Talk:German encounter of Soviet T-34 and KV tanks
Only a single sentence appears to be dedicated to the encounter(s). If the article is really about the response to the encounter, then the article should be renamed accordingly imo. (Hohum @) 14:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- I've created the stub by copying some useful or semi-useful sourced text from other articles. Sure, working on it. The article is faaaar from being ready (ready for wiki-linking, that is), and I've placed it on the mainspace out of sheer laziness - should be still in userspace. If it ends up off the intended topic, of course feel free to rename. --Kubanczyk (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I think a better title for this piece might be "German first encounter with T-34 and KV tanks". At any rate, the title could be improved.
What do other editors think?
There are plenty of questionable and dubois statement in this article. I highly doubt the credibility of the Finkel report, since, the reconnaissance recognition by the germans in the early stage was very bad towards the T-34 and KV-1. The mentioned T-43 is surely being an misidentified KV-1, those were particularly immune to the 3,7 cm and 5,0 cm paks.
From German anti-tank capability passage: In the first weeks of the invasion, the main German anti-tank weapon was the 3.7 cm Pak 36 gun. The new 5 cm Pak 38 had just begun to enter service in small numbers, with a maximum of two weapons per infantry regiment. Both types were practically useless against the T-34. German tanks of the time used similar types of guns,[nb 6] which were ineffective against the armour of the new Soviet tanks
Thats just a ridiculous statement and contradicts against several first hand soviet combat reports at time. I want to cite the Military Commissar of the 10th Tank Division, Lieutenant Colonel Sukhoruchkin during the siege from 22 June through 1 August 1941, which had to commiserate the wipe out of their tank regiments.
Original Report: http://bdsa.ru/documents/html/donesaugust41/410801.html Named: Доклад командира 10-й танковой дивизии, заместителю Народного Комиссара Обороны Союза ССР от 2 августа 1941 г.о боевых действиях дивизии в период с 22 июня по 1 августа 1941 г.
For T-34: a) Hull armor is penetrated at 300 to 400 meters by a 37-mm antitank round. Side armor is penetrated by a 20-mm antitank round. When crossing ditches the low set of the vehicle causes its nose to dig in, and traction with the ground is insufficient due to the relative smoothness of the tracks. b) With a direct hit by a shell the driver’s front hatch collapses. c) The vehicle’s treads are weak—any round takes them off. d) The main and side clutches break down.
For KV-1: a) Under the impact of shells and large-caliber bullets, the turret ring and armored cupolas can jam. b) The diesel engine has little reserve power, resulting in it being overloaded and overheating. c) The main and side clutches break down.
VI. Equipment losses:
Irrecoverable: KV:56, T-34:32, T-28:44, BT7:100 T-26:24
Recovered, sent to capital repairs: KV:122, T-34:29, T-28:42, BT7:87
Of the 800 wheeled vehicles brought into the campaign there were lost: 210 in combat; 34 due to mechanical failures or lack of fuel and lubricants and then left behind with their drivers and surrounded by the enemy; 2 destroyed at a collection point for damaged machines when they could not be evacuated during the general retreat; 6 vehicles were stuck in bad terrain and impossible to evacuate; and 41 were abandoned during their units’ retreat due to mechanical failures and the impossibility of repairing them.
So from these figures, of 307 combat vehicles the division lost 153, or 50%, on the battlefield; stuck in bad terrain:21, or 7%; destroyed at collection points for damaged vehicles:20, or 7%; and lost due to mechanical failures and the inability to repair or evacuate them:95, or 31%.
95 combat vehicles and 41 wheeled vehicles were lost in close proximity to the enemy during the division’s general withdrawal; additionally, the lack of a sufficient number of tractors and the absence of corps and army collection points for damaged vehicles made it impossible to deal with this task.
Besides the losses entered in the table under mechanical failures, there were left waiting for medium and capital repairs at the tank regiments’ redeployment location in Zolochev: T-34:1, T-28:7, BT-7:34; and T-27:40.
And that's just the one of several other reports during the summer of 1941 and towards the end of the year. I highly recommend to rewrite this untruth, since, the soviet itself pointed that the pak 3,7 could be a serious threat below 300-400m for the T-34. If help is needed, I can support it with russian researches, books and combat reports. Thanks! Anatolij M (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)