Evolution of Deep Operations from WWII to modern Soviet Army (and Russian later)

[Anonymosity]

I recently finished reading When Titan's Clash by John Glantz and it brings amazing incite to Soviet tactics and usage of Deep Operations during the second periods of the Great Patriotic War. With this amazingly large war, it obviously has been the main tutor for future Soviet and Russian tactical doctrine. However I am interested as to how has it evolved from WWII Deep Operations into say Soviet Army and WP Army operations, and then subsequent Russian and CIS operations.

How has this system evolved? Basically, say the Soviet Union invaded a fictional nation with no serious climactic and terrain advantages (i.e. mountainous, cold etc.) and it had to conduct an operation without nuclear weaponry. How would this operation be conducted, and how close is it to it's WWII counterpart in Deep Operations?

[RECON DOC]

I just googled "The evolution of Soviet Military Doctrine"
It took about 15 seconds. Remember, Google is your friend.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=The+evolution+of+soviet+military+doctrine&spell=1

[Anonymosity]

I just googled "The evolution of Soviet Military Doctrine"
It took about 15 seconds. Remember, Google is your friend.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=The+evolution+of+soviet+military+doctrine&spell=1


The doctrine they are referring to there is global warfare on the stage of Political doctrine, not low level operational doctrine. Furthermore I am specifically interested in how a modern Soviet Army or Corps would carry out an invasion in say the 80s, against a modern nation. Those articles dont mention any of it.

You don't have to be so snappy with your response, you could treat it with some respect.

[RECON DOC]

The doctrine they are referring to there is global warfare on the stage of Political doctrine, not low level operational doctrine. Furthermore I am specifically interested in how a modern Soviet Army or Corps would carry out an invasion in say the 80s, against a modern nation. Those articles dont mention any of it.

You don't have to be so snappy with your response, you could treat it with some respect.

I see you edited your post.

You must earn respect pal and asking for others to do your searching for you is not the way to do it. If you could learn to search for yourself you woulden't have to start a lame thread. But to show you that I bare you no animosity(hahahaha I made a funny but you probably don't get it)

Try this.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=evolution+of+soviet+deep+operations+from+WWII+to+present&btnG=Google+Search

And if that's not good enough you can go scratch your ass.

[Anonymosity]

Nevermind. I'll give you the last word, now back to my topic please.

[RECON DOC]

And if I did edit my post? Your point?

I see no reason why my request earned any disrespect. I searched for all of this already, and none of them satisfied my request. Thats why I came here. Now, if you have nothing to add anymore, you may kindly leave. I'll even give you the last word.

Yet again your search gave me nothing.

First of all, my first post was not disrespectfull in the least. It was a hint.
One you obviously did not get. If the term "Google is your friend" is offensive to you, then you should take your sensitive little 14 year old self over to the 'Barny the Dinosaur and Baby Bop' forum. You might have said 'thanks,but it's not what I was looking for' But you got all offended and had to go into condescending tones in your pre-edited post. Still I tried to assist you further.

Secondly, you need to read the forum rules.
You're suposed put 'Request' in the thread title if you are requesting something. Not give the impression that there are photos or information related to the thread title and then ask for information on some obscure subject and type in the summary from the back of the book you just read. Then pose a hypothetical Question and a totally lame one at that.

[Anonymosity]

You have the last word, I'm stopping this argument right now. If you have any maturity as well, I ask that you stop it too.

Now, back to the topic at hand.

[LaoSexMachine]

How has this system evolved? Basically, say the Soviet Union invaded a fictional nation with no serious climactic and terrain advantages (i.e. mountainous, cold etc.) and it had to conduct an operation without nuclear weaponry. How would this operation be conducted, and how close is it to it's WWII counterpart in Deep Operations?


Red Dawn.

.

[RECON DOC]

You have the last word, I'm stopping this argument right now. If you have any maturity as well, I ask that you stop it too.

Now, back to the topic at hand.

Hmmm. So I thought you were going to give me the last word, no?

I didn't start an argument. You did remember. And as far as maturity goes, next time someone tries to help you on this forum, try saying thanks instead of insulting them. Or don't reply at all.

[LaoSexMachine]

efight club. Can I be next?

[Anonymosity]

BTW, this isnt only a request, this is a topic of discussion, so everyone can voice their opinion.

From their usage of Special Forces in WWII with combat recon etc., and their later usages in Afghanistan there is no doubt they would use these forces to their best advantage. I envision special forces being the tool that USSR would use to destroy the intelligence infrastructure, much like the USA used airpower to destroy the intelligence infrastructure in the Second Gulf War. Now how would a conventional attack go against a conventional force? How similar do you think it would be to a Deep Operations attack?

[Mitch Rapp]

The Red Army made an impressive advance in Manchuria in 1945. Try Operation 'August Storm'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_August_Storm

[Noble713]

Furthermore I am specifically interested in how a modern Soviet Army or Corps would carry out an invasion in say the 80s, against a modern nation. Those articles dont mention any of it.


I picked up a used copy of John Erickson's Soviet Ground Forces: An Operational Assessment through the Amazon marketplace and it more or less covers exactly you are looking for. Keep in mind the book was written in 1986 though. The ISBN is 0-89158-796-9.

Here's some highlights from the table of contents:

Chp 2 Evolution of Soviet Ground Forces 1941-1985
---The Resurrection of Massed Armor and Artillery
---Force Levels and Force Structures: Deployment and Organization
Chp 3 Soviet Operational Procedures
---Doctrine
---Principles of Soviet Military Art-Doctrine
---Offensive Operational Procedures
---Methods of Initiating the Attack
---The March to Contact
---The Meeting Engagement
Chp 4 Norms
---Place of Norms in Soviet Life
---Norms in Military Practice
---Calculations Using Norms
Chp 5 The Air Component

[Anonymosity]

The Red Army made an impressive advance in Manchuria in 1945. Try Operation 'August Storm'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_August_Storm

I would consider this to be in the "scope" of the Great Patriotic War (not technically being part of it, but relevant to it).

Thank you to Noble, this is exactly what I am looking for. Also, its from a great author too! I'll be sure to find a copy.

[Murray B]

Google is your friend.



Mr. RECON DOC, Google often returns a lot of crap. If someone is not a veteran then how are they supposed to know what is fact and what is fiction?


Facts about the Red Army are especially hard to come by since they have been spewing nonsense for the entire cold war and beyond. Even this Glasnost (is it 7?) does not seem to have done much to help. Most of the books I have seen are based on KGB (or whatever) approved archival releases and may not be accurate.

This forum seems to have some postings by people who know what they are talking about and is way better than average. It could be a good place to find answers.

[Smersh]

Pick up any book talking about soviet tacitics, and you will notice the huge influence world war II operational art and tacitics had on post-war military leader-thinkers.

[Murray B]

Pick up any book talking about soviet tacitics...

The truth is that I have picked up too many, and older ones too. One thing I cannot find out is how the T34/85s were used at the battles around Kursk.

Sir John Keegan wrote that the KV-85 was in service in early '43 and Terry Gander wrote that the turret was used on the T34/85. Ivor Matanle actually wrote that the T34/85 was in service before Kursk and and some German sources mention "hundreds" of them there.

What I would like to know is how the T34/85 was used at Kursk. Were they grouped together or spread evenly? Did they charge with T34/76s in front and followed with T34/85s in the rear or did they do something else?

What book available in English will tell me these things?

[Smersh]

I didn't think there where any T-34/85s during the battle of Kursk.

[Hellfish]

I didn't think there where any T-34/85s during the battle of Kursk.

T-34/43s were the latest versions at Kursk. The '85s showed up in early '44.

[Smersh]

T-34/43s were the latest versions at Kursk. The '85s showed up in early '44. thats what I thought too. That answers your question Murray.

[Hellfish]

Basically, say the Soviet Union invaded a fictional nation with no serious climactic and terrain advantages (i.e. mountainous, cold etc.) and it had to conduct an operation without nuclear weaponry. How would this operation be conducted, and how close is it to it's WWII counterpart in Deep Operations?

I'm not operating at 100% right now, nor will I claim to be an expert on Soviet operational art... but...

The idea of Soviet operational art really isn't a whole lot different from any other of maneuver warfare. The idea is to mass where the enemy is weak, punch through, and run amuck amongst the rear echelons of your enemy.

The idea is that the enemy will collapse when they stop being supplied because you now own their bridges, railheads and supply lines.

To support deep operations, the soviets emphasized airborne/air assault (desant) forces to seize key terrain. They also created highly mobile operational maneuver groups (combined arms armies) that would exploit any breakthroughs in the enemy lines.

In effect, everything is offensive. The Russians, post 1943, were almost blindly offensively minded.

[Murray B]

T-34/43s were the latest versions at Kursk. The '85s showed up in early '44.



http://www.aviapress.com/magaz/bkl/bkl003_6.jpg

The background one is the '44 model. The forground one is the one Ivor Matanle wrote about. Clearly it is not some kind of a prototype from the extended range fuel tanks, track links on a bent fender and hull machine gun.

Now where can read about how this earlier model [made from April '43] was used. Hundreds were at Kursk but nobody knows how they were distributed.

[Smersh]

the one in the foreground is not a T-34/85

[Murray B]

the one in the foreground is not a T-34/85
What is it then?


It has a T34 hull and 85-mm gun. The gun appears to be the old type since they extended the mantlet 200-mm at the shoulder. It is not any kind of prototype because there is no reason to fit a bow machine gun and extra fuel tanks to a prototype. Also there is no reason to photograph a regular '44 production model beside any kind of prototype.

It seems clear that Ivor Matanle and Sir John Keegan were right in the first place. T34/85s and KV-85s were at Kursk.

[Smersh]

that is not a 85mm gun It looks like the 76mm gun, although the hull looks like the 85version. . There may have been some KV-85s at Kursk, but as far as I know the T-34/85 was still in development during the battle of Kursk, the first T-34/85 were not produced until january of 1944. The German idea that there where hundreds of 85mm tanks at Kursk is fantasy.

this is quite suprising it could be a T-43, but I was not aware any where used in combat
http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/655/t432sb9.jpg (http://imageshack.us) here is a picture of the T-43.

