Comparaciones y Curiosidades en Tanques II Guerra Mundial

[alejandro_]

"Propaganda regarding the invincibility of the Red Army worked very well against this background. People sincerely believed taht the Red Army would defeat its foes with "littele bloodshed, on the enemy's own soil".

Sí, muchos pensaban que todas esas mamarrachadas sobre la "unión de la clase obrera alemana y soviética" ocurriría en caso de conflicto. Cuando la guerra llegó y vieron que los alemanes barrían todo a su paso más de uno se quedó espantado. A partir de 1941 a los reclutas se les instruía de una manera muy diferente.

Al llegar a Alemania muchos soldados se acordaban de esto. De hecho cuando un grupo de comunistas alemanes se acercó a un grupo de soldados con los carnets de partidos, estos enfurecieron y les preguntaron "dónde coñ* estaban en 1941".

Volviendo al tema del Panther, la obra de Jentz parece muy buena, a ver si la compró cuando termine de leer lo que tengo entre manos. ¿Hay informes sobre combates con carros pesados o autopropulsados como el SU-100/122/152?

Saludos.

[ACB, el Mutie]

Volviendo al tema del Panther, la obra de Jentz parece muy buena, a ver si la compró cuando termine de leer lo que tengo entre manos. ¿Hay informes sobre combates con carros pesados o autopropulsados como el SU-100/122/152?

Pues creo que es lo único que le falta, porque habla del frente Oeste, de Italia, opiniones americanas... pero se ha olvidado casi por completo del frente Este, del que habla un poco y dice que los Panthers obtuvieron victorias locales y que eran bastante temidos, demostrando que eran un oponente peligroso, pero no habla demasiado sobre el tema.

Saludos

[ACB, el Mutie]

Es curioso el libro de Artem y Oleg sobre el T-34. Estoy aprendiendo cosas interesantes y todavía llevo poco más de 12 páginas leídas. Un par de datos:

Jaja, muy curioso eso que decía uno de los entrevistados para el libro: "El que diga que no tenía piojos, ¡¡no fue tanquista!!"

Cambiando de tema, algunos datos sobre la opinión de los americanos sobre el Panther:

"The German use of smokeless powder makes it very difficult for us to pick them up when they lie in ambush, whereas the flash of our guns is easily discernable to an alert foe and may be easily observed from a great distance. The heavy armor plate of the Mark V and Mark VI enable them to turn our shot, but armor is easily pierced by their more powerful guns."

"In general, it is my opinion taht our Sherman tank rank clumsily with German Mark III and Mark IV tanks, and their Mark V and Mark VI are in a class by themselves, having a better silhouette, better armor, better flotation, and maneuverability, far better guns with much better sight reticles, and superior ammunition"

Y ahora un comentario de un soviético sobre los carros del Leand and Lease:

"The confort of British and American tanks, by contrast, won the admiration of Soviet tankmen. 'I had a look at an American M4A2 Sherman. My God! It was like a hotel inside! I was all lined with leather so that you didn't smash your head" There was also a medical kit with condons and suphidin - they had everything!' Sush were the impressions of A. V. Bodnar. 'But at the same time they weren't fit for war'"

Claro y conciso. Hablan de la necesidad de usar cascos dentro de los T-34 para evitar lesiones, pues al no estar forrado de cuero, todo era metal y al levantarte o en un bache podían sufrir lesiones, por eso era imprescindible el uso del casco como algo obligatorio.

Saludos

[alejandro_]

Indeed, an inspection of a T-34 Model 1942 provided to the British School of Tank Technology in 1943 found the armour quality to be equal or superior to British armour.

Vaya, lo contrario que los tripulantes del T-34, por lo menos en lo que se refiere a fragmentación. ¿Hay algún detalle más o fuente?

Saludos.

[ACB, el Mutie]

Indeed, an inspection of a T-34 Model 1942 provided to the British School of Tank Technology in 1943 found the armour quality to be equal or superior to British armour.

Vaya, lo contrario que los tripulantes del T-34, por lo menos en lo que se refiere a fragmentación. ¿Hay algún detalle más o fuente?

Saludos.

Ese fragmento de texto, ¿de dónde proviene?

Saludos

[alejandro_]

Ese fragmento de texto, ¿de dónde proviene?

¡Lo pusistes tú! según lo que dijistes de un libro de vehículos. Me imagino que de ese sobre la SGM.

Saludos.

[ACB, el Mutie]

Ese fragmento de texto, ¿de dónde proviene?

