If the Germans were aware of the T-34 and KV-1

Prior to the invasion of the Soviet Union during World War II, the German armed forces were not aware of two newly developed Soviet tanks, the T-34 and the KV-1. As a result, they were surprised when they met them in combat for the first time in June 1941. The Germans' standard anti-tank weapons were found to be ineffective against these new Soviet vehicles.

"...We believed that at the beginning of the new war [Barbarossa] we could reckon on our tanks being technically better than all known Russian types; we thought that this would more or less cancel out the Russians' vast numerical superiority...but one curious incident made me at least slightly dubious concerning the relative superiority of our armoured equipment. In the spring of 1941 Hitler had specifically ordered that a Russian military commission be shown over our tanks schools and factories; in this order he had insisted that nothing be concealed from them. The Russian officers in question firmly refused to believe that the Panzer IV was in fact our heaviest tank. They said repeatedly that we must be hiding our heaviest models from them, and complained that we were not carrying out Hitler's order to show them everything. The military commission was so insistent on this point that eventually our manufacturers and Ordnance Office officials concluded: 'It seems that the Russians must already possess better and heavier tanks than we do'. It was at the end of July, 1941, that the T34 tank appeared at the front and the riddle of the new Russian model was solved."

Heinz Guderian: Panzer Leader, 1974 Futura pb ed, p143.
This episode seems to have slightly preceded Hitler's 18 April attendance at an equipment demonstration where he discovered that Ordnance had ignored his order to fit the Panzer III with the Kwk 39 L60 and instead installed the Kwk 38 L42. Had Guderian given his opinions of Russian tank development to Hitler? Of course, this was a bit late to change things.
 
Last edited:
If the Abwher managed to steal a blueprint of the two in,lets say,1940,this could change anything?
They don't even need to steal a blueprint, just have better intel gathering and keep their eyes open. Here's the T-34's beginnings in the A-32, undergoing field trials near Moscow in 1939.

640px-Medium_tank_A-32.jpg


It's a little ridiculous that the Germans had no knowledge of this tank when they had "advisors" and other intel gathering types in Russia at the time.
 
When the Soviets visited German tank factories in the late 30's they complained that Hitler had promised them they would be shown everything, and they felt they weren't. What if some bureaucrat realized that the Soviets themselves had something better than the Panzer III and IV in the works?
Didn't see this post before making mine (#41). Guderian isn't the most reliable of sources, but he's probably right in his spring '41 detail. Of course, there could have been earlier visits as well.
 
Perhaps the Germans would also notice the T-34's diesel engine and consider that may be the way to go for the German tanks.

Considering they invented the diesel engine, it's noteworthy that there wasn't a diesel-powered tank of German origin until the Kampfpanzer Leopard.
 

Deleted member 1487

They don't even need to steal a blueprint, just have better intel gathering and keep their eyes open. Here's the T-34's beginnings in the A-32, undergoing field trials near Moscow in 1939.

It's a little ridiculous that the Germans had no knowledge of this tank when they had "advisors" and other intel gathering types in Russia at the time.
The Soviets were a crazy police state that committed mass murder and called it a purge based on Stalin's paranoia. Deep agents for ANY country did not happen in the USSR until the 1960s.

Perhaps the Germans would also notice the T-34's diesel engine and consider that may be the way to go for the German tanks.

Considering they invented the diesel engine, it's noteworthy that there wasn't a diesel-powered tank of German origin until the Kampfpanzer Leopard.
They had diesel tank engines, but already had grooved the capacity for gasoline engines, which are a different industry, so converting in the midst of a WW is pretty tough.
 
There is a ton of work converting less effective field guns (they weren't the L40 M3 75 Sherman guns you are quoting numbers from they were the shorter L35 or so field guns, less effective and would require developing a totally new recoil system for). Better just making the newer, longer, better German L41 and using the PAK98 for field gun use.

Was using the M3 and M6 numbers, at 40.1 and 39.4 calibers, respectively.

The M2 was 31.1 calibers. At 1500 yards, the M2 had 4-5mm less penetration from the M3, and 6-8mm less at 500 yards.

When the Canadians replaced the Valentines from 2pdrs, to 6pdr, to the 75mm, didn't take that long to modify the mounts.
And france already had thousands of tubes, it's still faster to make a new recoil mount, than a whole new gun and the mount for that as well.
 

Deleted member 1487

Was using the M3 and M6 numbers, at 40.1 and 39.4 calibers, respectively.