[Hellfish]

that is not a 85mm gun It looks like the 76mm gun, although the hull looks like the 85version. this is quite suprising it could be a T-43, but I was not aware any where used in combat. There may have been some KV-85s at Kursk, but as far as I know the T-34/85 was still in development during the battle of Kursk.

Yeah, thats a 76mm gun. Look at the turret mantlet. It might be a prototype, development, or evaluation vehicle even with the battered look to it.

[Murray B]

that is not a 85mm gun It looks like the 76mm gun, although the hull looks like the 85version. . There may have been some KV-85s at Kursk, but as far as I know the T-34/85 was still in development during the battle of Kursk, the first T-34/85 were not produced until january of 1944.

this is quite suprising it could be a T-43, but I was not aware any where used in combat
http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/655/t432sb9.jpg (http://imageshack.us) here is a picture of the T-43.

Sorry, it is the inverted horse collar mantlet of the 85-mm. Same as #105 in Kubinka but extended about 200-mm.

What they were working on in '43 was a more compact version of the 85-mm gun. Clearly, from the picture, the earlier model had to move the gun outward by 200-mm to fit a longer gun. Then they had to cut back the tube to move the C. of G. back towards the centre. The foreground model is a hybrid vehicle with KV-1S/85 turret on a T34 hull. About seven hundred were made between April and September '43. The rear model is the standard type from '44 and many thousands of these were made but they weren't the first T34/85s.

Now, what I want to know is how the earlier models were used. I'm thinking they were spread out evenly and not in groups. Maybe 500 KV-85s at Kursk and three hundred each of the T34/85 and SU-152. The Germans have no technical superiority in armour there. In fact their monsters with very low efficiency gasoline motors are logistical nightmares. No wonder the Germans said the T34/85 was the "best tank in the world".

So where can I find a book on their use that is not complete fiction?

[Hellfish]

Sorry, it is the inverted horse collar mantlet of the 85-mm. Same as #105 in Kubinka but extended about 200-mm.

What they were working on in '43 was a more compact version of the 85-mm gun. Clearly, from the picture, the earlier model had to move the gun outward by 200-mm to fit a longer gun. Then they had to cut back the tube to move the C. of G. back towards the centre. The foreground model is a hybrid vehicle with KV-1S/85 turret on a T34 hull. About seven hundred were made between April and September '43. The rear model is the standard type from '44 and many thousands of these were made but they weren't the first T34/85s.

Now, what I want to know is how the earlier models were used. I'm thinking they were spread out evenly and not in groups. Maybe 500 KV-85s at Kursk and three hundred each of the T34/85 and SU-152. The Germans have no technical superiority in armour there. In fact their monsters with very low efficiency gasoline motors are logistical nightmares. No wonder the Germans said the T34/85 was the "best tank in the world".

So where can I find a book on their use that is not complete fiction?

Check to see if Steven Zaloga wrote anything about it. He's about as good as anyone in the West with Soviet armor. There might be some translated stuff coming out of Russia worth checking out too.

[Murray B]

Check to see if Steven Zaloga wrote anything about it. He's about as good as anyone in the West with Soviet armor. There might be some translated stuff coming out of Russia worth checking out too.

The modelmaker? You like him better than Keegan or Matanle?

Anyway, I did read some of his stuff and it is almost exlusively based on archival records. He says T34/85 comes in '44 just as the more recent Russian sources do.

It is risky to base history on archival sources alone. They will never contain anything incriminating or defeatist. Government records are also a huge database where it is possible to completely miss important facts. For example I know of Soviet requests for more 85-mm AT guns after Kursk but no record of any 85-mm ammunition sent there.
What if no record of the ammo is ever found? Should we then assume the Soviets are so dumb that they ask for guns when all they need is ammunition.

As far as I know Mr. Zaloga makes no mention of the T34:KV-1S/85 hybrids or how they were used at Kursk.

Some German veterans do mention it but only to say they were penetrating the front plate of Tigers at long range and nothing about how the tanks were grouped.

[Smersh]

Its physically impossible for T-34/85s to be at the battle of Kursk, none where produced until janurary of 1944.

T-43 gun was not a compact version of the 85mm gun. It used the same gun as the t-34, the 76mm gun. The T-43 addressed problems of a cramped turret and some engine, transmission issues. You can clearly see from the images that the cannon is not a shortened 85mm gun as you suggest but the standard 76mm gun. the T-43 never entered mass production, but some may have taken part in the fighting at Kursk.

Keegan is not an equipment expert

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-43_tank

[Murray B]

Its physically impossible for T-34/85s to be at the battle of Kursk, none where produced until janurary of 1944.

Keegan is not an equipment expert
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-43_tank

The tanks in the picture clearly have the same bore and it is that and not length that determines the calibre. If the one in the background is an 85-mm then so is the other one.

It is only impossible that the '44 model is at Kursk not an earlier model.

Most historians are not equipment experts but Sir Keegan at least had his work checked by some.

Good fiction can be separated from bad by looking at its continuity. Historical fact must always have good continuity but this tank stuff is the poorest I have seen.

There are plenty of references to the Kursk T34/85s and I have even come up with a picture of one. It is clear what it is even if someone says it is a "Petunia".

Sadly, the corruption of history is complete and there is nothing currently available that is not a complete fiction. There is currently no way to learn what really happened at Kursk.

Too bad too because those Soviet veterans of the old days were a lot smarter than we give them credit for today.

Of course you are behind the times. The new history is that Germany only lost 80 to 100 vehicles at Kursk and it was a great German victory. This has been proven by the German archives.

[Anonymosity]

I picked up a used copy of John Erickson's Soviet Ground Forces: An Operational Assessment through the Amazon marketplace and it more or less covers exactly you are looking for. Keep in mind the book was written in 1986 though. The ISBN is 0-89158-796-9.

Here's some highlights from the table of contents:

Chp 2 Evolution of Soviet Ground Forces 1941-1985
---The Resurrection of Massed Armor and Artillery
---Force Levels and Force Structures: Deployment and Organization
Chp 3 Soviet Operational Procedures
---Doctrine
---Principles of Soviet Military Art-Doctrine
---Offensive Operational Procedures
---Methods of Initiating the Attack
---The March to Contact
---The Meeting Engagement
Chp 4 Norms
---Place of Norms in Soviet Life
---Norms in Military Practice
---Calculations Using Norms
Chp 5 The Air Component

The Amazon Marketplace says that its only some 270 pages long. Isnt that kind of small for something encompassing so much?

also, can we get back ontopic? This isnt about Kursk or T-34s.

[Murray B]

The Amazon Marketplace says that its only some 270 pages long. Isnt that kind of small for something encompassing so much?


The corruption was well underway by '86, I need something from '70 or sooner written while memories were still fresh. Especially before arrogant and ignorant young historians become convinced that fiction was fact.

[Smersh]

Combat Employment of the T-34/85http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=85&Itemid=43
-You can also read the section on the T-34/85s development. No t-34/85 in kursk according to Zaloga too.

Anonymosity, you can pick up a copy of V.G Reznichenko's Tactics, but its from the 80s. It makes frequent references to the last war, aside from improvments in weapons and equipment in all areas and nuclear weaponry, the soviet view is that battle is essentially the same. All the same principles that applied during the war, would still apply to future warfare.

[Anonymosity]

Instead of starting a new thread I thought I'd bring this question in here.

Many analysts today seem to reach the same conclusion that the Soviet style military organization is obsolete, or inferior now adays. Whenever I read reports on various armies, they usually have things such as "Such and such army is having trouble reforming from the obsolete soviet style...etc.". Why is the Soviet Army style of organization/doctrine now considered obsolete?

[Smersh]

modern former soviet type militaries simply can't afford the soviet 'style of war'. There is a new focus on smaller formations accross the whole former warsaw pact nations.

[Murray B]

Combat Employment of the T-34/85
-You can also read the section on the T-34/85s development. No t-34/85 in kursk according to Zaloga too.


The site probably got the info from Mr. Zaloga so the information may not be from different sources. It is interesting to note that the in service date is now Feb. '44 and not January as before. These Internet sources are ever changing.

Mr. Zaloga is a historian with an Arts degree. What I am looking for is technically accurate information from an 'army guy' or tank engineer.

[Hellfish]

modern former soviet type militaries simply can't afford the soviet 'style of war'. There is a new focus on smaller formations accross the whole former warsaw pact nations.

You're right, but I think the concept of deep operations is still viable with a smaller military.

[Lokos]

Mr. Zaloga is a historian with an Arts degree

Mr. Zaloga is the author of the authoritative work on Soviet organizational structures during the GPW ('The Red Army Handbook'). His sources for induction dates, deployments, upgrades etc. should not be dismissed without significant evidence to the contrary.

Lokos

[Murray B]

... significant evidence to the contrary.

Lokos

John Keegan puts KV-85s in service before Kursk.
Ivor Matanle puts T34/85s in service before Kursk.
Terry Gander says the KV-85 turret was put "virtually unchanged" on the T34 to make the T34/85.

There is plenty of evidence to the contrary for those who would look and have an open mind.

[Lokos]

Since I remain unenlightened (especially considering that the RKKA deployed T-34/85s in response to the emerging threat of the 'cats' - and Kursk was their first en masse deployment), why don't you tell me where John Keegan and Ivor Matanle get their information from?

Which formerly Soviet archive?


Terry Gander says the KV-85 turret was put "virtually unchanged" on the T34 to make the T34/85.


Terry Gander is very much so mistaken.

Here is a KV-85:

http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/galleries/KV/KV_85/KV_85_3.jpg

And here is a T34/85:

http://www.mokei-wadachi.com/reikai2005/200505/t3485/t34-85_1.jpg

Do you detect no differences?

Fact:

Only 130 units of the KV-85 were produced - all in September-October 1943 (well after Kursk), before further development of the KV-13 was to result in the JS/IS series tanks in late 1943 and throughout 1944.

Wright, Milsom, Harrison all clearly state that the deployment of the T34/85 did not begin until well after Kursk, Belgorod-Orel and Kharkov.

