Soviet Tank Tactics 1944
Get the Soviet Tank Combat Manual here stm44.com. In this video we look at Soviet Tank Tactics from 1944 based on a translated combat manual. We look at formations, organization, combat techniques, ammo and weapon selection, how to designate targets and other aspects.
Cover Design (T-34/76) by vonKickass, T-34/76 at the Panzermuseum Munster photo by MHV.
Alternative Cover Design (historically inaccurate T-34/85) Image generated by OpenAI's DALL-E.
»» GET BOOKS & VIDEOS ««
» Stukabook - Doctrine of the German Dive-Bomber - stukabook.com
» The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company November 1944 (StG 44) - sturmzug.com
» Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com
» Tank Assault - Combat Manual of the Soviet Tank Forces 1944 - stm44.com
» IS-2 Stalin's Warhammer - www.is-2tank.com
» StuG: Ausbildung, Einsatz und Führung der StuG Batterie - stug-hdv.de
» Achtung Panzer? Zur Panzerwaffe der Wehrmacht - panzerkonferenz.de
» Panzerkonferenz Video - pzkonf.de
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon - see videos early (adfree) - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
» KZhead Membership - / @militaryhistoryvisual...
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/stores/military...
»» SOURCES ««
Tank Assault: The Combat Manual of Armored and Mechanized Forces of the Red Army - Bilingual Limited Edition, Military History Group: London, UK, 2023. - stm44.com
tankfront.ru/ussr/organisation...
#SovietTactics #TankTactics #SovietTankTactics
All books are 15 % OFF! Full catalogue: militaryhistorygroup.com » Tank Assault - Combat Manual of the Soviet Tank Forces 1944 - stm44.com » Stukabook - Doctrine of the German Dive-Bomber - stukabook.com » The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company November 1944 (StG 44) - sturmzug.com » Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com » IS-2 Stalin's Warhammer - www.is-2tank.com » StuG: Ausbildung, Einsatz und Führung der StuG Batterie - stug-hdv.de » Achtung Panzer? Zur Panzerwaffe der Wehrmacht - panzerkonferenz.de
Was that a t-34-85 converted to have a panther’s 75mm gun in the thumbnail?
I wonder if those calls to fire on the move only refer to tank machine guns, since some other phrases explicitly call for cannon fire.
Leaves it open doesn’t it
mg against optics can be quite annoying lol
While it may not be the case for this case with the soviets One thing people constantly fail to consider is that a tank is a vehicle, it is driven, so consider how people are driving it. Thinking this way one can consider the various gears each tank has, every gear has its own benefits and and speeds and various terrain. Lower gears are especially much more stable and slower, thus fire on the move is very much possible on lower gears. Do note, if we look to the Sherman, even with gyroscopic stabilizers, it was not capable of really shooting on the move on high gear and high speeds, however lower gears did allow aiming to be much more practical.
I can definitely see machine gun fire being effective if the tanks slow down a bit, to actually use cannons effectively though I assume the tanks would have to really slow down and be on relatively flat terrain.
@@MildyHistoricalhave you played WoT? Hide in a bush or orbit 😅
It must be remembered that this is a manual for an army almost constantly on the attack. The tactics given are designed to combat the German forces of the period, their particular tactics and doctrine and the strengths and weaknesses of equipment and logistics of that force.
Still used
Nice to see a visualized video where we have both organization diagrams and tactical diagrams!
Wow, such a coincidence. Just've watched the video about soviet rifle squad manual, and now there is a tanks tactics video posted. Weird to see comments written 5 days ago, while video was posted an hour ago
Early access Patreon
Firing on the move is not as crazy as it may seem. In Panzer Gunner by Bruno Friezen his panzer IVF2 company was hull down stationary and smaller number of T-34/85s rushed them. The Russians fired on the move and weaved somewhat. The Russians actually destroyed a German tank and several decoys before any German could hit them. The Germans finally won the contest but the Germans were impressed that the Russians could shoot and hit on the move.
i think the decoys saved that fight for them.
You miss every shot you don’t take
Probably more luck than anything.