The M2 was 31.1 calibers. At 1500 yards, the M2 had 4-5mm less penetration from the M3, and 6-8mm less at 500 yards.

When the Canadians replaced the Valentines from 2pdrs, to 6pdr, to the 75mm, didn't take that long to modify the mounts.
And france already had thousands of tubes, it's still faster to make a new recoil mount, than a whole new gun and the mount for that as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.5_cm_Pak_97/38
2.58 m (8 ft 6 in) L/34.5
2.72 m (8 ft 11 in) L/36.3 (without muzzle brake)

It was tempting to adopt the readily available French gun to the anti-tank role. In the original configuration, those guns were ill-suited for fighting tanks because of their relatively low muzzle velocity, limited traverse (only 6°), and lack of a suitable suspension (which resulted in a transport speed of just 10–12 km/h). It was decided to solve the traverse and mobility problems by mounting the 75 mm barrel on the modern split trail carriage of the 5 cm Pak 38 anti-tank gun. To soften the recoil, the barrel was fitted with a large muzzle brake. The gun was primarily intended to use HEAT shells as the armor penetration of this type of ammunition does not depend on velocity.

It was much easier to produce the existing German design of much higher performance than trying to make them into a tank cannon. They were better served by using them for towed AT weapons, a lot less altering and producing to make it useful.
 
If they had them on hand in June 1941 they'd do some damage then, especially if in a Marder configuration. The question is how long it takes to get the KWK40 into service.
OTL they had nothing in April 1941, few preruns in November 1941, some 44 in February 1942 and then production started to increase.

I guess if they went into it we can assume they can have some 44 in April-June 1941, and then 175 a month after production picks up.
 

Deleted member 1487

OTL they had nothing in April 1941, few preruns in November 1941, some 44 in February 1942 and then production started to increase.

I guess if they went into it we can assume they can have some 44 in April-June 1941, and then 175 a month after production picks up.
I wonder if a 75mm L41 tank gun would consume similar production capacity and delay the 75mm AT gun...or if the Germans would even be concerned enough with the T-34/KV-1 to even make adjustments in production. With hindsight we have an idea of what the Germans should have done production-wise (leaving out the morale and strategic issues), but would they have been too arrogant to recognize what a potential threat the T-34 much sooner than IOTL?
 

Redbeard

Banned
Seen from German side the most important lesson probably would be to realise that a single season campaign was unrealistic. That alone might make a decisive change - even with Pz38s, PzIIs and peashooter PzIIIs. After all most of the Soviet tanks encountered were BT7 and T26 and even the Mechanised Corps of 1941 with most T34s and KV1s vaporized remarkably fast when committed to battle.

But back to the far more interesting technical what if I would suggest first priority given to development anti-tank weapons at company and lower level. Something like: "Each infantry squad must be able to defeat even the heaviest armored vehicles at a distance of at least 30 meter". We know that was what the Panzerfaust came up with by mid war, but the technology involved isn't especially advanced - mainly requires somebody important enough recognizing the need. The Panzerschreck is a little more complicated as it in OTL was heavily inspired by captured bazookas, but again the technology isn't advanced beyond what some experimentation can produce - and both the Panzerfaust and the Panzerscheck are extremely cheap and fast to produce.

Likewise the main barrier for the PaK 40 is the recognition of needing it. High velocity 75 mm guns had been in service for decades, suitable recoil systems since 1897 and mounting it on a lightweight low profile mobile mount not a big problem. Actually issuing AT ammo and suitable sights for captured French 75mm M1897 guns would bring the Wehrmacht a long way by Barbarossa (was done in OTL 1942).

The Luftwaffe would of course look for her own role in this, but instead of those awkward big guns on planes I wonder why nobody really tried recoilless rifled tubes mounted similarly to how unguided rockets were carried under the wings. It ought not to be impossible to mount four 84 mm CarlGustav like tubes under each wing of a fighterbomber. I guess even a Fiesler Storch would have some potential as an AT plane! :cool:

Likewise the concept of dropping numerous small shaped charges on an armored target requires mainly the idea, not that advanced technology by 1940 although we're not talking about the late cold war advanced systems (which the Bundeswehr excelled in). I also wonder if minefields laid by artillery (or aircraft) would require that much more than the idea? We of course will not see any proximity fuses but a traditional mechanical time fuse ought to do the job. The biggest challenge probably would be carrying all those heavy shells (at least 150 mm) alongside the normal stock of shells.

The biggest need to be filled would however be lots of woolly socks and sweaters :)
 
Very true, the last sentence :)

Luftwaffe might start thinkering a bit earlier about installing 3, 3.7 and 5cm AT cannons on their aircraft.
 

