glyn

__________________
Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

RustyBattleship

Perhaps it depended on the platoon organization and availability of radios. But on the History Channel a former German tank commander was interviewed and he said it was only one in five Soviet tanks had a radio. The Germans had radios in every tank and used throat microphones so communications were very clear without engine noise deafening the driver as in our M-41 Walkers some years later. For some reason we never adopted the throat mike which would have prevented lots of rear end collisions with tanks traveling in dust cover.

__________________
Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

dalem

Part of the confusion of how many Sov tanks had how many radios in WWII no-doubt results from the confusing (to us) labeling system the Sovs used vs. the Germans and the U.S. The UK had a different org too, but it wasn't quite as odd as the Sovs.

So while a German or U.S. org is pretty standard (at least on paper) with 5 per platoon, 15 per company, and 45 per battalion, anyone dealing with the Sovs has to deal with 3-tank platoons and 10-tank companies 3 platoons) for mediums, and 2-tank platoons and 5-tank companies (2 platoons) for heavies.

So a few times going back and forth between "company" "5 tanks" "10 tanks" and "platoon", and you are lucky if you don't fall down somewhere.

That's also a reason why German claims of always being buried by superior numbers on the East Front usually need a second look. A Soviet medium tank battalion is only 30 tanks, and a heavy tank regiment is only 21 KV or IS tanks. 21!

A mid-war tank corps would be called an independent brigade in German, American, or even UK usage.

-dale

Feanor

Well 40 tank batallions for mediums. That's pretty standard. Mechanized corps, if that's what you're thinking of would be around 1000 tanks. I don't know if that's an independet brigade in western tank organization.

RustyBattleship

The Germans suffered from book-worm logistics "experts" in Berlin. They didn't believe the weather reports from the front lines of how severe the winters were and didn't issue them the right kind of foul weather clothing. Even the lubricating and recoil chamber oils for their artillery congealed up so thick they couldn't fire an 88 without it busting out the back of the slide.

Also, the Panthers came in too late in the war to equal or defeat the T-34's that were geometrically more protective in their armor design.

On that same History Channel program I mentioned above, German tank crewmen admitted that their tanks had severe mechanical problems and would break down quite often. Though knocking out Shermans was easy for them ("They just would light up and burn when we hit them") they conceded that our dependability to keep on moving made easy targets of the stalled tanks. I think the same scenario was true with the Russian tanks being more rugged though badly manned.

Triple C

Speaking of German logistics; recently read a book about the planning of Barbarossa. OKH and Hitler drew the master plan for administering one quick, decisive killing blow. That meant munitions, spare parts and fuel took precedent over winter clothing. By the conclusion of Operational Typhoon the Germans knew they were honkering down for the long fight but the damage has been done.

__________________
What benefits the body is called medicine; what benefits the soul, discipline.
-Augustine of Hippo

dalem

Sure. I'm only trying to illuminate the organizational differences that may lead to misinterpretations. In 1943, being attacked by a Soviet "Heavy Tank Regiment" means 20 or so KVs were involved, not the 150 or so that might be expected from a German "Tank Regiment".

Take from that what you will.

-dale

dalem

"West, WWII":

Platoon = 5 tanks
Company = 3 platoons = 15 tanks
Battalion = 3 companies = 45 tanks
Regiment/Brigade = 2-3 Battalions = 90 - 140 tanks
Division = multiple Regiments/Brigades
Corps = multiple divisions

"Red Army WWII (armor)"

Medium -

Platoon = 3 tanks
Company = 3 platoons = 9 tanks (10 with command tank)
Battalion = 3 companies = 30 tanks
Regiment = 2 - 3 battalions = 60 - 90 tanks
Corps = 2 - 3 Regiments = 120 - 180 tanks
Army = 2 - 3 corps = 250 tanks

Heavies meant even less - 21 tanks for a regiment. A Red Army Tank Corps was no more than a Mechanized Brigade/Regiment in Western (friend or foe) terminology. 2 levels "smaller", in other words.

-dale

Stan187

Dale is very much correct here. This is exactly why I've found that its impossible to study Eastern Front engagements properly unless you are willing to put in the boring time and effort to seriously look at all the TOEs. Switching between Western & Russian conceptions of what an "Army" is gave me headache at first.

__________________
In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea

dalem

Yes, I believe they were used on the M3 TDs - basically an M3 halftrack with a 75mm bolted into the back - but that the Sherman gun was a new gun completely.

-dale

dalem

And yet for plain old arms & legs, the infantry, it's relatively "normal". 10 or so guys to a squad, 3 squads in a platoon (4 in some early orgs), 3 platoons in a company, etc. The UK orgs give me that same headache too.

-dale

Feanor

A Mechanized Corps (Red Army term for tank corps) at the berginning of the war is 1021 tanks according to Viktor Suvorov's "Day M".

dalem

When discussing the Red Army in WWII one has to remember that there were essentially three Soviet armies and organizations:

The first was the early war army - spastic, mis-handled, and largely reactive, it was essentially destroyed on paper and in fact by 1942 and accomplished very little. So the early war organizations were gigantic and bloated but they didn't survive the first winter so it didn't really matter.

The second was the mid-war army - it was a stop-gap defensive force and was also essentially ground down and destroyed by the end of 1943, but it took a heckuva lot of Germans down with it. Fewer field grade officers and many new recruits required that the Sovs fight with regimental- and brigade-sized units without truly effective higher level organizations for them to operate in.

The third was the late-war army of 1944 - 1945. It was an offensive force and, while it didn't quite destroy itself getting to Berlin, it was a tired and spent force when the Great Patriotic War ended. By '44 real Division and Corps-level Headquarters existed once again (even if they were called Corps and Armies by the Sovs) and the Red Army gained the ability to operate large forces effectively. Very effectively.

-dale

zraver

Dale, your maximum numbers ar eoff by about 50% Most tank armies went to battle with between 400-800 tanks not 250. This would make a tank army only about 1 step lower than its designation would indicate in the West.

Also Bessenov in his memoirs clearly remembers being being assinged 3 JS-2 for spear heading the 4th Tank Armies drive across Poland.

Evigenni Bessenov, Tank Rider into the Reich with the Red Army. translated to English 2003. stackpole books.

dalem

As far as tank armies, sure, they are still large orgs, and keep in mind I'm only counting medium and heavy tanks. No lights or SPGs or assault guns. And also, the closest U.S. equivalent to a Soviet tank army would have been one of its early Armored Divisions! 2 regiments of tanks plus a battalion of SP TDs for a paper strength of about 350 tracks! Add in the Stuarts and you get at least another 50 or so! And then there's the 200-odd halftracks of the infantry and the SP artillery. The traffic problems of the 3rd Armored in NWE must've been nightmarish.

So I'm not trying to write a hard & fast Law of Equivalents, but instead point out that more often than not a Red Army WWII mechanized or tube unit is going to be a couple of steps "smaller" than its designation.

And 3 heavies at a time? Sure, why not? Everyone massaged their TO&Es according to the field requirements. By the end of the war cross-attaching tanks & TDs even at the platoon level was common for the U.S., for instance. But I'm mainly talking paper numbers to get at the basics.

-dale