Assault Gun Love?
- Thread starter BurdenedWarrior
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Well, add in 600 SU-122, 600 SU-152 and 3200 ISU-152.
Soviets had the most AGs by quite a long shot, and those were actually, on average, more potent ones, as both SU-152 and ISU-152 were on heavy tank chasis with 152mm gun.
Sure, Germans were behind by only 1:2 as opposed to 1:4 in tanks, but still 1:2 is not close
You know that the SU counted every rebuild tank as a new one and every tank who returned to the factory, for a overhaul, was counted as a new tank too.
I was always curious where did this came from?You know that the SU counted every rebuild tank as a new one and every tank who returned to the factory, for a overhaul, was counted as a new tank too.
Thats it. In the picture you see all build tank cannons in the SU during the war.
"But wait", some keen-eyed readers may exclaim, "these numbers are all wrong! Only 34355 F-34s? Less than 20,000 85 mm guns? Wikipedia tells me that there were over 35,000 T-34s and nearly 50,000 T-34-85s, not to mention all other vehicles that used these guns!"
Did they go into battle with no gun, in some kind of bizarre Enemy at the Gates type arrangement? Of course not. Every vehicle had a gun, with ample spares. The discrepancy comes from the definition of "produced". A vehicle that came out of the factory counts as produced regardless of how it came in: as raw materials or as a heavily damaged tank. Where a German bureaucrat would keep track of a single tank regardless of how many times it was knocked out and sent back to the factory, without counting it as a loss until it could no longer be repaired, a Soviet one would count it as a loss if it could not participate in battle, and the factory would count the tank as produced once more. A tank could last throughout the entire war, and if it required major repairs (even due to noncombat damage like engine wear), it would count as multiple casualties and multiple tanks.
http://tankarchives.blogspot.de/2014/02/gun-production.html
- 2
How else do you think the Soviet factory managers could meet their quotas for the month? "Yes, we shipped out 47 T-34s last month, and exceeded our production quota of 45.", never mind that 22 of them were repairs or overhauls. The problem is that math is apolitical, but HOW and WHAT you count is most certainly politically determined.
Consider modern US inflation figures, which include several items with prices that are government regulated. The final numbers are whatever the government wants them to be, and "accounting adjustments" regularly prevent the discrepancies from becoming too obvious over the longer term. It was probably in the interests of quite a few people in the Soviet Union to count tanks in that manner, and trying to make any sense of it decades later could be a challenge.
As an example of "creative accounting" at its finest, the major purpose of a military parade was to demonstrate for the reviewer that the proper number of equipped and trained troops was indeed present, as stipulated in the contract or decree. It was often in the interest of the officers, generally in conspiracy with the supply clerks, to run the unit a few bodies "light", yet claim them and pocket the difference in pay and sell the surplus supplies. It was in the interest of the government to insure that they were getting what they paid for, occasionally sending inspectors or senior officers to review the troops without notice. People got rich on the discrepancies, or got arrested.
Consider modern US inflation figures, which include several items with prices that are government regulated. The final numbers are whatever the government wants them to be, and "accounting adjustments" regularly prevent the discrepancies from becoming too obvious over the longer term. It was probably in the interests of quite a few people in the Soviet Union to count tanks in that manner, and trying to make any sense of it decades later could be a challenge.
As an example of "creative accounting" at its finest, the major purpose of a military parade was to demonstrate for the reviewer that the proper number of equipped and trained troops was indeed present, as stipulated in the contract or decree. It was often in the interest of the officers, generally in conspiracy with the supply clerks, to run the unit a few bodies "light", yet claim them and pocket the difference in pay and sell the surplus supplies. It was in the interest of the government to insure that they were getting what they paid for, occasionally sending inspectors or senior officers to review the troops without notice. People got rich on the discrepancies, or got arrested.
- 2
That is consistent with how they count casualties: if a soldier is out of action due to conditions that last for more than a day, he would be considered a "sanitary loss". It would appear that the Red Army is more concerned with whether someone or something is unable to fight [now] than [in the forseeable future]/[ever again], so if a unit did write off a vehicle when it's disabled but recovered, it makes sense for the repairer to add the successfully repaired vehicle to the tally.
Although such practice makes life of analysts and historians harder, it makes the life of the people concerned easier, since by simply deducting the total declared losses from the total declared production, one knows how many of them are operational right now. Not elegant, but gets the job done.
Although such practice makes life of analysts and historians harder, it makes the life of the people concerned easier, since by simply deducting the total declared losses from the total declared production, one knows how many of them are operational right now. Not elegant, but gets the job done.
- 1