I think one very possible reason for the Soviet Manual to actually call for firing on the move could be that ammo just wasn‘t as big of an issue for the Red Army as it was for the Germans, and they could afford to spend a few extra shells. I feel like for suppression purposes this should definitely still work, as long as a decent percentage of the shots actually hit *something* rather than just going overhead. But hitting the ground in front of or landmarks near the enemy positions, anything within 30-50 meters is probably gonna have plenty of suppressive effect. Especially since those tanks don‘t just have the cannons, but MGs as well, often more than one per tank. Chieftain once pointed out that one tank platoon already has the firepower similar to a whole battalion (?) of infantry. If I‘m sitting in my fighting position and *that* amount of ammo is being fired in my general direction by a couple of tanks, I‘m probably going to keep my head down, even if technically their chances of hitting me aren‘t even all that good. Although of course, the sheer volume is also going to play against me here: one shell fired on the move might have no chance of hitting me, but say, 10 of them, plus any number of MG-rounds are much more likely to. Plus if the tanks are moving, that also means they are moving towards me, which is also pretty intimidating for added suppressive value. Overall, compared to the sometimes endless artillery preparations performed before a major attack, spending a few tanks shells for suppression at relatively close range doesn‘t sound all that wasteful, as long as you‘re not running out of shells because you‘re Germany.
Then again it would prove to be a real disadvantage if they are fighting something like another tank emplaced on a position since they wouldnt be affected by machine guns and the lower acuracy of firing on the move could mean death for a tank in this scenario then again this is from 1944 were german tanks were not all that common a sight
Well Soviet tactic of firing on the move was not only costly in shells but tanks as well. On the battlefield there would be Soviet tanks firing inaccurate shots in a general direction while German AT guns and tanks could take well-aimed shot at Soviet tanks. Since target prioritization, a vital aspect in tank warfare, was difficult to achieve with the subpar accuracy and situational awareness from constant firing while moving, lethal targets such as German Pak guns or Panzer tanks weren't taken out before they could deal heavy losses to the Soviet tank platoons. High losses of Soviet T34 tanks in 1944 to 1945 despite ever-decreasing operational readiness of German tanks and AT elements could be a reflection on this downside of this tactic. Obviously it had its merit when one could afford its costs, which the Soviets could (though barely by mid-1945)
The choice you have on the attack is either firing on the move with limited effect, or stopping, making yourself an easier target and hoping that you can kill any AT threat they have. Not to mention, even inaccurate shots, especially with high explosive, will still kick up dust, dirt, possibly injure surrounding infantry with fragmentation and overall make it less pleasant and more stressful for the AT gunners to shoot And remember, this isn't a tactic of blindly charging the enemy, while maneuver units would be firing wildly, you still have 2 other tank platoons assigned to attack the same target to support you, one of which might be assigned to short stop firing, which is more accurate for pinning down targets, you can literally read that fire on the move is meant to suppress targets, not destroy them, a means to achieve better conditions for your later shots to have more effect by expending more ammunition earlier
@@sthrich635 except that’s not what they were doing. The moving tanks aren’t moving during their entire attack, they are moving because they are switching from one firing position to another, and while doing that they are being covered by another group of tanks in a firing position. This part of the manual is about whether the moving tanks should add their fire to the suppressing effort of their comrades so as to maximize the effect on the enemy. It does not describe their overall tactic. Meanwhile dangerous threats like anti-tank guns are being suppressed by accurate fire from the halted tanks. There are reasons for the high Soviet tank losses, but very likely it was not due to the fact that their manual also allowed them to fire while switching positions.
"And they agreed...about the optimism....not Lenin" Now I'd like to see people's thoughts on Lenin's ability to guide shells towards aircraft.