Lokos

[AMVAS]

Pals, full info about production of soviet AFVs you can see on my page
http://www.rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/weapons/afv_production.htm

regards,
Alex

[Murray B]

Since I remain unenlightened (especially considering that the RKKA deployed T-34/85s in response to the emerging threat of the 'cats' - and Kursk was their first en masse deployment), why don't you tell me where John Keegan and Ivor Matanle get their information from?


Unless the Soviets were complete idiots they would have been developing the KV-85 while the Tigers were still in development. If they waited for the Germans to deploy the vehicles before starting theirs then they would have been automatically behind.

The Doctors Hart have the Tiger in development in early '41. Mr. Zaloga writes that Marshal Kulik knows in early '41 that the Germans are planning tanks with "...new German tank guns..." and "...re-armoured its tanks to 100 mm...". Soviet intelligence looks to be pretty accurate to me. The Tiger did have a new tank gun, the "88" and it did have a 100-mm frontal plate. Why would the Soviets wait for deployment before starting their prototype?

Sir John Keegan and Ivor Matanle have not told me where they obtained their information.


Which formerly Soviet archive?

I hope they did not just use archval sources.



Terry Gander is very much so mistaken.

The difference of eight months between historical accounts is so large that some historians must be very mistaken.



Here is a KV-85:


Indeed it is, and if you look carefully you will see that it does not carry a Stalin turret. Notice how far back the mantlet is from the near vertical frontal plate. The front of the Stalin turret comes much closer to the plate. This KV-85 is almost identical to the prototype (vehicle #105 in Kubinka).


http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/galleries/KV/KV_85/KV_85_3.jpg


And here is a T34/85:
http://www.mokei-wadachi.com/reikai2005/200505/t3485/t34-85_1.jpg


Yes, this is the '44 model and many thousands of these were produced. It is visibly different from the earlier T34/KV-85 hybrids. About 700 of these were made between April and Sept. '43.


Do you detect no differences?

Fact:

Only 130 units of the KV-85 were produced - all in September-October 1943 (well after Kursk), before further development of the KV-13 was to result in the JS/IS series tanks in late 1943 and throughout 1944.

Wright, Milsom, Harrison all clearly state that the deployment of the T34/85 did not begin until well after Kursk, Belgorod-Orel and Kharkov.

Lokos

version of events with better correlation with the facts:

There were 130 or so KV-1Ss upgraded to Stalin turrets in late '43 but they are not the original KV-85s. The original KV-85 was a KV-1S variant and judging from the archival photographs it appears to be more common than the KV-1S/76. KV-1S/85s were made from Sept. 42' until April '43. After April all the hulls were used to make SU-152s and the turrets fitted to T34 hulls to make the first production T34s with 85-mm gun.

I'm sorry but it still looks like Matanle, Gander, and Sir Keegan got it right in the first place.

This also means that "superior German engineering" is a complete myth. The Panther and T34/KV-85 hybrid are tactically similar but the Panther is a logistical nightmare. Not only is it 30,000 pounds heavier than a T34/85 but it is powered by a low-efficiency low-compression gasoline engine instead of a diesel like a T34. No wonder the German army wanted more Stug IIIs and Pz IVs. At least they could fuel those.

[Murray B]

Pals, full info about production of soviet AFVs you can see on my page
http://www.rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/weapons/afv_production.htm

regards,
Alex

A nice job but you forgot to mention about 700 T34/KV-1S/85 hybrids produced between April '43 and September or so. These are the first T34/85s and hundreds were at Kursk. If it helps I think the T34 hulls were sent over to where they were already casting KV-1S/85 turrets and were joined there. The original T34/85 has a mantlet like the KV-85 that Locos posted and not the short cylinder mantlet of the '44 model.

[AMVAS]

A nice job but you forgot to mention about 700 T34/KV-1S/85 hybrids produced between April '43 and September or so. These are the first T34/85s and hundreds were at Kursk. If it helps I think the T34 hulls were sent over to where they were already casting KV-1S/85 turrets and were joined there. The original T34/85 has a mantlet like the KV-85 that Locos posted and not the short cylinder mantlet of the '44 model.

Wha-a-a-t???? 8-O
I forgot nothing!
They are official production tables of all our plants!
There can be some small inexactensses, but in general they are correct.

About what "hybrides" you are speaking about?????!!!!!

The very first T-34-85 were not hybrides, they were ordinary T-34s equipped with 85mm D-5T guns in new turrets.
http://www.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/WWII/T34/T34_85D5.jpg
In whole 1943 produced 283 D-5T guns
Data about productin of T-34-85 ican be found in mentioned tables on my site.
The very first vehicles with 85-mm guns the troops got in Feb.-March 1944.
One of the first tank regiments equpped with new tanks was the 38th Separate Tank Regiment. It took part in further combats as a part of the 53rd Army
Another unit was the 119th Tank Regiment of the 2nd Ukrainian Front on Mar. 20'44

There were no ANY serial hybrides of KV/T-34. All figures you told about are incorrect...


There were NO serial KVs besides KV-85 equipped with the 85mm gun.

One more tank equipped with the 85mm gun was IS-1 (or IS-85).
107 vehicles was produced
http://www.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/WWII/IS2/is2_4.jpg
The very first IS-1s were produced in October 1943 (see table on my site)

Plz show me at least one photo of these tanks you mention to say what are they. Speaking about hundreds of 85mm gun equipped tanks at Kursk is at least incorrect....

Regards,
Alex

[AMVAS]

Of course you are behind the times. The new history is that Germany only lost 80 to

100 vehicles at Kursk and it was a great German victory. This has been proven by the

German archives.

Aha, another "glorious retreat"...

Irreparable losses of AFVs in the Army Group "South" for July 5-17'43
http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/5080/ddd1vc1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Rem. Data for the 7th Pz.D are given for July 4-10.

Irreparable losses of AFVs in the Army Group "South" on July 31'43
http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/8065/dddsv9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Except 20 tanks and StuGs lost in fights of July 21-30 all thsoe losses were in the

course of Citadel operation

And those are not all.
After the beginning of Soviet counter-offensive irreparable German losses in AFVs

extremely grows.
For example, the 7th & 11th Pz. Div. by July 4-10 lost 10 & tanks respectively, but at

the same time they lost 29 & 38 tanks for the Aug. 3-10, More than one half of those

tanks were exploded by Germans themselves.
(source: Totalausfalle 7 Pz.Div. vom 14.8.43; Aufstellung uber Totalausfalle anlage zur

gep. Kfz.-Bestandsmeldung 11 Pz. Div. fur die Zeit vom.1 bis 12.8.43, NARA T313 R390)

by the evening of Aug. 11 irreparable losses of the 10th Pz. Brig. equipped with

"Panthers" rised up to 76 vehicles.
(ibid T313 R376, F8664486)

The 10th Pz. Brig had very serios losses. If to follow report on Aug. 12 about state of

"Panther" tanks:

"On the beginning of July - 200 "Panthers"
Irreparable losses in the course of "Citadel" operation - 65 "Panthers"
Available on the end og July after transfer tanks from the 51st Pz. Bn - 135 "Panthers"
(only 19 of them operable)
Sent to Germany for repair - 15 "Panthers"
Sent to Dnepropetrovsk for repair - 27 "Panthers"
Reinforcement received - 12 "Panthers"
Available tanks by the beginning of Russian offensive - 105 "Panthers"
Lost in fights, or exploded in the course of retreat from borisovka, Golovchin, Grajvoron - 75 "Panthers"
Hit in Trostyanets - 1 "Panther"

Available by now - 29 "Panthers"
From them in repair - 15 "Panthers"
Not evacuated yet - 5 "Panthers"
Operating together with "Grossdeutchland" division - 6 "Panthers"
Unknown location - 3 "Panthers"

Source: ibid T313 R376 F8664512

So, be careful referring to archives.

I again caught your statements to be incorrect.

Regards,
Alex

[Murray B]

Thank you for posting all of the great information.

Alex, you misunderstand me, I'm not saying that the revisionist fiction is correct. What I found was that there were colossal tank battles around Kursk in the middle of 1943. Losses on both sides were huge and afterwards Germany had no possibility to win the war.

My research also showed that the KV-85 and T34/85 were both present there in significant numbers. In post #23 I even gave a picture of an early T34/85 and here it is again:
http://www.aviapress.com/magaz/bkl/bkl003_6.jpg

If the archival records show only a few hundred D5-T guns were produced then it seems that a record is missing or another 85-mm gun has been mislabled. You cannot prove a negative by what is not yet found in the archives.

When I started to examine the disagreement between Keegan et al. and Zaloga et. al I had no preference. It is just that the revisionist view fell apart on close examination.

What started me down the right path was the "fillets" that were supposedly on the first KV-85. There cannot be any such plates on a newly produced cast hull unless the Soviets were complete idiots. Also, the claim that the Stalin turret was designed for the 85-mm but just happened to fit the 122 is preposterous. The 122 is the mother of all turreted tank guns made during the war. The Stalin turret had to be designed for the 122 and the fact that it could carry a smaller gun is irrelevant.

One thing that confuses me is why sources from the former Soviet Union are now trying to prove that their fathers and grandfathers were stupid monkey men. They were not, and the T34/85 was the "best tank in the world" (from April '43) just like the German generals said it was.

Please examine your materials carefully to try to find out why there is a disagreement of about eight months between historical accounts.

It is important to get the facts straight before it becomes impossible to do so.

Good luck with your research.

Sincerely,

Murray B.

P.S. There is a good article on this subject in the July/August 2006 issue of "World War II Magazine".

[AMVAS]

Thank you for posting all of the great information.

Alex, you misunderstand me, I'm not saying that the revisionist fiction is correct. What I found was that there were colossal tank battles around Kursk in the middle of 1943. Losses on both sides were huge and afterwards Germany had no possibility to win the war.

