develop a progressive tank doctrine and production of domestic armoured vehicles inspired by foreign samples but tailored for the region.
"In order to make loading of the S-31 tank gun in the KV-1S and IS-1 tanks comfortable, the following must be done:
A number of designers and companies involved in tank development during WWI were brought back for WWII as the Special Vehicle Design Committee or "The Old Gang" (TOG). The TOG developed a very progressive tank for its time with powerful armament and rarely seen features like an electric transmission. However, the committee only built two prototypes and never ended up putting a tank into production. Read why in my latest article on Warspot.net.
The peace treaty between France and Germany signed on June 22nd, 1940, meant the defeat of France in WWII. The fact that France was only able to hold on against Germany for 40 days shocked many. France had the second largest tank force behind only the USSR, and it seemed impossible that this armada could not resist the German advance. However, this defeat was inevitable. The problem wasn't that French tankers, as fiercely as they fought, had little experience. The problem was in the tanks themselves.
"November 28th, 1945
RE: GAU letter #945369s dated November 22nd, 1945
I report that the Kirov factory produced an IS SPG equipped with an ammunition rack for single piece ammunition. This SPG will be sent to the GBTU proving grounds at Kubinka shortly.
At the same time, work was also conducted to place single piece ammunition in the IS-3 tank. It was not possible to achieve any kind of satisfactory results in this to date.
Only the SPG with ammunition racks for single piece rounds will be sent to trials.
People's Commissar of Transport Machinebuilding, V. Malyshev"
"The 85 mm S-53 tank gun is installed in the regular T-34 turret. The stock turret is 130-150 mm narrower than the one housing the LB-1 gun and the turret bustle is smaller, fitting just 5 rounds instead of 12.
VE Day marked not only the defeat of Germany, but the Allies' ability to get their hands on German tank developments. A hunt for trophies and even German arms designers began. Various nations ended up with only pieces of information. This is especially true for the German Pz.Kpfw.Maus superheavy tank. The USSR may have ended up with both prototypes and some of the documentation that was stored in Kummersdorf and in Berlin, but the British and Americans kept most of the documents, the factories that took part in its production, and the creator of the tank himself, Ferdinand Porsche.
When telling the story of American tanks in British service, one usually starts with the tanks arriving in North Africa. However, any brand new tank is going to be rough around the edges. The British had to discover them before sending the tank anywhere. Red about the good, the bad, and the ugly sides of the Medium Tank M3 in my latest article on Warspot.net.
Field penetration trials weren't an unusual phenomenon during WWII. Soldiers often wanted to look with their own eyes at what their own weapons can do against the enemy, plus the sight of blowing holes in enemy tanks is always good for morale. In this case, two rare beasts were captured for trials: a Tiger and a Tiger II.
"1st Howitzer Artillery Brigade of the Reserve of the Supreme Command
November 9th, 1944
#01909
For your information, I direct to you the results of experimental firing on Tiger and Tiger B tanks.
Forward these results to battalion commanders, and the results on SU-152 shooting to all troops.
Attachment: the aforementioned on 4 pages.
Chief of Staff of the 1st Starokonstantinov Order of the Red Banner Order of Bogdan Khmelintskiy Howitzer Artillery Brigade, Major Vinogradov"
The tank was born on the battlefields of WWI where it had to combat not only enemy fortifications, but also mud. Tanks were often lost not from enemy fire, but from being stuck on cross country terrain. Engineers and the military first started thinking about how to improve mobility of their vehicles. Further improvements focused on improving mobility in general, but advanced methods of driving on soft terrain did not progress past experiments. Engineers returned to the issue of improving off-road mobility in WWII. In addition to mud, tanks got a new enemy: snow. This issue was most prevalent on the Soviet-German front where there was more snow than anywhere else for obvious reasons.
"Order to units of the Leningrad Front #032
I assigned one tank battalion each (84th and 107th Independent Tank Battalions) to the Slutsk-Kolpino Fortified Region and the 22nd Fortified Region with the special objective of reinforcing the fortified regions' firepower and not for use in counterattacks.
However, on September 5th, 1941, the commander of the 1025th Rifle Regiment of the 291st Rifle Division Major Belousov sent out one KV tank from an ambush to attack Beloostrov, as a result of which the tank was disabled and abandoned on the battlefield. The commander took no action to recover this tank over the course of two days.
The tendency to increase armour protection was one of the most notable features of the German tank building school. No nation in the world increased protection without a radical change to the chassis. For instance, the Pz.Kpfw.III more than tripled the thickness of its front armour compared to its initial form. The Pz.Kpfw.IV set a record, quadrupling the thickness of the front hull compared to that of the B.W. This wasn't it, as the Germans still worked on improving protection of tanks that were already build. This article will cover those methods.
I previously posted some photos from trials of the armour skirts of a captured Pz.Kpfw.III Ausf.N tank. It turned out that the skirts themselves were not very difficult to penetrate, but they destabilized small projectiles enough to prevent penetration of the main armour, as well as offer a few other benefits. Here are some more results from that same test.
"To Commanders of Army Artillery and Commanders of Tank Armies
The Main Artillery Directorate of the Red Army learned that troops do not always correctly use ammunition for 85 mm tank and SPG guns. I ask you to explain the following to the troops:
85 mm tank and SPG guns are equipped with ammunition from the 85 mm AA gun:
Comparative trials of four Soviet tanks were conducted in the summer and fall of 1976 according to order of the Minister of Defense of the USSR D.F. Ustinov titled "On military trials of tanks" issued on July 20th, 1976. In September, a summary titled "Minutes of trials results" was composed. This article will discuss the contents of these documents.
