tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post1598606579084321297..comments2024-03-28T14:35:30.147-04:00Comments on Tank Archives: The First Coming of the IS-2Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-82631396423184420572018-04-25T11:48:49.554-04:002018-04-25T11:48:49.554-04:00Not really. Most soldiers will fire their weapon h...Not really. Most soldiers will fire their weapon hundreds if not thousands of times before entering combat. The AK (which I have fired hundreds of times) is just an incredibly simple and forgiving weapon. It deserves its reputation. Dat34https://www.blogger.com/profile/05191197983174208313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-51483219508423695712018-04-25T11:46:50.448-04:002018-04-25T11:46:50.448-04:00The key phrase is once you fire the weapon enough....The key phrase is once you fire the weapon enough. Ad to this the stress of being in combat and a lot of weapons end up not getting loaded.Sager ,William A.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06830369127449299646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-49518358031534842722018-04-25T09:47:04.365-04:002018-04-25T09:47:04.365-04:00On the AK: if you fire any weapon enough, the load...On the AK: if you fire any weapon enough, the loading becomes second nature. The AK magazine snaps in exactly the same way as the old US M-14 does, for example. Not a big deal at all once you're used to it. it doesn't seem to stop the average 12 year old boy soldier. <br /><br />Dat34https://www.blogger.com/profile/05191197983174208313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-74666707911919693592018-04-24T14:36:11.677-04:002018-04-24T14:36:11.677-04:00Agreed. I've fired AK's and one complaint ...Agreed. I've fired AK's and one complaint I have with them is the awkward loading. Instead of a magazine well to just slide the new magazine in. On the AK you must carefully put the front of the magazine in and sort of clip it, and then lift up the back of the magazine. I never figured out why this problem was never fixed.Sager ,William A.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06830369127449299646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-25984359974310012262018-04-24T02:26:57.459-04:002018-04-24T02:26:57.459-04:00As far as the Red Army was concerned the faster an...As far as the Red Army was concerned the faster and cheaper manufacturing was WAY more important than rather minor handling differences though...Kellomieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04915110653443066212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-3128437868792136902018-04-24T01:08:22.642-04:002018-04-24T01:08:22.642-04:00Kellomies. For years I would of agreed with your a...Kellomies. For years I would of agreed with your assessment about the superiority of the PPS-43 over the PPSH-41. It's cheaper to produce and just fells better in ones hands. But I only held them in a gun store. Ian McCollum on his Forgotten Weapons site actually fired both and he was of similar open to us, until he fired the guns. The PPSh-41 with it's higher rate of fire is just smother and more controllable. Ian was comfortably surprised.Sager ,William A.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06830369127449299646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-60785363737882461222018-04-24T00:59:06.243-04:002018-04-24T00:59:06.243-04:00You hit the nail on the head. With large numbers o...You hit the nail on the head. With large numbers of M-3/5 Stuarts and Valentines coming from the Allies there was no reason to keep the T-70 with it's one man turret in the light tank role. Putting a 76mm on it provided it a large enough gun to take out gun nest and anti tank guns. Sager ,William A.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06830369127449299646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-58219581802807672612018-04-23T17:04:12.473-04:002018-04-23T17:04:12.473-04:00Would imagine the little SU-76 was rather easier t...Would imagine the little SU-76 was rather easier to transport and ate less fuel to boot, nevermind now being plain cheaper. All useful traits when you need to furnish a slightly mind-boggling length of infrastructure-poor frontline with fire support.<br /><br />And, yes, they already had the factories. There may well have been a bit of the PPSh-41/PPS dilemma involved - the latter was strictly speaking the choice of preference, but extensive manufacturing infra already existed for the former...Kellomieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04915110653443066212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-10477949100742103102018-04-23T16:56:40.084-04:002018-04-23T16:56:40.084-04:00Last I checked radio production had caught up with...Last I checked radio production had caught up with the tank factories already by the mid-war years though?<br /><br />And radio silence would only be relevant for "maskirovka", concealing troop movements outside combat - something the Soviets turned out to be really good at. Once the serious shooting started secrecy was somewhat out of the window anyway.<br /><br />I do remember reading of a German artillery officer commenting after the war that Red Army artillery chain of command seemed rather vertical and rigid to them (though IIRC he also noted it got more flexible and responsive over time), but the Americans were altogether in a class of their own anyway.