Deleted member 1487

Luftwaffe might start thinkering a bit earlier about installing 3, 3.7 and 5cm AT cannons on their aircraft.
AFAIK the BF110 did belly mount a MK101 for tank plinking in 1941.
https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/156448-bf-110-c-6-possible-german-premium/

The Luftwaffe would of course look for her own role in this, but instead of those awkward big guns on planes I wonder why nobody really tried recoilless rifled tubes mounted similarly to how unguided rockets were carried under the wings. It ought not to be impossible to mount four 84 mm CarlGustav like tubes under each wing of a fighterbomber. I guess even a Fiesler Storch would have some potential as an AT plane! :cool:
Short range and I don't think they work well in the air for some reason. Of course the Panzerfaust was a recoilless rifle and they did mount them on late war planes....of course they were wildly inaccurate.
I'd think the R4M with a hollow charge design for the 55mm rocket would have been plenty to penetrate WW2 tanks. They were reasonably accurate at 500m or less, which was doable for something like the Ju87, Hs123, Hs129, Bf109 fighter-bomb, certainly the Fw190 that did mount them IOTL (and the Panzerblitz variant), and a belly mount launcher for the Bf110. The Storch could have done it too.

Likewise the concept of dropping numerous small shaped charges on an armored target requires mainly the idea, not that advanced technology by 1940 although we're not talking about the late cold war advanced systems (which the Bundeswehr excelled in). I also wonder if minefields laid by artillery (or aircraft) would require that much more than the idea? We of course will not see any proximity fuses but a traditional mechanical time fuse ought to do the job. The biggest challenge probably would be carrying all those heavy shells (at least 150 mm) alongside the normal stock of shells.
The SD-4 was certainly possible. Aerial mining required a higher level of construction for small objects than was capable with mass manufacturing in WW2 I'd think:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-Purpose_Improved_Conventional_Munition
Certainly an artillery timed fuse was too difficult to do aerial mining for without a proxy fuse unless in a static front situation where the range and time to target was well known, but I'm not sure how accurate the timed fuses were for air bursts and what it would mean if things were misjudged due to say barrel wear. Certainly it would make artillery against massed infantry charges disgustingly effective if they could get it work and probably would be enough to kill any AFV in WW2. 105mm shells are used for DPICM today, so 150mm isn't needed. Even 120mm heavy mortars could do that job.
But may personal favorite solution for anything WW2 eastern front is mass manufactured HS123s from pre-Barbarossa on using the German version of napalm. Removes infantry, scares the living hell out of everyone, even tankers, plus it ignites the fumes coming out of tank engines as these aren't Cold War efficient engine designs. Plus as the US Aberdeen Proving Ground exam of a T-34 in 1942 demonstrated there were gaps in the armor of Soviet tanks, which jellied oil fire would seep through.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewto...sid=8a47aa4d4e5d86a622a105c377c7a1b8#p2059176
http://www.ww2f.com/topic/3193-rafluftwaffe-incendiary-bombs/
 

Redbeard

Banned
AFAIK the BF110 did belly mount a MK101 for tank plinking in 1941.
https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/156448-bf-110-c-6-possible-german-premium/


Short range and I don't think they work well in the air for some reason. Of course the Panzerfaust was a recoilless rifle and they did mount them on late war planes....of course they were wildly inaccurate.
I'd think the R4M with a hollow charge design for the 55mm rocket would have been plenty to penetrate WW2 tanks. They were reasonably accurate at 500m or less, which was doable for something like the Ju87, Hs123, Hs129, Bf109 fighter-bomb, certainly the Fw190 that did mount them IOTL (and the Panzerblitz variant), and a belly mount launcher for the Bf110. The Storch could have done it too.


The SD-4 was certainly possible. Aerial mining required a higher level of construction for small objects than was capable with mass manufacturing in WW2 I'd think:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-Purpose_Improved_Conventional_Munition
Certainly an artillery timed fuse was too difficult to do aerial mining for without a proxy fuse unless in a static front situation where the range and time to target was well known, but I'm not sure how accurate the timed fuses were for air bursts and what it would mean if things were misjudged due to say barrel wear. Certainly it would make artillery against massed infantry charges disgustingly effective if they could get it work and probably would be enough to kill any AFV in WW2. 105mm shells are used for DPICM today, so 150mm isn't needed. Even 120mm heavy mortars could do that job.
But may personal favorite solution for anything WW2 eastern front is mass manufactured HS123s from pre-Barbarossa on using the German version of napalm. Removes infantry, scares the living hell out of everyone, even tankers, plus it ignites the fumes coming out of tank engines as these aren't Cold War efficient engine designs. Plus as the US Aberdeen Proving Ground exam of a T-34 in 1942 demonstrated there were gaps in the armor of Soviet tanks, which jellied oil fire would seep through.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewto...sid=8a47aa4d4e5d86a622a105c377c7a1b8#p2059176
http://www.ww2f.com/topic/3193-rafluftwaffe-incendiary-bombs/