"Marx's undying discovery of the principle of historical materialism - undying, because it is true - has shed a clear light on many matters pertaining to the historical mission of the proletarian class in it's fight for freedom, in this case, on the problem of anti-aircraft fire. The intensifying forces of production and effectivization of the means of war in capitalist society tell us that the aims of the capitalist class are united in this question: the maximization of accuracy and destruction at the smallest possible allocation of resources possible. The proletariat however, whose class interests are diametrically opposed to those of the lords of production, gives rise to the fundamental contradiction in capitalist society: labor versus capital. This contradiction will inevitably contradict the aforementioned will of the capitalists. Through uncompromising class warfare, the proletariat will drag down the production efficiency of anti-aircraft materiel to the detriment of their rulers, all serving to bring down the current order and bring about the future of humanity: communism. The proletarian liberated will always engage better in anti-aircraft fire than the proletarian enslaved! Workers of the world, unite, and shoot to pieces the aircraft of reactionaries!" - Lenin, probably
Im glad to see that you're getting into tactics, it's certainly interesting to get a grasp of how they were supposed to act
He’s done lots of tactics videos throughout the years
Thanks, I'll go try this on WarThunder right now
Very intersting Video. I need to get that book. Shrapnel shell against a plane from a tank? I didnt know Battlefield 1942 came out in 1942 :)
Loving the new stuff!
Super wonderful explanation. Thanks
Great video
This looks like a manual designed for tankers who have had limited training. Keeping in mind that a tanks lifetime on the Ostfront was measured in weeks, replacements were more important than in-depth training. Lastly, the fragmentation AA shot could be guided by the spirit of Comrade Trotsky, the founder of the Red Army! Да здравствует Четвертый Интернационал, товарищ! (Long Live the Fourth International, Comrade!)
6:03 It sounds like you intend to post the enemy. The joys of English. :) "Envelope" means the container you put a letter in. "Envelop" is the tactical task. The publication is probably trying to provide an overview and principles to be used. Most tactical publications are not overly specific (e.g. "A support by fire position need to be effective", as opposed to "a support by fire position needs to be 75m from the enemy"). In this publication's context for example, a IS-2 Platoon's effective range would be much different to a T-34/76 Platoon's effective range. As to the diagram, the envelopment is usually selected when there is an obstacle on one flank (e.g. there maybe a river on the left that the enemy can be pinned against). Also it avoids the main strength of the position (out of the primary arc of the AT gun) and it allows the Company to attack in enfilade, where it can hit the right hand strong-point first and then move on the remaining strong-points on the left which are being suppressed by the fire support Platoon.
I had never seen a tank strut, but then I saw your thumbnail. That T-34 has Russian Runway Model levels of attitude.
This is great unless there is already something like this it would be awesome to see similar videos made for the Americans and Germans if the information is available.
I guess that in Enveloping and Flanking maneuver, you should start with a frontal attack with Heavy Tanks to fix the position of the enemy, and then flanking with MBT at maximum speed...??
These are company level tactics, so all vehicles are of the same type.
Regarding the book, what's the difference between the limited edition and the future regular edition? are there any plans for hardcover?
Regular one is only in English, no hard cover planned.
How much was this manual applied in practice and how much was simply teoreticaly and remains only on paper?
The vast majority of German diaries/reports I read talk only about Russians in frontal assault. My guess is that Russians, being less well equipped with radios, more complex manoevers were difficult to coordinate.
They were much better at coordinating and executing large and complex maneuvers than the germans
@@maximilianodelrio My impression comes from quite a number of German diaries, who almost always report Russian tanks coming straight at them. But I don't claim that to be universal. Quite possible that on a larger scale manoevers were quite complex. Only found one translated Russian tanker diary; it describes orders & instructions as very vague. Again, one (translated) diary does not make universal historical truth, but I go with what I got.
Does it say anything at all about using variants of armour piercing ammunition?
10:51 Perhaps they're trying to suppress the enemy rather than destroying them? And we all know that Soviet shells are guided by the directives from STAVKA.
I agree, anti-air is often more about area denial than outright destruction of the enemy. Lob enough fragmentation shells in the enemy's general direction and he might just decide that it's not worth tempting fate.
4-8 seconds stop to fire any kind of accurate shot seems very optimistic in several ways: -Most war time Soviet tanks had a turret far to the front, which made oscillation worse. -Overral poor visibility from Soviet tanks. At least late models had cupolas, but these were always as low as possible, making commader's work difficult. -The turret and gun controls were average at best. Interestingly Soviets rarely saved from electric turret drive, but these were so imprecise, unreliable and even hazardous that Americans recommended to take it off. Even today they seem almost obsessed about this. It's said their BMP crews were at least in the past trained to fire their ATGMs on the move. I have never seen that being done in real combat footage, but I have seen plenty of videos showing just how much those ATGMs swivel during flight.