¡Lo pusistes tú! según lo que dijistes de un libro de vehículos. Me imagino que de ese sobre la SGM.

Saludos.

Cierto, cierto, puede que lo haya sacado de "Soviet Tanks and Armoured Vehicles of the World War Two", por Zaloga y Grandsen. 1984. No estoy seguro porque se me olvidó poner la fuente, pero era el libro que estaba leyendo en dicho momento.

El problema de la fragmentación me induce a pensar que el recubrimiento de cuero era un gran aliado a la hora de parar los pequeños desprendimientos. El llamado T-34 modelo 1942 (por Zaloga) se fabrica desde 1941 (y el modelo 1943 desde mediados de 1942). En ese momento se suponía que el blindaje soviético estaba en su peor etapa.

Saludos

[ACB, el Mutie]

del "T-34 in Action" de Stackpole. Página 23:

"Sush statements were based on practical as well as theoretical considerations. German anti-tank and tank guns with a calibre under 50mm couldn't penetrate the T-34's armoour in most cases. Moreover, even the tungsten-cored shells of the 50mm PAK-38 anti-tank gun and the 50mm Panzer III gun with a 60-calibre length of barrel, which - according to trigonometrical calculations - were supposed to pierce the T-34's front armour, would in reality ricohet off its sloping plates harmlessly. Statustucak researcg cibducted vt NII-48 (Scientific Research Institute 48) in September-Osctover 1942, regarding the combat damage incurred by T-34 tanks then being repaired in maintenance workshops No. 1 and No. 2 in Moscow, showed that out of 109 hits on the upper front part of the tanks 89 per cent had had no effect, but that destructive penetrations had been achieved by guns of 75mm calibre or greater."

Sobre lo que Alejandro decía hay otra cita en las páginas 23-24 de este mismo libro:

"'If a shell had gone through the turret of a British tank the commander and the gunner could have stayed alive, because there were virtually no splinters,' Bryukhov observed, 'while in a T-34 the armourwould spall a lot and the crew had few chances of survival.' This was because the medium hardness armour of Britain's Matilda and Valentine tanks had a very high nickel content (3.0-3.5 per cent),whereas Soviet 45mm high hardness armour contained only 1.0-1.5 per cent nickel, reulting in much lower ductility."

Saludos

[ACB, el Mutie]

Las quejas de los carristas americanos no sólo eran sobre la falta de potencia o protección, sino que se quejaban mucho de la mala movilidad del Sherman:

Sgt. Chester J. Marczak: "The German's high-velocity guns and souped-up ammunition can penetrate our thickest armor. At a range where it would be suicide for us to shoot, they shoot. What we need is more armor, higher velocity, not necessari a bigger gun, souped-up ammunition, and a means whereby we can maneuver faster, making sharper turns. I've seen many times when tthe air fore was called out to wipe out scattered tanks rather than letting our tanks get slaughtered. All of us know that the German tanks are far superior to anything that we have in combat. They are able to maneuver on a space the length of their tank. Hoy can we outflank them when all they have to do is pivot and keep their frontal armor toward us? Their frontal armor is practically invulnerable to our 75's, except at an excepcionally close range-and they neve let us get that close. We've got a good tank-for parades and training purposes-but for combat they are just potential coffins. I know! I've left them burning after the first few rounds of German shells penetrated out thickest armor."

Quizás Jentz ha sido algo parcial en los relatos, pues seguro que más de uno hablaría de las ventajas, así como no se habla de los británicos con el 17 libras o no se hace incapié en carros más potentes como los Iosif Stalin o incluso el Pershing.

Saludos

[ACB, el Mutie]

Ya se había dicho en otras ocasiones que la munición HE es la más empleada y un claro ejemplo viene en el T-34 in action (no confundir con el de squadron publications):

"In 1942-44 the regular ammunition allowance of a T-34 with a 'screw-nut' turret(torre exagonal) comprised 100 shells, seventy-five os them antipersonnel/high explosive and twenty-five armour-piercing (including four tungsten-cored shells from 1943 on), stored in racks inside the turret and in trunks in the floor of the combat compartment. The regular ammunition allowance of a T-34/85 was thirty-six antipersonnel/high explosive, fouteen armour-piercing, and five tungsten-cored shells. The balance between armour-piercing and antipersonnel shells largely reflected the conditions under wich the T-34s fought.

