[Rules] T-34A/B/C? And T-34/57? And ZIS-30 57mm SPG?

[G. K. Zhukov]

Hi again. I come to you with a couple of questions on the workhorse of the Red Army.

1) T-34A/B/C?

In the earlier releases of the system, every T-34 depicted by the various countersheets was a "T-34A":



Usually, the T-34A designation corresponded to the T-34 M1940 with the shorter L-11 76.2mm gun. But there were not many of these, and production had already switched at the start of the war to the M1941 model, which sported a longer, more powerful F-34 gun. But somehow every early T-34 in "Eastern Front" is depicted with a T-34A. Even those with Katukov's 4th Tank Brigade, which were new M1941's from the Stalingrad Tractor Factory with the F-34 gun.

Later models with the 76.2mm gun were represented with the T-34C model, which I assume is the three-man turret, Kurk-era M1943:



It has a better armor and especially a longer range (F-34 gun) than the "T-34A".

Only recently, with the appearance of "Kursk South Flank" and "Burning Tigers" IIRRC, the intermediate "T-34B" model has appeared:



It has the early model armor mated with the later long-range gun ("5-6" instead of "5-5"). I assume this counter portrays the M1941/1942 models that were the majority of T-34's seen in combat during the first half of the Eastern Campaign (including Barbarossa or at least from the Battle for Moscow on). And, if my assumptions are correct, that would mean a lot of the "Eastern Front" and other early war modules should have these "T-34B" instead of the "T-34A".

Is that correct?

2) T-34-57 (and ZIS-30)

I love the huge amount of different vehicles the PG System has brought to us, and it is only natural that a lot of less well-known weapons are still absent from the system.

In my case, I have been reading a bit of source materials on the Typhoon offensive of October-December 1941, especially from the Soviet point of view. Amongst these sources are Schwerpunkt by Robert Forczyk and The Defence of Moscow by Jack Radey.

And I fell upon the organization of the Soviet 21st Tank Brigade, which performed a sort of one-shot kamikaze attack on the rearguard of XXXXI. Armeekorps (mot) then fighting for Kalinin. Incidentally, this action would make a great solitaire scenario for PG (with random generation of the opposing German rearguard units encountered and so on).

This tank brigade had 10 T-34/57, a special variant of the T-34 armed with a very long and slim ZIS-2 57mm gun, which reportedly had a much better armor-piercing capability than the 76.2mm F-34 tank gun usually mounted on these tanks.



The unit had also a battery of 4 ZIS-30 57mm self-propelled Tank destroyers.



You can read on the TO&E of this fascinating little unit on a threat over at the Command Decision forums in which even Jack Radey himself made a few valuable comments:

21st Tank Brigade for Kalinin - October 1941

The thing here is that the armor-piercing value on the only 57mm piece in the full PG arsenal does not seem to represent the superior armor piercing capability of the 57mm ATG (that was mounted in both the T-34/57 and the ZIS-30).



I feel the AP values for the towed unit should be "6-6" or even"6-5" (certainly not a "4-something"), and the vehicle mounted guns should be penalized with a 1-hex range decrease (i.e "6-4" or "6-5").

How would you represent these T-34/57's? And how about the ZIS-30's?

Thanks in advance.

[plloyd1010]

The T34/B was just coming into production in early 1941. While there were some available at the front, the bulk of T34's meeting Barbarossa were T34/A's. So I think Eastern Front is largely correct in its counter mix. The percentage of A to B models shifts radically in the later months of 1941. By September it probably a fairly even split, with T34/B's dominating by November or so. T34/C's don't appear in significant numbers until later 1942, early 1943. That makes them quite available at Kursk. Some were probably deployed for Mars and Uranus/Saturn.

I am not aware of a T34/57, except perhaps as the A20, which is the prototype of the T34. The ZIS-30 always struck me as less of a tank destroyer, and more of an AT gun on a tank chassis, sort of like the PzJrI and Marders. If you intent is to make one, look up the old old Soviet tank leader article from APL and get to work with Inkscape. I wouldn't change the AT values from the 57mm, but would reduce the armor value of the chassis.

[G. K. Zhukov]

I am not aware of a T34/57, except perhaps as the A20, which is the prototype of the T34. The ZIS-30 always struck me as less of a tank destroyer, and more of an AT gun on a tank chassis, sort of like the PzJrI and Marders. If you intent is to make one, look up the old old Soviet tank leader article from APL and get to work with Inkscape. I wouldn't change the AT values from the 57mm, but would reduce the armor value of the chassis.

There is an interesting article at the Archive Awareness blog you might want to check:

Soviet 57mm Guns

Maybe the 57mm should deserve an upgrade to a "6" after all.

[plloyd1010]

How answering where you think the Soviet 57mm should be in relation to the 75mm PAK 41 & 42, the U.S. 3inch/76.2mm, or the Soviet 76.2 "Crash-Boom" field gun and its mobile version, the SU-76. The 57mm has a shot of ½ (or less) of the mass every gun I mentioned, and in at least 3 cases, significant lower muzzle velocity. I would also point out that you wish to rate the 57mm above the 76.2 F-34 gun. If you were right we must conclude that the Soviet design bureau is particularly stupid in not having swapped in the 57mm on all T34's prior to the T34/85. As it is, weapon and combat statistics show that they were right.