The Panzerfaust wasn't rifled, but just unfolding fins. AFAIK the projectile of the Panzerscheck also was fin stabilised - as the Bazooka. The CarlGustaf however, which was developed in the early 40s, was/is by far much more accurate. The modern versions will hit a vehicle out to 700 meter, but I guess that wouldn't be possible by WWII. But firing eight CarlGustafs ought to give a decent chance of one hitting - and much better than with rockets. After WWII the USD Army introduced a very long 106mm Recoilless Rifle, IIRC that would hit vehicles beyond 1000 meter. But it appears like not at least the development of RR ammo needed a lot of maturisation before such levels of accuracy were achieved.

A "good enough" time fuse ought to be possible by WWII. When I served in the artillery (1980s) we still used mechanical time fuses which AFAIK were developed (and produced) during WWII in USA (M520). Required good data on weather and position, but it was possible even before computers to calculate firing solutions good enough to ensure airburst at 20 meter above ground. Looks great BTW. A carrier shell with mines do not need to go off as close to ground (which put high demands on firing data) but can be set at say 50 meter - will make it MUCH easier to make firing solution.

But of course you're spot on with napalm - simple, cheap and effective - and scary as hell! And the effectiveness not least lies in just about every plane being a potential tank killer!
 

Deleted member 1487

The Panzerfaust wasn't rifled, but just unfolding fins. AFAIK the projectile of the Panzerscheck also was fin stabilised - as the Bazooka. The CarlGustaf however, which was developed in the early 40s, was/is by far much more accurate. The modern versions will hit a vehicle out to 700 meter, but I guess that wouldn't be possible by WWII. But firing eight CarlGustafs ought to give a decent chance of one hitting - and much better than with rockets. After WWII the USD Army introduced a very long 106mm Recoilless Rifle, IIRC that would hit vehicles beyond 1000 meter. But it appears like not at least the development of RR ammo needed a lot of maturisation before such levels of accuracy were achieved.

A "good enough" time fuse ought to be possible by WWII. When I served in the artillery (1980s) we still used mechanical time fuses which AFAIK were developed (and produced) during WWII in USA (M520). Required good data on weather and position, but it was possible even before computers to calculate firing solutions good enough to ensure airburst at 20 meter above ground. Looks great BTW. A carrier shell with mines do not need to go off as close to ground (which put high demands on firing data) but can be set at say 50 meter - will make it MUCH easier to make firing solution.

But of course you're spot on with napalm - simple, cheap and effective - and scary as hell! And the effectiveness not least lies in just about every plane being a potential tank killer!
Recoilless rifles aren't necessarily rifled. The CG was equivalent to the Panzerschreck, also longer ranged and more accurate than the Panzerfaust 60. The PzF 150 was probably just as accurate for 1940s state of the art. If we are going to talk about recoilless rifles we're better off using R4Ms or other rockets; then you don't need to worry about the launcher and have just as effective a rocket if not more so. Plus the Germans didn't have them in WW2 and the CG wasn't perfected until 1948. I think IOTL they did try to mount Panzerschrecks and fausts on training aircraft in a desperation move at the end of the war. In the end it was not a success. The US or any other nation never really tried to put recoilless rifles on aircraft post-WW2. FFARs were the future.

And 'ensure' airbursts? Maybe more often than not, but ensure sounds optimistic IMHO. A lot easier if you're not on the move and know the range via pre-sighting artillery, but there are still a ton of variables. If they can pop the shell at 50-100m off the ground that is more doable. Getting cluster munitions then into an artillery shell shell shouldn't be too hard, but making the submunitions reliable and making sure they don't detonate early with the burst charge is the trick.
(Disclaimer: I've never been an artilleryman)

Yeah napalm or whatever it is called nowadays, is a savage, but cheap and useful weapon that is based on kerosene and polystyrene, neither of which Germany has a shortage of.
 