Saludos

[ACB, el Mutie]

Más sobre este libro acerca del T-34 (páginas 35-36):

All the tankmen interviewed admired the gunsights of German tanks.[...] He have nothing like that.[...] In reality, there were no major differences in the information provided by German and Soviet telescopic gunsights. The gunlayer saw the crosshair and 'fences' of corrections for angular speed, and both Soviet and German gunsights had corrections for distance, though these were introduced in different ways. [...] Thus there was no functional difference between Soviet and German gunsights - the difference was in the quality of the optics, which deteriorated badly in Soviet gunsights in 1942 due to the evacuation of the Izyum optical glass plant.

Esto aclara en cierto modo las controversias sobre las ópticas en ambos carros, el problema estaba en el cristal que se deterioraba, no en los medidores que mostraban la misma información.

Saludos

[ACB, el Mutie]

Creo que debería haber un hilo como post-it con el título de anécdotas militares de la II Guerra Mundial, pero en su defecto, y como va referido a carros de combate, lo pondré aquí.

She shouted back that there were German tanks some 300 metres in front of me at the road crossing. I thanked her and walked back to my tank. At that moment Vladimir Karabuta, who'd also junped out of his tank and heard about the enemy ambush, said: 'Dadin, you're already a Hero of the Soviet Union so I'll go first.' And with that he started to pass my tank. I jumped into my own tank and shouted to Tyurin: 'Follow him, and as soon as he's knocked aut pass him and drive forward!' Tyurin followed him. Everything happend just like I thought. After driving some 100 metres Karabuta's tank took a hit on its hull front and caught fire. I passed him, fired a shot into nowehre, and rushed forward. Only at tht moment did I see a heavy assault gun which we called Ferdinand about 100 metres from me. It was standing with its rear against a small stone building, controlling the road crossing. When I saw the Ferdinand, I hit it with an armour-piercing shell and ordered Tyurin to tam it. Tyurin ean into the Ferdinand and started to squash it. The crew tried to bail out but were hit by my loader's SMG fire. Four Germans lay dead on the roof of their assault gun, but fifth managed to escape.

Ambos carros de combate eran T-34-85 frente al Ferdinand. Por ahí cerca llega a decir el que relata la hazaña, que habían quitado todo lo que no servía en el tanque y habían cargado 150 proyectiles dentro.

Saludos

[ACB, el Mutie]

Ya me va estorbando el libro del Panther en la silla de mi lado, donde tengo los temas pendientes, así que pongo una última cita y lo retiro a la estantería. Esta vez serán testimonios de "Shermanistas" disparando contra Panthers:

Sgt. Francis W. Baker, Tank Commander.: "On the morning of November 20, 1944, I was a tank commander of a Sherman medium tank mounting a 76 mm gun. Ther Germans staged a counterattack with infantry supported by at least three Mark V tanks. Ordering my gunner to fire at the closest tank, which was approximately 800 yards away, he placed one right in the side which was completely visible to me. To my amazement and disgust I watched the shell bounce off the side. My gunner fired at least six more rounds at the vehicle hgitting it from the turret to the track. This German tank knowing that I possibly would be supported by a tank destroyer, started to pull away. I was completely surprised to see it moving after receiving seven hits from my gun. At this time a tank destroyer mounting a 90 mm gun pulled up to my right flank, motioning to the commander, he acknowledged that he saw the tank. With one well placed shot he put it in flames. Traversing to his left he also put another one in flames."

Saludos

[ACB, el Mutie]

Ya sabíamos que los carros de combate del Leand-Lease no tenían buena fama, pero vamos, que los conductores tenían buenas razones para odiarlos de verdad:

To tell the truth we were afraid of being posted to fight in foreign-made tanks: The Matildas, Valentines and Shermans were cofins. True, their armour was ductile and didn't produce splinters, but the driver sat separately and if you'd turned the turret and the tank was knocked out of action like that the driver could never bail out. Our tanks were the best. The T-34 was a superb tank.

Aleksadr Sergeevich Burtsev

Saludos

[ACB, el Mutie]

Un reorte sobre la supervivencia en un T-34, por Vasili Pavolovich Bryukhov:

We were about 200 metres from the enemy when the Germans hit my tank head-on with an armour-piercing round. The tank stopped but didn't catch fire. After the battle I saw that the round had penetrated our front armout by the radio operator's seat, killing him with splinters, and continued on throught the tank to the driver's hatch, tearing it off. I was shell-shocked and I fell on top of the ammo storage. At that moment another round penetrated the turret and killed the loader. It was lucky that I'd fallen from the turret with shell-shock, otherwise I'd have been killed too.

Saludos