My research also showed that the KV-85 and T34/85 were both present there in significant numbers. In post #23 I even gave a picture of an early T34/85 and here it is again:



Well.. the left tank is experimental T-43 which never was built in series.
the same vehicle is below (it had several variants)
http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/1084/pagesfromotechestvennyefv9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

I think it's a source for you version.
But studying the subject for a long years I can be sure there were no such vehicels been built in series.



If the archival records show only a few hundred D5-T guns were produced then it seems that a record is missing or another 85-mm gun has been mislabled. You cannot prove a negative by what is not yet found in the archives.

It's impossible to miss any gun produced in more, or less significant scales. All of them were already studied carefully.....
Besides, 85mm caliber guns were not too attractive for Soviet designers earlier...
When prior to the war they got incorrect info about project of German heavy tank with thick armor large attention was paid to the 107-mm gun.
But KV tank with this gun was never built in series, because whenthe war started it was found Germans used well-known types of tanks.



When I started to examine the disagreement between Keegan et al. and Zaloga et. al I had no preference. It is just that the revisionist view fell apart on close examination.


It's hard to search for a black cat in a dark room, when there are no any cat there... :roll:



What started me down the right path was the "fillets" that were supposedly on the first KV-85. There cannot be any such plates on a newly produced cast hull unless the Soviets were complete idiots. Also, the claim that the Stalin turret was designed for the 85-mm but just happened to fit the 122 is preposterous. The 122 is the mother of all turreted tank guns made during the war. The Stalin turret had to be designed for the 122 and the fact that it could carry a smaller gun is irrelevant.


KV had several variants. If I have time I will place more galleries on the subject
but 85mm gun had only one serial modification - KV-85. And no else.
Even such an exotic KV-3 and KV-220, which took part in fights on Leningrad direction had 76mm guns

85mm gun in IS tank was temporarily decision as well as production of KV-85.
they were transition types to the IS-2 model.
There were no other transition models in series...



One thing that confuses me is why sources from the former Soviet Union are now trying to prove that their fathers and grandfathers were stupid monkey men. They were not, and the T34/85 was the "best tank in the world" (from April '43) just like the German generals said it was.


Don't know in what connection you refer to authority of our fathers and grandfathers.
I know that there were no Soviet 85mm tanks until the year 1944 on battlefields



Please examine your materials carefully to try to find out why there is a disagreement of about eight months between historical accounts.
It is important to get the facts straight before it becomes impossible to do so.


No need to study well-known facts.
Even small series of 10-20 vehicles were already throughly examined.
So, a large multi-hunderd series of any vehicel has no chances to be missed.



P.S. There is a good article on this subject in the July/August 2006 issue of "World War II Magazine".

I prefer Russian magazines.
When I started my "RKKA in WWII" project it was thought to struggle just against many myths on the west about different Soviet tanks.
I needed to answer rather stupid questions about tanks which never were in use, as they had been experimental vehicles only in the best case...

Regards,
Alex

[Smersh]

I told him the tank pictured was an T-43 several posts ago.

[AMVAS]

I told him the tank pictured was an T-43 several posts ago.

In the year 2003 at the very beginning of my site I needed to prove the same my friend from Netherlands. He was making addon for computer game and wished to insert there some tanks, which never were seen on battlefields... It took me less time than now to persuade how wrong he was... :)

[Murray B]

In the year 2003 at the very beginning of my site I needed to prove the same my friend from Netherlands. He was making addon for computer game and wished to insert there some tanks, which never were seen on battlefields... It took me less time than now to persuade how wrong he was... :)

Thanks once again for posting all the interesting information.

Have you even considered the possibility that your friend from the Netherlands is correct?

Unlike your friend, I have also studied this subject for years and have found the modern orthodox view to be completely full of holes. It is as if all this techical history is being written by non-technical writers in isolation. It does not take a genius to see that a production KV-85 hull can't have "fillets". Yet many of these so called "experts" claim exactly that.

You showed me the image of the actual original KV-85 but other sources claim the real KV-85 was a vehicle with Stalin turret and short sleeve mantlet. Both cannot be first.

The nearly identical vehicle #105 in Kubinka museum has a type "S" hull but the old style wheels that were discontinued around Sept. '42. The sign by the vehicle says Sept. '43 but this contradicts the wheels. Did the Red Army make a "Jackalope" from this display or is the date on the sign wrong? If the sign is wrong then the wheels say Sept.'42 and this is completely consistent with what Sir Keegan wrote way back in 1970.

The problems are not just with T34s and KVs but ISs too. For example there are two very different IS-2s. One has hull with semi-circular near vertical plate and the other is sloped like a T34.

True history can never be contradicted by the facts but fiction can be.

What your friend should do with his software is to allow for choosing the revised or traditional view. Something consistent with what Sir Keegan, Sir Liddell Hart, Marshal Zhukov, Matanle, and Gander wrote might be interesting. That would make his Kursk scenario much more difficult for the Germans.

Besides archives have you read any memoirs published by veterans of the war? Archives will never contain anthing incriminating or politically incorrect but memoirs might. I would believe a veteran over the government any day.

If you like archives then you must read APO #758 at <http://www.efour4ever.com/57mm.htm>

It is an official U.S. government document that proves, among other things that, "...the Panther Mk V is vulnerable to the 57mm AT gun" and "...the 57mm AT gun is an effective weapon against any German Armor." It is strange that I have never heard any veteran say this. Most say the opposite. In twenty years or so, after all the veterans are gone, will APO #758 then, somehow, become true?

Anyway, got to go now, but it is food for thought.

[Smersh]

Besides archives have you read any memoirs published by veterans of the war? yeah, I'm sure German memoirs say there where a million T-34/85s and Kursk, real accurate info. Even though production records shows this is impossible.

Why are you fighting so hard to prove there where hundreds T-34/85s vehicles at Kursk, what difference those this make for you?

[Murray B]

yeah, I'm sure German memoirs say there where a million T-34/85s and Kursk, real accurate info.

The memoirs that mention it, only talk of a few hundreds of T34/85 among the tens of hundreds T34s there. The German archives indicate minimal tank losses around Kursk in mid-1943. According to the all-holy archives the Germans lost less than two hundred tanks there while the Soviets lost thousands. German and Soviet archives are in complete disagreement about this.


Even though production records shows this is mpossible.

You cannot prove the negative by what you did not find in the records. Have you confirmed these records by taking an inside caliper and measuring the bores of the guns you are reading about? It is far more likely that someone made a typographical error when recording the bores than careful historians like Sir Keegan making such a huge blunder in introduction dates.


Why are you fighting so hard to prove there where hundreds T-34/85s vehicles at Kursk, what difference those this make for you?

Because it is the truth and because the dead can no longer defend their reputations.

These Slavs were not stupid. Their tanks were better at the start and remained better throughout the war. These Soviet vehicles completely disprove the nonsense about the supposed superiority of the "master race". The Germans try to copy the T34 and wound up with a vehicle 40,000 pounds heavier with triple the fuel consumption but can only do the same jobs as a T34/85. Does that sound like superior engineering to you?

And how about the Stalin? Do you have any idea what a Stalin could do to the mighty Panther which about the same weight?

Viktor in Moscow tells us, "When the "Ioseph Stalin" tank was tested in 1943 its armor piercing projectile penetrated the frontal armour of a German "Panther" tank at a distance of 1500 meters. The projectile's energy was so great that it not only penetrated the frontal armour but continued through another armour plate, the transmission, and finally blew away the back end of the tank. The back end landed a few meters away." see <http://members.tripod.com/~ViktoRus/index1.html>

This is and interesting but non-technical description. The Stalin is almost certainly using a APHE round and not a kinetic energy penetrator. But is is a giant 4.8" 55 pound shell. I expect that the projectile does not penetrate the armour at all, but the shaped charge creates a plasma plume so large that it blew the big cat to pieces. The Panther and Stalin are near the same weight but there is no comparison in a firefight. All the Panther can do is outrun the Stalin.

The huge Stalin cannon can also explain the "ghost tanks" that were sometimes found. You know the ones, engine running, hatches locked from the inside, but no crew. You see, the cat does not blow apart if its gun's breech is open. The plasma goes out the barrel along with the crew. No wonder the Germans feared the Eastern front so much.

Now consider that the 48 Liniya Stalin round is the little one. Apply "rule of thumb" to the 6", 100 pound APHE round of the "Predator Killer". No wonder they sent the JagdTigers west.

Don't get me wrong. I like fiction, in fact Lord of the Rings is one of my favorite stories. What I can't stand is poorly written fiction that is fraudulently presented as historical fact.

I'm an educator and not a historian but I really object to anyone who lies to young people about history. This can even be dangerous because it can make it impossible to avoid mistakes of the past. This makes a difference to me and should make a difference to any honourable person.

[RECON DOC]

The huge Stalin cannon can also explain the "ghost tanks" that were sometimes found. You know the ones, engine running, hatches locked from the inside, but no crew. You see, the cat does not blow apart if its gun's breech is open. The plasma goes out the barrel along with the crew. No wonder the Germans feared the Eastern front so much.


I am intrigued. Can you please elaborate?

[Murray B]

I am intrigued. Can you please elaborate?

Not really, they are just anecdotal legends and stories that are usually dismissed as myths. The thing is that so much high explosive could probably do some very strange things. The stories might not be so mythical after all.

This is why I like to read the writings of veterans who were actually present when the events took place. Any one of them could be mistaken, or even self-serving, but taken together I think it is possible to get a more accurate picture of events. It is certainly better than just using some non-technical historian's interpretation of snippets from government archives, or reading from others that quote from the same sources.

Do you have access to the earliest versions of David Glantz's books? Apparenly, he had photos of T34/85s at Kursk and had to remove them because of the whining of the modelmakers and war game players. The whiners have money and that, not the truth, is what drives seems to drive the publishers. There is nothing new and profitable about what Keegan wrote in 1970 but the revisions are completely new and different. Too bad they are also complete fiction.

So far, I can only find Glantz's newer editions after they were revised. I know that the T34/85s were distributed evenly among the T34s unlike the SU-152s which were grouped together. There was maybe one T34/85 per 8 or 10 T34/76s. The 76s charged and the 85s held back because they could penetrate the Tigers front plate at a thousand yards. I would just love to see a photgraph of those early T34/85s in action around Kursk.