I am suspicious about the T34 shooting on the move. I wonder if they were trained to fire the MG on the move.
It is more difficult to hit using HE. The shells are slower and they have no tracers.
MHV is that an AI gen'd thumbnail?.. im not disappointed its just... odd... looks like a kit bash of a T-34-85, Panther and IS-2 in such a way that if you focus on one area for too long it looks like a different tank altogether.
Is achtung panzer in full german?
the palm tree have the same design as afrika korps logo
Recently the Russians said that they are restarting the production of T-80s. It was said that they have 5000 T-80s of all types in reserves and I think 3500 were in service until...the early 2010s I think. It doesn't make sense. Why start production when you have thousands (they a couple of hundred of those tanks that were in reserves already but they still have thousands) in reserves. What happened to those tanks? I know that some were cannibalised for parts but starting production like you don't have more than just several hundred left is just weird.
11:00 Quite possibly the finest Austrian joke I have heard so far in 2023. ;-)
I can’t help it but I have to laugh a little every time I hear Bernie or someone from “his neck of the woods” say “wehicles” I’m sorry, I really am and don’t mean nothing by it, but I know I can’t be the only one 😁
You mention a "bilingual" version, does this include the original Russian text?
Yes! Original on the left, translation on the right page.
Does anyone know the russian name of this manual?
jeez, that was a bit lite on content.
All tanks in a line Move forward
yeah that's kinda what happens to all ground tactics when you're fighting over the russian steppe. hard to do much else when most of it is just open field
I mean... you could call them that.
'Armoured personnel carriers'? What armoured personnel carriers? I didn't think the WW2 Russian army had any. And, as others have stated, manuals only take you so far. Disecting manuals can result in incorrect conclusions about the way troops actually fought. But this video is at least a useful start.
Carius said his tank shot down an aircraft, so you can always have hope! I read a German report on how to engage a T-34 with Panzer 3s; it simply said while one tank attacks the T-34 from the front, the other tanks in the platoon should try to attack from the enemy's left/right flank or rear! Rocket science, boys!
Forgot about all the other T34s And crazy Russians climbing on your tank with gernades
" and they agreed with the optimism, not Lenin." 😂😂😂
Can you make a video about the Panzergrenadiere Divisions of the Bundeswehr meanwhile the Cold war? I wanna try to use it in Hearts of Iron IV, Warnow and the Wargame trilogy
bruh
Some of these comments are hilarious.
It is possible that the Soviets relied more on information in manuals because there was less opportunity for new recruits to learn from veterans when they joined units, s the Soviets seemed to continually be raising new units while the Germans were feeding new recruits as replacements in existing formations. Does this make sense?
Is that thumbnail AI generated? It looks like there's 2 MG ports and a muzzle brake on the T-34-85 in it.
Yeah, I told the AI several times "no muzzle brake", but nope :D
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized I was wondering. I thought I was going mad since something was just *slightly* off, lol.
Is there really nothing about supporting infantry? Are you sure this wasn't British doctrine?
This is obviously summarised as its an entire book in a short video
Interesting. The Soviets didn't ever develop an IFV/APC in WW2 in any scale or receive sufficient numbers from Lend Lease although they did manage to motorise large numbers of units. This suggests that maybe tank riders were used extensively but otherwise the aim may have been for the tanks to rush through exploiting any breakthrough but infantry may have struggled to keep up. Maybe the combat speed was to deposit the infantry close to enemy positions and then start blasting to give them cover in the final assault.
@@nath9091 Or this could be why the Germans were so fond of their Panzerfausts. Pretty easy for infantry to sneak up and shoot a Panzerfaust into the side or rear of an un-escorted tank.
The spirit of comrade Lenin lives in us all.
danke für Ihre #Panzer Videospiele. I wonder if Ukraine order Israel is using these tactics. If not, how are they combating.
sooo the soviet aktually used ther tnaks as a kind of "close quarter" weapon?. That would explain why germany was much more efficient with its way fewer tanks. iirc germany used its tnaks as a kind of direct fie support suppresing and destorying targets with precision from a distance.
The sovets……..
I can't believe I have to learn about military tactics for a videogame 😂🫥