The Second World War.

[palo5]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

There was still Timoshenko as well, who was really the man who unravelled Marshal Mannerheim's defences in 1940

Well, yes. Stalin asked him if he could solve the Finnish problem, and he is said to have replied "I can, but you must expect to lose a lot of men". He was right with both predictions

Another factor, I think, was that Russia did not field well trained aircrews

The tank crews weren't any better, not in the beginning, anyway. For some time the Soviets did not understand why they were losing so many tanks. And it turned out that although crews knew how to use the tanks, they didn't understand how they worked. So if anything went wrong, they couldn't easily fix it, and had to destroy their own vehicles to prevent them being captured by the Germans

After that became clear, the crews spent part of their training in the tank factories, and understood their machines much better. At least that's what they tell us these days

[richardoe]

Can someone confirm that all Russian tanks in wwii had a 3 man crew? And correct me if Im wrong but isnt that the case today?

[palo5]

Originally Posted by richardoe

Can someone confirm that all Russian tanks in wwii had a 3 man crew? And correct me if Im wrong but isnt that the case today?

They had 3 - 5 man crews in WW2

4 is probably optimum. You always need a commander, driver and gunner. But even if you have an autoloader, it's still best to have a radio-op/loader who can clear gun problems, change belts etc

[Dr Pepper]

Originally Posted by palo5

They had 3 - 5 man crews in WW2

4 is probably optimum. You always need a commander, driver and gunner. But even if you have an autoloader, it's still best to have a radio-op/loader who can clear gun problems, change belts etc

Palo makes good sense-three is the standard number for a tank fitted with an autoloader for the main armament, four where manual loading is used. the 5th crew member in WW2 and immediate postwar tanks was the radio operator/hull machine gun operator.
One frequently overlooked aspect is workload-which extends a lot further than just in combat-tanks are hugely maintenance intensive-and fatiguing to operate-and crews are required to conduct a lot of maintenance tasks on the vehicle-as well as stand radio picquet and other group duties within the tank troop (tank platoon if you're US!) A fourth crew member spreads these tasks over 4 rather than three individuals.

The trouble with a number of Russian tanks-and others from the early WW2 period* is that with a three man crew, there are only two members in the turret-requiring the crew commander to act as loader-and he can't do two jobs at once, so takes his eyes off the ball while he is loading the gun-even if it only takes about 10 seconds. The other problem is most crew commanders (I was one) prefer to be up in the cupola whenever possible (even if the hatch cover is partly down)-if you have to act as loader you pop up and down like a jack-in-a box....

The Israelis (who know a thing or two about tank warfare!) have done some analysis and come to the conclusion that with night vision equipment capabilities now it is a 24-hr battlefield and the weak link in the whole equation now is crew fatigue-so will replace an entire crew after a few days continuous operations-and are regearing their personnel structures in armoured units to facilitate this

* there were a few tanks-the French Char B being one-which had a one man turret-the poor old crew commander had to command the tank, load the gun, fire the gun.......needless to say it didn't work very well....

[dethtongue]

Originally Posted by richardoe

Can someone confirm that all Russian tanks in wwii had a 3 man crew? And correct me if Im wrong but isnt that the case today?

I think 3 was common but not doctrine. It had to do with the tank actually. The original T-34/41 had a two man turret with the commander doubling as the gunner. This was relatively common with all early model tanks in most nations. The concurrent KV-1s had a 3 man turret I think. This was recognized as a real weakness for a variety of reasons early on. When the Soviets redesigned the T-34 into the /85 model with the larger gun they enlarged the turret so it was three man and the commander could concentrate on actually commanding the tank. The late war JS series also had three man turrets as well.

One thing people notice almost instantly about Soviet tanks is how short they are relative to tanks of other nations. This makes them harder to see and hit especially in a hull down position. One reason is tank crews in the Soviet Union were chosen almost solely based on their height. It was very rare to find a tanker taller than say 5'-6" tall in a Soviet Tank. Another reason is they decided to go with auto loaders for their guns after the war so they could keep the overall height of the tanks down. Most other nations have resisted this for the reason an extra man in a tank crew helps spread the workload of maintenance out. Tanks even now require lots of spare crew time to keep everything running, and the absolute last place you want something to break down is when rolling into combat.

[Historian]

Originally Posted by Dr Pepper

The trouble with a number of Russian tanks-and others from the early WW2 period* is that with a three man crew, there are only two members in the turret-requiring the crew commander to act as loader-and he can't do two jobs at once, so takes his eyes off the ball while he is loading the gun-even if it only takes about 10 seconds. The other problem is most crew commanders (I was one) prefer to be up in the cupola whenever possible (even if the hatch cover is partly down)-if you have to act as loader you pop up and down like a jack-in-a box....

* there were a few tanks-the French Char B being one-which had a one man turret-the poor old crew commander had to command the tank, load the gun, fire the gun.......needless to say it didn't work very well....

The driver in the Char B had his hands full as well- it had both a 47mm turret gun, and a 75mm in the hull, which was aimed and fired by the driver, though he did at least have the services of a loader to help with the 75mm- As you say, the commander up in the turret was on his own with the 47mm....

[Dr Pepper]

Originally Posted by richardoe

Can someone confirm that all Russian tanks in wwii had a 3 man crew? And correct me if Im wrong but isnt that the case today?