[Smersh]

alright Murray, I agree with you. But what does all that have to do with T-34s 85s being present at Kursk or not. Of course the myth of the "german master-race" isn't true. But whether or not T-34/85s were at Kursk is unrelated.

[AMVAS]

Thanks once again for posting all the interesting information.

Have you even considered the possibility that your friend from the Netherlands is correct?

Possibility of this is equal to zero.
I study war subjects for 25+ years, so I'm sure in what I say.



Unlike your friend, I have also studied this subject for years and have found the modern orthodox view to be completely full of holes.


Western sources often contains incorrect info. Especially those, published in 1950-1970s.
I use only Russian/Soviet ones



It is as if all this techical history is being written by non-technical writers in isolation. It does not take a genius to see that a production KV-85 hull can't have "fillets". Yet many of these so called "experts" claim exactly that.


KV-85 had a hull of serial KV-1S and turret taken from IS prototype.



You showed me the image of the actual original KV-85 but other sources claim the real KV-85 was a vehicle with Stalin turret and short sleeve mantlet. Both cannot be first.


There are not too much photos of KV-85.
this one was captured ny German in Melitopol area
http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/4263/pagesfromfi20023kvp2va4hi0.jpg
There were not too much KV-85s produced for any lage modifications.
The differences can be only between the first vehicle and serial ones..



The nearly identical vehicle #105 in Kubinka museum has a type "S" hull but the old style wheels that were discontinued around Sept. '42. The sign by the vehicle says Sept. '43 but this contradicts the wheels. Did the Red Army make a "Jackalope" from this display or is the date on the sign wrong? If the sign is wrong then the wheels say Sept.'42 and this is completely consistent with what Sir Keegan wrote way back in 1970.


Wheels is not a parameter of identification.
I know plenty of cases when original wheels were replaced by earleri, or later version.
For T-34s there was normal, when one vehicle had a set of wheels of different types.

Vehicles in museums have another problesm - original wheels were lost. So, in many cases they were replaced by other suitable ones.



The problems are not just with T34s and KVs but ISs too. For example there are two very different IS-2s. One has hull with semi-circular near vertical plate and the other is sloped like a T34.


IS-2 had 6 different modifications through the war.
Two main ones differed by a shape of hull. Others with smaller parts.
In western literature IS-2 with modified hull incorrectly are called IS-2M
(IS-2M is called afterwar modification of IS-2. Majority of remaining IS-2s in reality were modified by that IS-2M variants)



True history can never be contradicted by the facts but fiction can be.


I hope you realise the number of myths around WWII... Many of them arises from memoirs



What your friend should do with his software is to allow for choosing the revised or traditional view. Something consistent with what Sir Keegan, Sir Liddell Hart, Marshal Zhukov, Matanle, and Gander wrote might be interesting. That would make his Kursk scenario much more difficult for the Germans.


He-he-he...
In this case he must allow hundreds of Tigers and Panthers for Germans...
If to follow our memoirs, there were jjust that amount of them



Besides archives have you read any memoirs published by veterans of the war?


I have done this for 25 years... 8))



Archives will never contain anthing incriminating or politically incorrect but memoirs might.


Vise versa. Memoirs contains much inexactness.
Archival records are more exact.
However estimations of opponent forces both from memois and archival records are often wrong



I would believe a veteran over the government any day.


Veterans can be mistaken as well..
however they can be useful



If you like archives then you must read APO #758 at <http://www.efour4ever.com/57mm.htm>

It is an official U.S. government document that proves, among other things that, "...the Panther Mk V is vulnerable to the 57mm AT gun" and "...the 57mm AT gun is an effective weapon against any German Armor." It is strange that I have never heard any veteran say this. Most say the opposite. In twenty years or so, after all the veterans are gone, will APO #758 then, somehow, become true?

Anyway, got to go now, but it is food for thought.

I prefer Soviet/russian weapons to study....:)

Regards,
Alex

[Murray B]

Thank you Alex for posting the image. It gets to the main issue.

Lokos posted this from <http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/galleries/KV/KV_85/KV_85_3.jpg> as the KV-85:

http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/galleries/KV/KV_85/KV_85_3.jpg

Note that yours has the Stalin turret but the mantlet of the compact "85". His has the old style mantlet of the larger gun but a much smaller turret that does not need "fillets".

His is very much like Kubinka #105 but with some minor changes. All the wheels on #105 are the same and I see no reason for the Soviets to save a set of wheels for a year just to use them on a KV-85 prototype. Actually, it is far more likely that these vehicles were produced from between eight months and a year apart. This means Sir Keegan was right and the revisionists wrong. There is no escape from this without twisting history ever which way but true.

Also, I have studied the works of Tolkien for more than 25 years but it is still fiction.

[Murray B]

alright Murray, I agree with you. But what does all that have to do with T-34s 85s being present at Kursk or not. Of course the myth of the "german master-race" isn't true. But whether or not T-34/85s were at Kursk is unrelated.

They are very related, Smersh. Without the T34/85 at Kursk it is the Germans who have the superior armour at the time. This means they were defeated only by massed hordes of inferior men and equipment. Not only was the T34/85 there but it outnumbered the Panthers, and the KV-85s outnumbered the Tigers, and the SU-152s outnumbered the tank hunters. This all comes from bona fide historians and is not something I have made up.

[Hellfish]

They are very related, Smersh. Without the T34/85 at Kursk it is the Germans who have the superior armour at the time. This means they were defeated only by massed hordes of inferior men and equipment. Not only was the T34/85 there but it outnumbered the Panthers, and the KV-85s outnumbered the Tigers, and the SU-152s outnumbered the tank hunters. This all comes from bona fide historians and is not something I have made up.

If there were T34/85s at Kursk, how come nobody has seen one? How come all the wrecks are of T34/43s? Panthers and Tigers were relatively rare throughout he war - the Panzer IV remained the main German tank all the way up to '45, and even at Kursk the Panther was just introduced.

The T34/43 was a great tank at the time, and while not a match for a Panther or Tiger 1 for 1, was still a very formidable threat. Add to that the sheer numbers of those T34s, Soviet men and materiel dug in and expecting the German attack and thats how Kursk ended up the way it did. T34/85s wouldn't have made much of a difference even if they were present. A 76.2mm gun can kill a Panzer IVG just as dead as an 85mm gun. The same gun is also effective against a Panther or Tiger from the side or rear at most battlefield ranges.

You still have yet to present any convincing evidence that T34/85s were present. Find me a picture of one at Kursk or name me a unit that was equipped with them at Kursk and then you might have a case. Just saying that you read it somewhere doesn't cut it.

[AMVAS]

Thank you Alex for posting the image. It gets to the main issue.

Lokos posted this from <http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/galleries/KV/KV_85/KV_85_3.jpg> as the KV-85:



Note that yours has the Stalin turret but the mantlet of the compact "85". His has the old style mantlet of the larger gun but a much smaller turret that does not need "fillets".

http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/galleries/KV_85.htm
If you saw caption for that image, you could read:

Experimental KV-1S tank equipped with S-31 85mm gun before tests. Summer 1943

Especially take into account date of the photo...



His is very much like Kubinka #105 but with some minor changes. All the wheels on #105 are the same and I see no reason for the Soviets to save a set of wheels for a year just to use them on a KV-85 prototype. Actually, it is far more likely that these vehicles were produced from between eight months and a year apart. This means Sir Keegan was right and the revisionists wrong. There is no escape from this without twisting history ever which way but true.

See coments above... The vehicle was experimental one...



Also, I have studied the works of Tolkien for more than 25 years but it is still fiction.

Seems you spent too much time for Tolkien and this affected on you historian views...
you still want to find a black cat in a dark room where there are no any cat...
Your theory is 100% soap bubble, but stubbornly you tires to prove it wihtout any basis except rumors and incorrect western works...

Regards,
Alex

[AMVAS]

They are very related, Smersh. Without the T34/85 at Kursk it is the Germans who have the superior armour at the time. This means they were defeated only by massed hordes of inferior men and equipment. Not only was the T34/85 there but it outnumbered the Panthers, and the KV-85s outnumbered the Tigers, and the SU-152s outnumbered the tank hunters. This all comes from bona fide historians and is not something I have made up.

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/138/pagesfromfib01panthervatx7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/1691/pagesfromfib01panthervawd4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Those tables is another nail into the coffin of your version of 85mm tanks at Kursk and to your version of small amount of tanks lost by Germans during this battle as well...

It's table from the report of Soviet comission, which examined on July 20-28 hit "Panthers" on the Kursk ground.
You can see reasons of losses for all of those vehicles and can.
It's obvious the amount of 85-mm holes is relatively very low and corresponds with the amount of 85mm AA guns, which could be used in the system of antitank defense.

Sleep safely and don't divert your forces for the search of the black cat in a dark room... :roll:
there are plenty of much more interesting puzzles in the WWII history....

Regards,
Alex

P.S. board numbers marked with (*) are not in correspondance with those presented in the 39th Pzner Regiment and could be written off incorrectly

[Hellfish]

I have been asking around and found that the "State Defense Committee approved it (T-34/85) for introduction to the army on December 15, 1943", hence it was impossible for it to be present at Kursk in any quantity if the Red Army didn't even authorize it for issue to its units.

[Hellfish]

I've been looking into this further and somebody pointed me to another forum where Murray B tried to bull**** everyone else as well.

http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000069.html

[Lokos]

Don't bother, fellas. Why are we even dignifying his theories with responses? T-34/85s, tanks specifically designed to deal with the threat presented by the 'cats' at Kursk, present during the first actual en masse deployment of those 'cats'?

Right.

Lokos

[Murray B]

Okay lets review:

Sir John Keegan puts the KV-85 in service before Kursk with,"... now producing heavier models, including the KV-85...”, John Keegan, The Second World War, ISBN 0-670-82359-7 (page 466)

Read it for yourself.