The principle behind recoilles gun was well known around the world, with German army introducing the LG 40 before the Battle of Crete. Granted, since it was designed as a piece of artillery, it will not be very much suited for intensive AT job due to the very visible smoke when firing. The dedicated AT wepon designed as recoilles gun will need to be lighter, with lower muzzle velocity (in range of maybe 50-60 m/s instead of 350 m/s as with LG 40). Thus not only the gun is very cheap & light, the resulting smoke/balckblast will be much smaller than of the LG 40 due to only a fraction of propellant used.
 

Deleted member 1487

The principle behind recoilles gun was well known around the world, with German army introducing the LG 40 before the Battle of Crete. Granted, since it was designed as a piece of artillery, it will not be very much suited for intensive AT job due to the very visible smoke when firing. The dedicated AT wepon designed as recoilles gun will need to be lighter, with lower muzzle velocity (in range of maybe 50-60 m/s instead of 350 m/s as with LG 40). Thus not only the gun is very cheap & light, the resulting smoke/balckblast will be much smaller than of the LG 40 due to only a fraction of propellant used.
So pretty much useless as an air-to-ground weapon.
 

Deleted member 1487

Just ground-to-ground.
There is plenty of high-velocity cannons in service or in development in Germany just waiting to be installed on aircraft and go tank hunting.
Sure, you just need the right aircraft and mounting. But for tank busting you need aircraft that were low and slow, but capable of mounting the bigger guns. The HS129 should have been that aircraft, but it was too small, too underpowered, and had unarmored engines, which is death for CAS. So IMHO given the aircraft available the HS123C with air to ground rockets or a variety of bombs (including napalm) with 20mm cannon, like a smaller biplane A1 Skyraider was the way to go. And it didn't use cannons for tank busting, just bombs and rockets.
 

Redbeard

Banned
And 'ensure' airbursts? Maybe more often than not, but ensure sounds optimistic IMHO. A lot easier if you're not on the move and know the range via pre-sighting artillery, but there are still a ton of variables. If they can pop the shell at 50-100m off the ground that is more doable. Getting cluster munitions then into an artillery shell shell shouldn't be too hard, but making the submunitions reliable and making sure they don't detonate early with the burst charge is the trick.
(Disclaimer: I've never been an artilleryman)
I don't think the problem of making airburst by mid 20th century lies in the fuse nor the shell, but in the challenge of having good enough (updated) info on weather and position. You certainly could produce reliable meteorology data and calculate your exact position, but it was cumbersome (but very interesting challenge) and practically impossible in a fast moving war like at Barbarossa. Unless of course you just range in your salvos - ie. fire a few salvos with varying setting until you have your airburst - that ought not to be a problem if laying minefields - only takes a few minutes.

But again, I think the biggest problem would be keeping the batteries supplied with all the shells needed for an effective minefield. WWII logistics were not up to that in a moving war on bad roads.

Dispersing AT mines from a low flying plane ought to be more doable, would only require simple mechanics or pyrotechnics. A German Tellermine like the M35 weighed 9 kg so carrying some hundreds on a commonly available aircraft should not be impossible. That will make it possible for a single squadron to lay a useful minefield just ahead of an enemy armoured column. Not to defeat it or keep it there for ever, but to channel its movement into killing fields. Would boost the usual German tactical and operational flexibility. Logistics also would be easier as you don't have to bring mines and dispensers as "far out" as shells and propellants.
 

Deleted member 1487

Dispersing AT mines from a low flying plane ought to be more doable, would only require simple mechanics or pyrotechnics. A German Tellermine like the M35 weighed 9 kg so carrying some hundreds on a commonly available aircraft should not be impossible. That will make it possible for a single squadron to lay a useful minefield just ahead of an enemy armoured column. Not to defeat it or keep it there for ever, but to channel its movement into killing fields. Would boost the usual German tactical and operational flexibility. Logistics also would be easier as you don't have to bring mines and dispensers as "far out" as shells and propellants.
Or just having enough Hs123s to drop a bunch of these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_Bomb

or these:
http://www.bocn.co.uk/vbforum/threads/3924-SD1-Bomblet-German-WW2
sd1.jpg

Sd1_drop_container.jpg




The problem is that the Germans didn't realize that their 50mm light mortar ammo made excellent cheap submunitions that they could air drop in a cluster bomb container. Even in 1943 there were a huge shortage of cluster munitions and they apparently even were highly effective in dropping on wooded areas, as they fell easily through the branches and hit the ground.

Took until 1943-44 to make these:
http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/sd4hl.htm
 
Top