<br />Case in point, the SCR-536 "handie talkie"; and they exploited their unmatched radio net to the hilt.Kellomieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04915110653443066212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-19991800198438807402018-04-23T14:09:32.199-04:002018-04-23T14:09:32.199-04:00Kellomies. The problem wasn't so much as lack ...Kellomies. The problem wasn't so much as lack of sights for indirect fire. Which could be used in planned offenses. Rather it was the lack of radios and training for troops to call in artillery as needed. The Soviets had a habit of only using radios to pass orders down the chain of command and were displeased when units broke radio silence for any other reason. Were as every German and American tank would have a FM radio, the Russian's only had about one tank in 10 equipped with a AM Radio.<br /> Sager ,William A.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06830369127449299646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-86998321256768012982018-04-23T12:30:23.626-04:002018-04-23T12:30:23.626-04:00Kellomies: "Usually came to their senses soon...Kellomies: "Usually came to their senses soon enough though. Personally I'm not completely sure I see the merit of this project, didn't they already have the SU-122?"<br /><br />I actually think the SU-122 was a good idea, and they should have kept making it (only maybe uparmoring it like they did with the SU-100). I think it makes more sense than the SU-76 for this job, as a SU designed for infantry support. Its 122 HE round is better against soft targets and pillboxes, and potent enough to take out German heavy armor). Both could also serve in regiments attached to cavalry corps for exploitation operations in terrain where heavier AFV would struggle.<br /><br />The only downside versus the SU-76 would be ammo load, rate of fire, and probably the Soviets still had the light tank manufacturing infrastructure in-place and not enough medium tank chassis infrastructure.Stewart Millenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01261690405884935161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-4836377531562158252018-04-22T20:09:19.940-04:002018-04-22T20:09:19.940-04:00I'm referring to this goofy fellow, not the al...I'm referring to this goofy fellow, not the also-rans in the race that produced the KV:<br />http://tankarchives.blogspot.fi/2016/04/kv-7-lock-stock-and-three-smoking.html<br /><br />Also, weren't the SUs fitted with the sights (and crews trained) for indirect fire? Obviously not their main job but as the Brits and Americans also demonstrated anything is an artillery SPG if you're brave enough.Kellomieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04915110653443066212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-56124495378451225062018-04-22T17:56:04.152-04:002018-04-22T17:56:04.152-04:00Kellomies About the same time the Soviets were end...Kellomies About the same time the Soviets were ending their KV-1 upgrades in 1942 they turned around and put a short M-30S 122 mm Howitzer on a turretless T-34 chassis. Which was cheaper and more than capable of destroying dug in enemy guns. Either way the Soviets held off until they could get a powerful long barreled 122mm gun with two piece ammunition for the JS series tanks which were also intended to also take on enemy tanks. What the Soviets never developed was indirect fire support. To be fair Soviet radios tended to be limited. Ps I think you are referring to the T-100 which preceded the KV-1. It had the same engine and hull type but was longer and had room for a raise turret with a 76mm gun and a turret with a 45mm gun in front. Supposedly Stalin thought of the idea of just getting rid of the 45mm turret and shortening the whole vehicle. To be fair it was a obvious idea and considering how many Russian's were being executed it's no surprise they didn't kiss up and throw credit in Stalin's direction.Sager ,William A.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06830369127449299646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-84501161596906822922018-04-22T16:47:53.916-04:002018-04-22T16:47:53.916-04:00To be fair they did head down some fairly odd rabb...To be fair they did head down some fairly odd rabbit holes every now and then - Brilliant Ideas™ on Stalin's part might or might not have been involved. I seem to recall a case of a KV with coax twin 45 mms for ex...<br /><br />Usually came to their senses soon enough though. Personally I'm not completely sure I see the merit of this project, didn't they already have the SU-122? I suppose the flexibility of a turret and the heavier armour was considered worthwhile, and if the tank hull could be used more or less as-is that would certainly have been a major plus.Kellomieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04915110653443066212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-4833621755315272892018-04-22T16:25:11.714-04:002018-04-22T16:25:11.714-04:00I don't understant your comment William, if so...I don't understant your comment William, if something Soviet tank development was logicalMotzkorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18316989921665401048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-40828485709623731192018-04-22T13:35:08.393-04:002018-04-22T13:35:08.393-04:00Strikes me the Soviets came to a logical conclusio...Strikes me the Soviets came to a logical conclusion. When large howitzers were needed it was cheaper to just add the largest howitzer that would fit on to a turretless tank chassis, such as the SU-76 and SU 152. <br /> Sager ,William A.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06830369127449299646noreply@blogger.com