Ivor Matanle puts the T34/85 in service before Kursk with, "In this chapter, we deal with the events of summer and autumn 1943...most significant of these was the latest ... T-34 tank, the T34/85 ...”, Ivor Matanle, World War II, ISBN 1-85833-333-4 (page 227)

Read it for yourself.

Terry Gander puts the KV-85 turret on the T34 with,
[The T34/85]“It had a new 85 mm (3.35 in) gun, mounted in a cast steel turret originally developed for the KV-85 heavy tank. The rest of the tank was virtually unchanged from the original T34/76.” Terry J. Gander, COLLINS/Jane’s - Tanks of World War II, ISBN 0 00 470847-4 (page 136)

Read it for yourself.

All of these men are bona fide historians but there is no doubt that there are historians who disagree with them. In fact the revisionists put the KV-85 into service at least six months after Sir Keegan. Which guys are correct?

When I started my research in '99 I had no idea or any real preference. For twenty years I believed that the T34/85 went into service around the end of '43 but that belief was not strong.

It wasn't until I saw the "fillets" in a revisionist book that I knew which group was wrong. A production KV-85 with cast hull cannot have any "fillets" unless the Soviets were complete idiots. If you don't believe me then go read about sand casting yourself.

Further reading showed that the revisionist timeline is screwy. They have a 76-mm gun on the KV for forty months and then go from KV-76 to KV-85 to Stalin/85 to Stalin/122 in only four months. Even worse the Soviets wait until September 43 to start the upgrade process even though they know about the Tiger program in early '41.

Then there is the problem of the wheels on vehicle #105 in Kubinka. They were discontinued at the beginning of KV-1S production around September '42 and yet the sign by the tank clearly says '43. Either the Red Army made a "Jackalope" of this display by changing wheels and Sir John Keegan blunders, or someone has made a typographical error in the year.

All of the errors are in revisionist works, not in those by Sir Keegan, so any reasonable person must find he was correct in the first place.

What is truly sad is that the only way to have any idea what actually happened during "The Great Patriotic War" is to get it from the British. How's that for irony?

Now just for fun lets take a look at a T43 from <http://www.morozov.com.ua/images/p82-2l.jpg>
http://www.morozov.com.ua/images/p82-2l.jpg

Now put your mouse cursor over the bores. Notice anything?

[Hellfish]

Sir John Keegan puts the KV-85 in service before Kursk with,"... now producing heavier models, including the KV-85...”, John Keegan, The Second World War, ISBN 0-670-82359-7 (page 466)
How about posting the full sentence?


Ivor Matanle puts the T34/85 in service before Kursk with, "In this chapter, we deal with the events of summer and autumn 1943...most significant of these was the latest ... T-34 tank, the T34/85 ...”, Ivor Matanle, World War II, ISBN 1-85833-333-4 (page 227)
The T-34/85 was indeed being developed in that timeframe. That quote doesn't say anything about production or in service dates relevant to the time period you're looking at.

Read it for yourself.


Terry Gander puts the KV-85 turret on the T34 with,
[The T34/85]“It had a new 85 mm (3.35 in) gun, mounted in a cast steel turret originally developed for the KV-85 heavy tank. The rest of the tank was virtually unchanged from the original T34/76.” Terry J. Gander, COLLINS/Jane’s - Tanks of World War II, ISBN 0 00 470847-4 (page 136)

Again, it says a turret originally developed for the KV-85, not THE KV-85 turret. That key phrase "originally developed" can be interpreted a lot of ways.


Then there is the problem of the wheels on vehicle #105 in Kubinka. They were discontinued at the beginning of KV-1S production around September '42 and yet the sign by the tank clearly says '43. Either the Red Army made a "Jackalope" of this display by changing wheels and Sir John Keegan blunders, or someone has made a typographical error in the year.

I have a picture from the war of a T-34/41 with three different sets of road wheels. It doesn't matter. The fact that old road wheels are on a museum model doesn't prove anything. Many museums around the world have been known to cobble together parts for vehicles when they can - especially rare or unique vehicles like your #105.

You still have yet to provide any kind of proof. Show us a picture of a T-34/85 at Kursk or give us the names of units equipped with T-34/85s at that time and you might convince one or two of us.

Until you do, you're just a troll reiterating a tired, unsubstantiated argument.

[Anonymosity]

This is the oddest derail I have ever seen here.

[AMVAS]

Okay lets review:

Sir John Keegan puts the KV-85 in service before Kursk with,"... now producing heavier models, including the KV-85...”, John Keegan, The Second World War, ISBN 0-670-82359-7 (page 466)

Read it for yourself.

Ivor Matanle puts the T34/85 in service before Kursk with, "In this chapter, we deal with the events of summer and autumn 1943...most significant of these was the latest ... T-34 tank, the T34/85 ...”, Ivor Matanle, World War II, ISBN 1-85833-333-4 (page 227)

Read it for yourself.

Terry Gander puts the KV-85 turret on the T34 with,
[The T34/85]“It had a new 85 mm (3.35 in) gun, mounted in a cast steel turret originally developed for the KV-85 heavy tank. The rest of the tank was virtually unchanged from the original T34/76.” Terry J. Gander, COLLINS/Jane’s - Tanks of World War II, ISBN 0 00 470847-4 (page 136)

Read it for yourself.

All of these men are bona fide historians but there is no doubt that there are historians who disagree with them. In fact the revisionists put the KV-85 into service at least six months after Sir Keegan. Which guys are correct?


Russians says: "On wall of a wood-shed you can read "F@@ck", but you can find only firewood there"...

I do not know who theose people are and which profession do they have! (cooks, racers, messengers or any one else) I only sure they have no skills in this subject!!!!!!

Our experts for AFVs:
M.Svirin, M. Kolomiets, A. Solyankin, M. Pavlov, I. Pavlov and ALL the OTHERS provides information, which 100% is not corresponding to yyour statements...

I can easily give you dozen links for monographises about both T-34 and KV tanks where everything is clearly seen!

I can't do anything with that dumbs you have cited all the time! And I have no ideas why you prefer to believe those diletants, but not to the people, who are real experts in the subject

Until now you have not proved ANY your statments by figures, or photos. ALL the amterials you cite is about EXPERIMENTAL tanks which NEVER were built in series!!!



When I started my research in '99 I had no idea or any real preference. For twenty years I believed that the T34/85 went into service around the end of '43 but that belief was not strong.


It would be better for you to return to initial point of view and not to waste time trying to prove unprovable if you don't want to be treated as an idiot among serious researchers



It wasn't until I saw the "fillets" in a revisionist book that I knew which group was wrong. A production KV-85 with cast hull cannot have any "fillets" unless the Soviets were complete idiots. If you don't believe me then go read about sand casting yourself.


You operates with declarations without any prrfs of your point of view.
I operate only with facts, but not fantasies like "if Soviets were not complete idiots..."



Further reading showed that the revisionist timeline is screwy. They have a 76-mm gun on the KV for forty months and then go from KV-76 to KV-85 to Stalin/85 to Stalin/122 in only four months. Even worse the Soviets wait until September 43 to start the upgrade process even though they know about the Tiger program in early '41.

I already told you both KV-85 and IS-1 (IS-85) were transition models.
In 1943 the 122mm gun was not ready as well as technology for IS production was not developed.
So, to provide the quickest supplement of troops with heavier caliber tanks a decision was adopted for temporary production of such models as KV-85 and IS-1. When IS technology was worked out KV-85 was replaced with IS-1. And when the 122mm gun was ready to be put in the tank turret IS-2 replaced IS-1 in production...

Sorry to have clarifying for you such a trivial tasks...
those are facts, but not fantasies...



Then there is the problem of the wheels on vehicle #105 in Kubinka. They were discontinued at the beginning of KV-1S production around September '42 and yet the sign by the tank clearly says '43. Either the Red Army made a "Jackalope" of this display by changing wheels and Sir John Keegan blunders, or someone has made a typographical error in the year.


For how long need I to tell you that wheels (especially in museums) could be of absolutely different types!!!
I can show you image of lend-lease vehicle, which has wheels from after-war Soviet AFV. And what? you will insist this lend-lease carrier was made in 1950s????



All of the errors are in revisionist works, not in those by Sir Keegan, so any reasonable person must find he was correct in the first place.


There are so many mistakes in western works, that I never treat them as reliable sources for the Sovuet AFVs.



Now just for fun lets take a look at a T43 from <http://www.morozov.com.ua/images/p82-2l.jpg>
http://www.morozov.com.ua/images/p82-2l.jpg

Now put your mouse cursor over the bores. Notice anything?

http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/875/pagesfromt34unknowndo2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

I notice correct caption:
Second prototype T-43 tank during factory testing, April 1943
That is in corresponding with everything I have told you earlier.
T-43 was equipped with F-34 76mm gun.

On Sept. 43 one of T-43 prototypes received 85mm D-5T-85 gun

Again your main arguments were photo of experimental tank and empty declarations...

Regards,
Alex

[Murray B]

Okay, first of all, which edition of which David Glantz book has the picture of the T34/85s at Kursk? That is what I am most interested in and surely some of the thousands of people who visit this forum must have it.

Next, Sir John Keegan is a British Historian described by Tom Clancy as, "the best military historian of our generation".
This is from <http://www.amazon.com/Second-World-War-John-Keegan/dp/product-description/0143035738>

Anyone interested in the facts about WWII should read his books.

I'm in no position to judge Sir Keegan but I have not found any obvious errors in any of his books. On the other hand I have found many mistakes, some sophomoric, in the revisions.

Now back to the Soviet tanks. Even if a prototype with a larger gun is pressed into service it will not be fielded with other different tanks. This would create logistical problems. They might be used, like the KV-220 (is that what you called it?) to defend a city or a town but it would never carry extended range fuel tanks. This means that every vehicle with these extra tanks is a production model.

So, Sir Keegan, Matanle, and Gander still look right to me.

By the way isn't a "troll" someone that goes around forums calling people names and otherwise disrupts civilised discourse?

[Smersh]

We want more evidence then just a single picture, and a few repeated authors names, why don't you quote the sections which they say 85mm T-34s operated during Kursk, and if possible their sources, which any good historian would have in their extensive bibliographies.