The fundamental point here is that you do not appear to be thinking systemically. The 57mm is a good gun, but no better than others in its class (the ammunition was actually a little worse). What did you intend to do with all the better guns I mentioned?

[G. K. Zhukov]

How answering where you think the Soviet 57mm should be in relation to the 75mm PAK 41 & 42, the U.S. 3inch/76.2mm, or the Soviet 76.2 "Crash-Boom" field gun and its mobile version, the SU-76. The 57mm has a shot of ½ (or less) of the mass every gun I mentioned, and in at least 3 cases, significant lower muzzle velocity.

Muzzle velocity for the 57mm ZIS-2 was 990 meters/second with APHE standard ammo and up to 1,250 m/s with APCR ammo.
Compared with this, the muzzle velocity for the 76,2mm F-34 gun mounted on T-34's was 655 and 965 m/s respectively.
The M7 3-inch gun mounted on US M10 tank destroyers had a muzzle velocity of 792 m/s with AP-T ammo and 1,036 m/s with APCR-T ammo.
German 75mm Kwk 40 L43 and L48 had muzzle velocities of 740/750 (AP) and 920/930 (APCR) m/s, respectively.

So, yes we are talking about a higher velocity gun in the case of the Soviet 57mm. and in the case of kinetic energy, velocity is squared, so it is a more important factor than mass.

I would also point out that you wish to rate the 57mm above the 76.2 F-34 gun. If you were right we must conclude that the Soviet design bureau is particularly stupid in not having swapped in the 57mm on all T34's prior to the T34/85. As it is, weapon and combat statistics show that they were right.

Well, initially (up to late '42) they had no need for the 57mm gun. 76.2mm and later 45mm AT guns were enough to knock out any PzKpfw III and IV they met in the battlefield. They did consider switching to the 57mm once Tigers started appearing in increasing numbers, but then they were developing the 85mm variant of the T-34, so they thought they could hold on until this model became available (a tad too late I'm afraid) without disrupting the mass production of current tanks. Soviets had a quite different approach to tank manufacturing than the Germans - numbers had a quality in themselves. Germans, on the other hand, would turn to many different vehicles, usually of overly complicated manufacture (and maintenance), and, heck, look at the production figures they managed to achieve.

The fact that the Soviets actually considered reintroducing the 57mm gun in 1943 should ring some bells. Apparently, they gave it a higher anti-armor value than the F-34 gun in normal production T-34's, didn't they?

The fundamental point here is that you do not appear to be thinking systemically. The 57mm is a good gun, but no better than others in its class (the ammunition was actually a little worse). What did you intend to do with all the better guns I mentioned?

I do not think there is any need to touch the stats of the main guns in use (mentioned above). I only feel the 57mm ZIS-2 is frankly quite underappreciated in the PG system.

Finally, and just for the sake of lighter conversation, even ASLers hold it in higher esteem than PGers. They class it as a 57LL (extra-long) gun, with a penetration of "15", above the "13" value of a 76L Soviet gun (German 75L and US 76L credit a "17" oh well...).

[larry marak]

There were very few of these guns mounted on T-34 chasses, few enough that they were never a factor on the battlefield at the PG level of unit organization.

[larry marak]

According to one source on the net (never trust the net) there were only 3 of the improved T-34/57 manufactured in response to the Tiger 1.

[plloyd1010]

True enough Antonio, on the basic kinetic energy equation. The issue is, and I thought I was clear on, increasing the caliber increases K faster than increasing barrel length. A 40% increase in shot size will increase the mass by a factor of 3, than 30% will double it. Contrariwise, increasing  barrel length does not result in proportional velocity increase, except in rather small calibers. (Still 73 calibers is an impressive barrel length.) That is why increasing caliber gets results faster than lengthening the barrel.

Navies have known that principle for centuries. That is why carronades were developed, and why 11 inch guns were more useful than longer 8 inch guns. WW1 brought the penetration problem onto land. That energized the bore vs. length problem. Bigger shots make much heavier guns, longer barrels make less heavier. As such the maximum practical size of an AT gun became 75mm/3inches or so. Both the 88 pack 43 and Soviet 85mm were to big for their crews to manhandle. The Soviets solved their problem with a little motor unit, the Germans didn't last long enough to come to a solution.

The APCR round you reference was not available in til October of 1944. So it wouldn't be available in any of the eastern front games currently in publication. The Russians seem to have lied about the statistics anyway. Post war evaluations put the APCR penetration at a little over 120mm, which is still pretty impressive. Of course we never lied about specifications like that, such as belt armor on battleships?   Oh yeah, I know about the LL's, the L's and the *

Larry, I haven't seen any numbers on the T34/57. The references I have seen in the past few days only say "very few". The ZIS-30 does seem to have had over 100 made. Since the Soviets made over 115K tanks, assault guns, and so forth, it amounts to little more than a pilot run. I haven't gotten a picture yet. I expect it would look like the M2/M5 Cleatrak, but better balanced, and obviously easier to build.

[plloyd1010]

I'm wrong. The ZIS-30 looks more like the 2-pdr on the carrier. But the gun is outsized.

[G. K. Zhukov]

There were very few of these guns mounted on T-34 chasses, few enough that they were never a factor on the battlefield at the PG level of unit organization.

Well, to mention a known example, 21st Tank Brigade had 10 of these (a full company) on October 17, 1941 - that should be 2 or 3 2-step counters depending on how you count the beans.