By EnsignExpendable
Previous edition here.
Q: How was the Sherman compared to the T-34 by the red army? Did they perhaps like them any better? Worse?
A: The Sherman was seen as a good tank, with a very nice gun. Tankers lamented the flat side armour and tall profile, but enjoyed the quality of the interior finish and comfortable seats. Tank infantry like Shermans too, since they shook a lot less in motion. Hooking up their belts to a Sherman, they could remain still enough to shoot more or less accurately at a distance of 100-150 meters, just enough to either suppress or drive off Panzerfaust soldiers hiding in ruins.
Q: Do you have any info about Germans capturing Soviet tanks, and how they modified those?
A: Overlord wrote an article about it a while ago: http://overlord-wot.blogspot.ca/2012/11/wot-on-pzkpfw-34-747r.html
There are also photos of KV-2s with commander cupolas and at least one KV-1 with a 75 mm gun.
Q: Were Shermans modified by the Soviets? Did the US supply the USSR with downgraded stuff?
A: Metal tracks and spurs were pretty standard modifications of Lend-Lease vehicles, since American rubberized tracks performed poorly in the winter. As for downgraded stuff, both Britain and the US kept the Soviet representatives well informed of the latest and greatest in development. I have a document that mentions an “American 90 mm AA gun on a Sherman chassis, used as an AT gun” that they should look into before the M36 was even adopted by the US army. Britain was even friendlier, freely trading intelligence with the USSR. If you have a book on the Pz 38(t), there will almost certainly be a photo of a tank with the turret number 543. That tank was given to Britain by the Soviets.
Q: Did anyone else ever want to build the T-34? They were superior to, at least, the M3.
Q: Could you explain the differences (and advantages/disadvantages) between frontal transmission and rear one?
A: A front transmission, of course, will be shot more. In game this is bad, but in real life, a shell getting stuck in the transmission might save the crew’s life. Depending on the design, it might be easier to get to. A transmission in the back means you need less shafts and whatnot running through the tank itself, and there is more room inside the crew compartment. I am sure that the mechanical engineers will be able to debate this a lot better than I can.
Q: What tanks are candidates for Soviet high tier lights?
A: There’s the PT-76, but it’s pretty slow, and its gun is not very impressive. Despite being a post-war tank, it can, maybe, be a slower T-34 with worse matchmaking.
Object 101 is a little better. Still a 76 mm gun, but it can move at 50 kph. Not very much is known about this tank, since only two prototypes were built, and both failed trials.
Then, there’s Object 906. It has a much more impressive speed (75 kph), and either an 85 mm D-58 gun or 90 mm D-62 gun. Its armour is pretty thin, up to 30 mm, and the gun is rifled, so it fits in with the era. I don’t have penetration data on the gun, so it’s hard to judge what tier it would be.
Object 685 also had a rifled gun, 100 mm in caliber. The gun was equipped with an autoloader and a stabilizer. The armour was not steel, but titanium. At 70 kph, it would also make a pretty impressive light tank. Object 934 has similar parameters.
Q: Do you have any information on the IS-5?
A: The IS-5 was an IS tank with a 100 mm gun. It had a vertical stabilizer, a loading assist mechanism, and was, according to Svirin, the most accurate on the move, fastest firing, and highest penetrating heavy tank of its time. However, the D-25T had more than enough penetration do deal with anything the Germans had, and its HE capability was much higher, so the project was cancelled.
A: The IS-5 was an IS tank with a 100 mm gun. It had a vertical stabilizer, a loading assist mechanism, and was, according to Svirin, the most accurate on the move, fastest firing, and highest penetrating heavy tank of its time. However, the D-25T had more than enough penetration do deal with anything the Germans had, and its HE capability was much higher, so the project was cancelled.
In game, it can be approximated by the IS with the 100 mm gun, but through the magic of Russian Bias, the penetration, rate of fire, and accuracy on the move, the three things that made the project at all special, are not present.
Q: Is the ISU-130 fake, or was there ever such a vehicle planned?
A: It was very much real. I wrote about it before, here.
A: It was very much real. I wrote about it before, here.
Q: In WoT we have the 122mm guns A-19S and D-25S on the SU-152, was there a plan to equip it with these guns in reality?
A: Yes. There was also a plan to equip it with the BL-9, but I guess Wargaming didn’t want to make it too OP.
Q: Do you have any details about the S-34-I and S-34-II guns mounted on the IS-4 prototypes?
A: The S-34-II was similar to the D-25T, but with some differences. The most noticeable one was the lack of a muzzle brake, increasing concealment of the tank and making it safer for infantry riders. The gun also had a mechanical rammer to speed up loading, and a bore evacuator, to prevent gases from entering the turret after firing. The gun was originally designed for the IS-2, but the changes to the turret were deemed too large, and it was postponed until the IS-4. However, the gun lost to the D-25T once again, since the D-25T was judged sufficient for a current generation heavy tank, and the S-43-II was insufficient for the next generation.
The S-34 was a 100 mm gun, the same as the IS-5 had. The S-34-I seems to not have very much written about it, aside from that it’s either 85 mm or 100 mm (sources vary, but they might be confusing the S-34 and S-34-I).
Q: I am a bit confused with the different versions of the SU-14. Different sources give different names. Could you please explain what SU-14, SU-14-1, SU-14-2 and SU-14-Br2 are?
A: The SU-14 was developed in 1933. It consisted of a chassis based on the T-28 and T-35, and a 203 mm howitzer in an open mount. The only crew member protected by armour was the driver. The SU-14-1 was developed in 1935. It had a superior chassis, and a better driver compartment layout. Otherwise, it was largely the same. The SU-14-Br2 was the SU-14-1 with a Br-2 gun instead of the B-4 howitzer, built in 1936. This gun had a higher rate of fire, and more range. The SPG, in preparation for the Winter War, gained a closed fighting compartment in 1940, and the index SU-14-Br2. The other prototype SU-14 also gained armour, had its gun replaced with a B-30 gun, and was named SU-14-2.
That’s it for this week! Keep sending those questions to tankarchives@gmail.com.