Because overwhelming evidence points to the impossibility of T-34/85s being present at Kursk.

[AMVAS]

Okay, first of all, which edition of which David Glantz book has the picture of the T34/85s at Kursk? That is what I am most interested in and surely some of the thousands of people who visit this forum must have it.

D. Glantz's books are not free from mistakes, though he's among the most experienced western historians, who studied events on the Eastern Front



Next, Sir John Keegan is a British Historian described by Tom Clancy as, "the best military historian of our generation".
This is from <http://www.amazon.com/Second-World-War-John-Keegan/dp/product-description/0143035738>

Anyone interested in the facts about WWII should read his books.


Been called historian doesn't mean "been a God" and be free from mistakes.
I know plenty historians here to make awful mistakes.
Valeriy Zamulin, who wrote recently an excellent book about the history of Prokhorovka battle made a few kid's mistakes in description of weapons
(for example mixed description of SU-76 with SU-76M).
It doesn't mean he' bad historian, but only mean he's not experienced much in the history of weapons.
The same with other historians. they can be more, or less expereinced in historical events, but be absolute dumbs in the history of weapons.
All those pals named by you are not experts in weaponry.
I don't know what sources did they use. But they were bad sources...



I'm in no position to judge Sir Keegan but I have not found any obvious errors in any of his books. On the other hand I have found many mistakes, some sophomoric, in the revisions.


"If everything is going good, you must have missed something" (c) Law of Merfi :) :) :)

If you can't find mistakes in thsoe works, that doesn't mean they have no such ones...
Just now you can be sure there was at least one of them - there were no 85mm tanks at Kursk



Now back to the Soviet tanks. Even if a prototype with a larger gun is pressed into service it will not be fielded with other different tanks.
This would create logistical problems.
[quote]

As usual you are wrong.
In soviet armored units since the beginning of the war up to 8(!) different types of tanks could be met at once!!!
So, includins of a single experiemntal vehicle didn't changed much in this practice...

[quote]They might be used, like the KV-220 (is that what you called it?) to defend a city or a town but it would never carry extended range fuel tanks.

KV-3 and KV-220 were very much looked like ordinary KVs. So, they had no serious problems with supplement...
In any case they couldn't stay for too long time...



This means that every vehicle with these extra tanks is a production model.


If to count every experimental tank as a "production model", we could count a numerious number of very very rare samples...
What about T-41 amphibious tank, OT-134, AT-1, SU-6, ......
All of them were built in more than one sample.



So, Sir Keegan, Matanle, and Gander still look right to me.


I can see no reasons to believe them at least in the history of vehicles

Btw, you simply ignored my post about examination of reasons of "Panther" destroying.
This document originates just from Soviet war archives..
You must draw attention to it.
It easily kicks out all your (and your historians) theory of 85mm guns role.
If you are so blind to rely only to a few historians, which has no skills in soviet vehicles history ignoring opinion of all the others...well I can simply say you'd never be treated as a serious researcher - only as a diletant....

Regards,
Alex

[mkenny]

You can not reason with a man on a mission. Murray's plea for help from a few years back tell us a lot about his motives.

Date: Thurs, Feb 8 2001 11:34 am



"Sorry to trouble you but I am a computing scientist and know nothing about
how to proceed with an historical article. Please do not respond if you
are too busy.

Last year I discovered a significant error made by a large group of
historians regarding the introduction date of the T34/85 tank during WWII
(The Great Patriotic War). Letters
were written to some of the more famous authors to illustrate the mistakes
but non of them agreed that they had made any error. It was not very long
before all of them declined to respond to my increasingly difficult
questions. After that, I contacted an American journal on the subject and
was invited by their editor to rewrite the letters in article form and
submit it for publication. The article which wound up being critical of
Mr. Steven Zaloga was written and submitted to my peers (not really my
peers since I am not faculty) for review. One of my reviewers was a
Professor of Engineering (PhD Mechanical Engineering) , another was a
Professor of the History of Science (PhD History), and the last was a
Professor of History (PhD History). The reviewers agreed to my points but
the journal declined to publish the article because their referee did not
approve. The referee was Steven Zaloga.

Since then another nine PhD level advisors have helped me with the article.
One advisor, who is a published historian, has pointed out that Mr.
Zaloga's revision appears to be pro-fascist. The revised introduction date
places the introduction date in early 1944 instead of late '42/early '43.
This means that Soviet tank designs lagged behind German ones for most of
the war. This agrees with Hitler's statement that the Slavic people were
racially inferior. These 'inferior' beings could not possibly design
better weapons. The fascist undertone is obvious now that she has
explained it to me but I would never have figured it out for myself. The
revisions 'correct' Marshall Zhukov and Sir Basil Liddell Hart without the
least concern for their reputations. Unfortunately it is the revisions
that need 'correcting'. They are based on an incorrect choice for the
KV-85 prototype. When the correct prototype is chosen it is obvious that
the T34/85 was at Kursk just as Marshall Zhukov had implied in his memoirs.
This makes Slavic people just as smart, if not smarter than, the
Germans.

My advisors have now recommended that I now do two things:

1. Contact a Soviet military historian with expertise in ground warfare
during WWII. They would need to read English since I cannot read or write
Russian.
Can you think of anyone?

2. Contact an English Language journal on the subject that is not English
or American. Have you ever heard of such a journal?

Thank you in advance for your assistance.
Sincerely yours,
Murray Balascak, SP (Slavic Person )
Network Administrator
Department of Computing Science
Concordia University College of Alberta"



This book is a good way (in English) to aquaint yourself with the development of the IS series. The information contained will help you see through the delusions posted by Murray B.

[Murray B]

Yes [sob], it's true I'm a computer guy and not an historian and I did work for a college back then. Hey, waitaminnut, I have never claimed to be anything but a 'computer guy'. Strangely, I have also never posted any E-mails to anyone named Kenney and my records go all the way back to '87.

It is also true that in the year 2000 I was asked to write a detailed, scholarly article, examining the disagreement in introduction dates between various historians and veterans. It winds up that the veterans, and a few of the historians were correct in the first place.

Sadly, no journal would publish an article proving the revisions wrong because the so-called "peers" reviewing the material are revisionists or have quoted heavily from the revised texts. A historian friend of mine says they now "own the period".

Despite this, the article did finally get published (in highly condensed form) in the July/August 2006 Issue of "World War II Magazine". Although I am tempted to believe the editor did this because of my fine work I expect that publishing what I call the Parrish Principle had a lot (maybe the most) to do with it. Former armored officer COL Gary L. Parrish had given me some very good "food for thought". Every military historian would do well to heed his wise words.

Anyone interested in seeing the full article will need to get it through Primedia or Wieder Group [I don't know which, or if it is both] because they currently have the copyright.

So, putting ad hominem arguments aside, does anyone know which, if any, of COL (Ret.) Glantz's books contain a photograph of a T34/85 at Kursk?

[Hellfish]

None of them do because there were no T-34/85s at Kursk.

[Murray B]

None of them do because there were no T-34/85s at Kursk.

So, you have examined every edition of each of his books page by page then?

Here is a nice picture. Looks like the "85" mantlet to me but even though it listed under Kursk I have no way to know if the label is correct. Image from <http://futility.typepad.com/futility/images/0002w.jpg>

http://futility.typepad.com/futility/images/0002w.jpg

A reliable source, who was in the army for longer than you have been alive, mentioned Glantz's photograph in passing. So, rather than try to find every copy of every book I thought that someone might have seen it and could narrow my search.

If not, that is okay because I will find it eventually if it exists, but thanks for your comments anyway.

[Hellfish]

So, you have examined every edition of each of his books page by page then?

Here is a nice picture. Looks like the "85" mantlet to me but even though it listed under Kursk I have no way to know if the label is correct. Image from <http://futility.typepad.com/futility/images/0002w.jpg>

http://futility.typepad.com/futility/images/0002w.jpg

A reliable source, who was in the army for longer than you have been alive, mentioned Glantz's photograph in passing. So, rather than try to find every copy of every book I thought that someone might have seen it and could narrow my search.

If not, that is okay because I will find it eventually if it exists, but thanks for your comments anyway.

Thats not Kursk.

[Smersh]

How do you explain the chart of german tank losses showing a minisciual amount of damage caused by 85mm guns, which could be attributed to 85mm aa guns being used in an AT role (and there is evidence of this). If you say there where hundreds of 85mm T-34s and KVs during Kursk, you would see a much larger amount of german losses to 85mm guns.

Again, you're giving no evidence besides out of context pictures, which don't really show anything, and a couple of authors names with no quotes from them or their sources.

[AMVAS]

So, you have examined every edition of each of his books page by page then?

Here is a nice picture. Looks like the "85" mantlet to me but even though it listed under Kursk I have no way to know if the label is correct. Image from <http://futility.typepad.com/futility/images/0002w.jpg>

http://futility.typepad.com/futility/images/0002w.jpg


Captions for images (especially in western books) have one feature - to be incorrect too often

If you draw attention to the windows of houses on this photo you can notice, they are of elongated shape, which is not typical for Russian architecture.
Most possible it's one of European towns in Poland or Germany

Regards,
Alex

[Hellfish]

At this point I'm only arguing with this guy because its amusing. I think the rest of us have said everything we could, which would convince any rational human being that their research was incorrect and required some further revision.

Now we're just using a stick to poke an ostrich who can't figure out how to get his head out of the sand.

This guy is obviously a nutter and doesn't warrant any serious effort to debunk his idiocy.

[Murray B]

How do you explain the chart of german tank losses showing a minisciual amount of damage caused by 85mm guns, which could be attributed to 85mm aa guns being used in an AT role (and there is evidence of this). If you say there where hundreds of 85mm T-34s and KVs during Kursk, you would see a much larger amount of german losses to 85mm guns.


If the 85-mm used a sub-calibre penetrator how could the Germans possibly know if a tank had been destroyed by an "85" or a new hot "76". The Germans might just call it the T-34 with the "new cast turret" or something like that. Since the tank had only been in production since April '43, at the earliest, it may well be the first time that the Germans had encountered them. Pehaps they were also confused because the Red Army had handed them their butts on a platter [destroyed half of their best tanks].