Since this thread is currently going down the tank track (pun intended!) I should add a bit more info for those of you (unlike me) not from an armoured background. The critical design dimension in a tank is the turret ring-the size of this (the 'pivot' for the turret) determines the size of the gun that can be fitted, as it effectively determines how far the gun is able to recoil when it fires and how much space there is to load it. Now bear in mind the current MBT calibres are either 105mm or 120mm in western tanks, and 125mm in Russian (the next calibre will be 140mm) [which is 5.5"-a size that already exists in naval guns, so some of the R&D will be shortened]
Go back to WW2 and we were looking at 37/40mm at the start, and going up through 57/75/76/85/90/122mm on the Allied side and 50/75/88mm on the Axis.

Also bear in mind that tanks fired fixed ammunition (just like a rifle or pistol) and as the calibre goes up, so does the length and weight of the complete cartridge. It is easy to grab and load a 2-pounder 40mm round-so at a pinch the gunner can do this without too much trouble, and at an adequate speed.
By the time you get to a 75mm the cartridge is both heavy and unwieldy and another pair of hands are required-not to mention that the turret is a very crowded space with three people, machinery, radios, gunsights, seats etc
The other thing to note is that the ammunition for the main gun is stored in multiple locations-below, to the side, behind and in front of the turret-and is inaccessible to the gunner-who is sitting on one side (normally on the right) of the gun, hard up against the front of the turret. The commander is always seated above and behind the gunner (in a 3-man turret)-so the loader is the only crew member who can physically reach the ammunition stowage.

100mm/105mm calibre ammunition is effectively the largest size of 'fixed' ammunition that can be handled by one man within the confines of a turret. Its not just the weight-its also the length. Anything bigger you have only 2 choices-separate projectile and charge-which means slower loading, or an autoloader -of which there are a variety-and are now standard equipment on all modern tanks (but not necessarily on light armoured vehicles-some of which carry guns up to 105mm.....but that's for another post!)

[dethtongue]

While were on this track from what I've read over the years is a turret ring is also about the most complex and sophisticated part of the tank in terms of the precision machinery needed to shape it so the size of a tanks turret ring was directionally proportional to the sophistication of a nations industrial sophistication. As nations refined their ability to mass produce quality machine parts so also did tank turrets grow as they could shape larger turret rings for larger turrets to house larger guns and more crew.

[Dr Pepper]

Originally Posted by dethtongue

While were on this track from what I've read over the years is a turret ring is also about the most complex and sophisticated part of the tank in terms of the precision machinery needed to shape it so the size of a tanks turret ring was directionally proportional to the sophistication of a nations industrial sophistication. As nations refined their ability to mass produce quality machine parts so also did tank turrets grow as they could shape larger turret rings for larger turrets to house larger guns and more crew.

Well all a turret ring is in principle (and reality!) is, is a very large ring gear-but with internal teeth-so you need machining facilities to handle this-I wouldn't necessarily consider it complicated-gears are not that hard to make. Regardless of how the traverse is done-hydraulically, by hand (it took 720 turns of the handle to traverse a Tiger's turret 360 degrees!), electrically, electromechanically-ultimately it is moved by a gear meshing with the turret ring teeth. We are talking of a ring gear perhaps up to 2m diameter or a little larger-this would not pose a great challenge to a nation with any capability in shipbuilding or railway engine construction.
The Sherman tank of WW2 had its entire hull cast on some models, the Mk1 Tiger turret was made from a single piece of armour plate bent in a U-shape to create the sides and rear-the gun and its mantlet formed the front, and the flat top was welded on. The US/UK Grant Lee and the British Crusader tanks were largely bolted/rivetted together-so there was a range of different construction methods used.
If you had a tradition of shipbuilding and/or railway engine construction then naturally your heavy industry (and tank manufacture is definitely HEAVY industry!) would adapt existing production methods wherever possible-if you've been building either of these products then you already have the ability to produce large casting, and rolled steel-plus the machine tools and crane capacity to work and move large heavy components.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by Dr Pepper

Well all a turret ring is in principle (and reality!) is, is a very large ring gear-but with internal teeth-so you need machining facilities to handle this-I wouldn't necessarily consider it complicated-gears are not that hard to make. Regardless of how the traverse is done-hydraulically, by hand (it took 720 turns of the handle to traverse a Tiger's turret 360 degrees!), electrically, electromechanically-ultimately it is moved by a gear meshing with the turret ring teeth. We are talking of a ring gear perhaps up to 2m diameter or a little larger-this would not pose a great challenge to a nation with any capability in shipbuilding or railway engine construction.
The Sherman tank of WW2 had its entire hull cast on some models, the Mk1 Tiger turret was made from a single piece of armour plate bent in a U-shape to create the sides and rear-the gun and its mantlet formed the front, and the flat top was welded on. The US/UK Grant Lee and the British Crusader tanks were largely bolted/rivetted together-so there was a range of different construction methods used.
If you had a tradition of shipbuilding and/or railway engine construction then naturally your heavy industry (and tank manufacture is definitely HEAVY industry!) would adapt existing production methods wherever possible-if you've been building either of these products then you already have the ability to produce large casting, and rolled steel-plus the machine tools and crane capacity to work and move large heavy components.

When I visited the Duxford site of the Imperial War Museum in October 2012, one of the exhibits which impressed me was their JS2 tank; a very imposing beastie. It had a 122mm cannon which would not have looked out of place on a destroyer. Other than the turret, which looked like it had been made by heating and bending an extremely thick sheet of steel into a U shape. then putting the gun into the centre and putting a sheet of armour plate on top, most of the hull consisted of steel plates held together with very large hexagonal bolts. It looked as though all you needed to take it to pieces and rebuild it was a damn big socket set and a lot of muscles. Essentially, it was an extremely large and heavy Mechano set. I note what Palo mentioned about the avoidable losses when tanks had to be abandoned with minor faults which the crew could possibly have repaired in the field. The JS2 looked as though it was designed to be looked after with a 22mm ring spanner.