How about soviet technology in ww2?

[krieger11b]

The Katyusha Rocket artillery was, as far as I know, way ahead of anything the Germans or western allies had at that time.

The German rockets were superior by far, however as typically the case, the soviets had a LOT more of them and thus had a greater effect on the war than the German Nebelwerfer ever hoped to.

An often repeated report by a the crew of a German 37mm anti-tank gun in June 1941 states that they hit 23 times a single T-34 managing only to jam its turret. From this story, two facts can be learnt: first that by 1941 the T-34 was far better armoured than anything the Germans had even encountered (or even imagined) before, and second: how in hell the crew of the T-34 allowed a single, towed (and thus immobile) anti-tank gun to shoot at them with impunity 23 times? :wacko: That says much about the quality of Germans vs Soviet manpower during those initial stages of the war.

You are refering to the PaK 36 37mm anti tank gun. It was criminal of the German Army to still be using a gun that was obsolete by 1939, let alone in 1941. The only Soviet Tanks they could hope to kill was the BT-5 and BT-7 light tanks.

 

[gagenater]

The German rockets were superior by far, however as typically the case, the soviets had a LOT more of them and thus had a greater effect on the war than the German Nebelwerfer ever hoped to.

Given that the Nebelwerfer's only entered mass production as a response to the effective use of rockets by the Russians that's hardly surprising. Later on in the war, the Russians had improved Katyusha designs already made up. However these didn't enter production until much later, as it was believed (probably correctly in this case) that pumping out a vast quantity of the existing rockets was perferable to slowing down production during the war to try and make a better type. The Germans did the opposite, as they had very few rocket launchers already built.

 

[krieger11b]

Given that the Nebelwerfer's only entered mass production as a response to the effective use of rockets by the Russians that's hardly surprising. Later on in the war, the Russians had improved Katyusha designs already made up. However these didn't enter production until much later, as it was believed (probably correctly in this case) that pumping out a vast quantity of the existing rockets was perferable to slowing down production during the war to try and make a better type. The Germans did the opposite, as they had very few rocket launchers already built.

Rocket artillery by the soviets with said mass production was what the Germans feared the most. It was sudden and without warning a much larger amount of high explosives could be dropped on them compared to much slower firing traditional artillery. Not as accurate but what does that matter when you launch thousands of them in 10 minutes?

The Soviet fin stabilized rockets made the Germans wonder if they needed to do the same but found their spin stabilized nebelwerfers were more accurate, which makes more sense when you have far fewer of them. Plus the nebelwerfers had more HE in them iirc.

 

[DoomBunny]

The German rockets were superior by far, however as typically the case, the soviets had a LOT more of them and thus had a greater effect on the war than the German Nebelwerfer ever hoped to.

Quantity has a quality of its own and all that.

You are refering to the PaK 36 37mm anti tank gun. It was criminal of the German Army to still be using a gun that was obsolete by 1939, let alone in 1941. The only Soviet Tanks they could hope to kill was the BT-5 and BT-7 light tanks.

Criminal? I wouldn't go that far. It's far from a wonder gun, but it could take out most tanks around at the time, only struggling with the heavier armoured stuff. Given that it could do its job against most tanks, and that it was being replaced by 1941, it's hardly criminal.

If you want criminal, there are many elements of German Second World War weapon development to pick. Hell, Herman Goering and pals made enough bad design choices to keep the world in stock until the apocalypse. AT guns though, they don't shine through badly compared to stuff like aircraft development.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

You are refering to the PaK 36 37mm anti tank gun. It was criminal of the German Army to still be using a gun that was obsolete by 1939, let alone in 1941. The only Soviet Tanks they could hope to kill was the BT-5 and BT-7 light tanks.

Actually that gun did an adequate job in 1941. The only tanks it couldnt take without special ammo been the KVs and T-34.

 

[gagenater]

Actually that gun did an adequate job in 1941. The only tanks it couldnt take without special ammo been the KVs and T-34.