Besides this, the T34/85 was quite rare at the time. If there are 300 T34/85s out of 1800 T34s that is only one in every eight.

Methinks you are reading far to much into archival sources. They contain, often inaccurate, snippits of reality and not reality itself. Also, as I have already said, it is impossible to prove that something was not at Kursk by what is not, or is not yet found, in the archives. This is why the memories and memoirs of veterans who were actually there are so valuable. Only they can tell us when the archives contain nonsense.

Or do you believe that Zyklon B was actually insecticide like many German archival sources say?

Oh yes, take a good look at the mantlet of the vehicle I last posted. It ain't the '44 manlet and not the longer gun. I expect the gun does not have the compact breech assembly either.

[Hellfish]

Besides this, the T34/85 was quite rare at the time.

It wasn't rare. It didn't exist.

[mkenny]

I have bad news for MB. The T34 was stolen from the Germans, it was never a Soviet design.
Here is my proof.
In a Spielbergers book you will find photos of a wooden mock up of a new German Design. You will note how much it looks like the T34 we all know well. Photos 1,2 and 3.
We have also got a number of photos of tanks that we know as a Soviet tank actualy in German service. Photos 4 and 5.
Then we find proof that the Soviets were using these tanks(now renamed T34's). Photos 6 and 7 reveal that the tanks still had some German road wheels(Panther type) fitted when in Soviet service. It seems this slipped past the censor and now explodes the claim it was a Soviet design We all know how important road wheel design is in the dating of tank types. My good friend MB has used just such critical detail to debunk the revisionist. It is ironic that the very same detail is now destroying his case by revealing it is a stolen design.
Finaly I also give you photos (8) proving that the bulk of Soviet tanks were stolen US types as well.
All the above is in the books of Walter Speilberger and R.P.Hunnicutt so it must be true.
I also got some inside information from my daughters current boyfriend. He should know because he is a pilot on one of the shuttles to the secret Nazi base on the far side of the moon..........................!!!!!!!!!

[Hellfish]

Hahahahahahahaha... nice.

[AMVAS]

If the 85-mm used a sub-calibre penetrator how could the Germans possibly know if a tank had been destroyed by an "85" or a new hot "76".

What all the time amazes me in your statements is word "If"
In this case Russians says: "If grandma had **** & beard she would be called grandpa".
Your hypothisis is again silly because:
i) In 1943 sub-caliber shells were in great lack. Tank crews got only a few of them per tank
ii) First of all such sort of ammo was given to smallest calibers to improve their efficiency. If you check that document about Kursk I have cited (and which was again ignored by you) you can see only one hole maiden by 45mm sub-caliber shell
iii) 85mm guns could hit German armor without special shells. So, if they had large spread (and 700 AFVs is more than a tank army) you easily could find holes of other 85mm shells
iv) Subcaluber shells holes of 85mm caliber can't be treated as 76mm ones.
finally if caliber was unknown they were called "unknown caliber hole", but not assigning of that hole to existed caliber



The Germans might just call it the T-34 with the "new cast turret" or something like that. Since the tank had only been in production since April '43, at the earliest, it may well be the first time that the Germans had encountered them. Pehaps they were also confused because the Red Army had handed them their butts on a platter [destroyed half of their best tanks].

T-34s had many modifications with different sorts of turrets.
In 1943 none of them had 85mm gun.
So, least of all I gonna to hear what Germans thought about those modifications, simply because they couldn't trace all of them
for example that time existed super-shielded modification of T-34.
A tank company equipped with those vehicles operated on the frnot.
but the very first attack of this unit became the very last, because most of those vehicles were lost.
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/9165/pagesfromotechestvennyeeg0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)



Besides this, the T34/85 was quite rare at the time. If there are 300 T34/85s out of 1800 T34s that is only one in every eight.


300 vehicles is about two tank corps. They can't be missed as well...
Even small series of 21 vehicles like that ones I cited above were noticed.
NO CHANCE for large series of vechiles to be missed



Methinks you are reading far to much into archival sources. They contain, often inaccurate, snippits of reality and not reality itself.

It's odd declaration.
Archival records are the most exact sources of information.
In comparison with [modern] books they contains 100 times less incorrect info. Thery were no reasons for our plants to hide information about numbers and types of tanks produced, because this subject was under personal controlof Stalin



Also, as I have already said, it is impossible to prove that something was not at Kursk by what is not, or is not yet found, in the archives. This is why the memories and memoirs of veterans who were actually there are so valuable. Only they can tell us when the archives contain nonsense.


Again the same song...
Archives and only arhives can provide information about produced tanks and their types and numbers.
Veterans could only see fragment of battle by their eyes. Most of them couldn't distinguish PzIVH from "Tiger"
So, if you read our memoirs there are hundreds of Tigers, Panthers and Ferdinands, and no PzIVH, StugIII, IV, Hetzer, Hummel, Naschorn, Wespe... and others.
I have no reasons to believe German memoirs just because the same reasons - they didn't know types of Soviet tanks.
when I see captions of German photos on e-bay I laugh often, because they couldn't write corretly even type of Soviet tank, silent about its modification....



Oh yes, take a good look at the mantlet of the vehicle I last posted. It ain't the '44 manlet and not the longer gun. I expect the gun does not have the compact breech assembly either.

We are discussing not details, but vehicles themselves.
As I have told you T-34s had numerious number of small modification. everything could be changed during production.
Even vehicles produced by different plants differed.
A special order was even needed to provide better unification of vehicles, because once appeared, that, for example, turret from one plant can't be put to a hull, produced on another plant....

Regards,
Alex

[AMVAS]

I have bad news for MB. The T34 was stolen from the Germans, it was never a Soviet design....

In continuation to your post....

Secret Polish tank "Juzef Pilsudsky"...

http://zhurnal.lib.ru/img/t/tonina_o_i/al_alamein/image003.jpg

According to excellent article of our deep expert Olga Tonina 784 such tanks were built prior to the WWII. bMajor losses of German armor were just because of those tanks, but not weak Polish 37mm AT guns and small amount of 7TP light tanks (silent about MG equipped Polish tankettes).
German veterans remembers about attacks of Polish cavalry supported with those tanks they feels horror even now!...
and only because Luftwaffe bombed out all fuel storages 100 km around of thsoe tanks Germans managed to capture 542 such tanks. Other were broken, or exploded by Poles themselves...
A secret 101st Pz Division was formed from them. It took part in attacks in Crimea (That's why Soviets cried about large amount of German tanks there! It's newest info!!!). Unfortunately most tankmen been drunk and not experienced with modern Polish vehicles couldn't stop them on the coast. So, most of that vehicles fell fown into the Black sea near Kerch. As their engines were water protected they continued moving forward even under water and nobody could see them, as they passed deeply into the sea...

;)

Regards,
Alex

[mkenny]

This is why the memories and memoirs of veterans who were actually there are so valuable. Only they can tell us when the archives contain nonsense.

The 'veteran' relied upon to confirm the T34/85 fabrication was a fraud who posted over at Feldgrau. When challenged and asked to prove his credentials he just stopped posting. Read his story here:.

http://www.feldgrau.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1733

(6th post in the thread for the story of Joscha)

and you will see just how desperate Murray B must be to grasp at this straw.

There is no point arguing logic with Murray. He 'knows' the truth and everyone else is wrong. He has but the most basic grasp of Soviet tank design and completely ignores anything that contradicts his fiction. Truly a man on a mission. The sad thing is he seems to be quite an intelligent guy in other respects. What makes him behave like this? Could a friend not tell him how hopeless his cause is?
So no more rebuttals of his bogus theory, treat it like the joke it is and stop lending credibility to his rantings.
I have to laugh when he cites his own article as a way of bolstering his case!

[AMVAS]

There is no point arguing logic with Murray. He 'knows' the truth and everyone else is wrong. He has but the most basic grasp of Soviet tank design and completely ignores anything that contradicts his fiction. Truly a man on a mission. The sad thing is he seems to be quite an intelligent guy in other respects. What makes him behave like this? Could a friend not tell him how hopeless his cause is?
So no more rebuttals of his bogus theory, treat it like the joke it is and stop lending credibility to his rantings.
I have to laugh when he cites his own article as a way of bolstering his case!

I know this sort of people. They lives for their own theory. Everything which is against it is ignored. The brightest sample of such sort of men is Viktor Rezun (aka Suvorov) who wrote a pack of books trying to prove a set of his own silly theories exploring that not al moments in WWII history are clarified.
I feel if Murray won't stop his stubborn attempts to ignore all obvious facts he'll spend his life in attempts to prove unprovable statements...

In such a cases I always remember one of the heroes of Russian cult science fiction book "Poniedelnik nachnayetsia v subbotu" (A Monday begins on Sunday) by brothers Strugatsky... He declared: "What a boring thing, trying to prove provable statements. Much more interesting to prove statements which are already proved to be unprovable...":bash:

Regards,
Alex

[Anonymosity]

Can we lock this thread already and let these morons start a new one instead? Or leave it open and see if I can get a discussion going on the actual topic.

[Grach]

Just to put an end to this T-34-85 debate. T-34-85 came in to service in December 1943, while the events at Kursk took place in July 1943 with T-34-76.

Edit..
Actually, serial production of T-34-85 started only in January 1944.

Edit..
You learn something new every day. Kursk Bulge would be a proper english term.

[Grach]

This should give a hint that you pose a flawed question. There were no plans with respect to any individual state, but a general concept of war between two rivaling camps. The rest is tactics and rarely discussed openly in any country. Once again, Soviet Union doctrine didn't include possibility of war with one individual state, but a clash of alliances over the whole globe, meaning a concept of world war where two camps are equally equipped and prepared over any terrain and climate.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+su0430)

Edit..
I guess that doesn't answer your question anyway.

[AMVAS]

Can we lock this thread already and let these morons start a new one instead? Or leave it open and see if I can get a discussion going on the actual topic.

You missed my proposal.
Ask moderator to split this thread into two ones.