And they DID make special ammo for them - it was a sabot discarding penetrator. Most likely the case where they hit the T34 umpteen times with no damage they didn't have the special ammo for whatever reason. It was also still a handy gun later in the war - it could be hauled/manhandled rather easily and could fire at a considerable rate - with HE shells it could quickly put out a lot of firepower against soft targets, and with the normal anti tank ones it could hit things like machine gun nests, hidden infantry, etc. by shooting through their cover often enough to be fairly useful.

 

[krieger11b]

That special ammo was hard to come by since Germany had to rely on pre war stockpiles of tungsten and the occasional bit smuggled out of Turkey that wasn't sunk by soviet submarines.

If only they knew how badly they were going to need it later for jet engines, right when they ran out of it.

 

[gagenater]

That special ammo was hard to come by since Germany had to rely on pre war stockpiles of tungsten and the occasional bit smuggled out of Turkey that wasn't sunk by soviet submarines.

If only they knew how badly they were going to need it later for jet engines, right when they ran out of it.

Just looked up the Wikipedia page on the german 37 mm anti tank gun, and apparently even with the tungsten penetrator it could only take out T34's at 100 meters - from the sides or rear. That's pretty ugly. By the time you get a side or rear shot at that range it means you already got overrun.

 

[krieger11b]

Just looked up the Wikipedia page on the german 37 mm anti tank gun, and apparently even with the tungsten penetrator it could only take out T34's at 100 meters - from the sides or rear. That's pretty ugly. By the time you get a side or rear shot at that range it means you already got overrun.

Yeah not exactly a great condition to be in. The only thing that saved many Germans was as mention earlier the lack of ability to look outside the tank. More than twice iirc German Panzer Commander Otto Carius in his book, Tigers in the Mud mentioned a T-34 moving right in front of him, he would have been dead the T-34 had a copula like the German tanks, instead he quickly aimed and took out those tanks at very close range.

A PaK 36 would have had to been well hidden to survive, or be lucky enough to run into a light tank instead of a T-34 or KV-1/2.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Yeah not exactly a great condition to be in. The only thing that saved many Germans was as mention earlier the lack of ability to look outside the tank. More than twice iirc German Panzer Commander Otto Carius in his book, Tigers in the Mud mentioned a T-34 moving right in front of him, he would have been dead the T-34 had a copula like the German tanks, instead he quickly aimed and took out those tanks at very close range.

A PaK 36 would have had to been well hidden to survive, or be lucky enough to run into a light tank instead of a T-34 or KV-1/2.

Again....this gun was adequate against 90%-95% of the Soviet tanks in 1941, hardly a cripple. Infact the majority of Soviet tanks been destroyed in 1941 by the PaK 36 and its tank equivalent on the PZIII.
Standard anti tank measures so to speak.

 

[CruelDwarf]

That special ammo was hard to come by since Germany had to rely on pre war stockpiles of tungsten and the occasional bit smuggled out of Turkey that wasn't sunk by soviet submarines.

Do not have numbers for 1941 at hand, but I have numbers for 1943, battle of Kursk. During july of 1943 germans expended:

18.8 thousand sabot rounds for 37-mm PaK, 18 thousand sabot rounds for 50-mm PaK., 8.5 thousand sabot rounds (and 45 thousand HEAT rounds!) for 75-mm PaK.

 

[Cavalry]

I wonder how Soviet technology could be compared to other major ww2 powers, which areas did soviet have the best technology in compared to other nations and which was their weakest areas, overall technology comparison would be nice to.

It is hard to compare in general, but the Soviet is strong on tanks and artillery, while weaker compare to the US in airforce. But still strong enough to compete air superiority with the German from Stalingrad. The Soviet initially lacked aluminum for airplane and they haved to use the weaker wood material instead, but later they get aluminum from the US. Their industries is geared to quantity and they are master of this. So if you know some weakness of their weapons, don't rush to conclusion, because it may be on purpose and they can produce much cheaper units with that.

Example of the good weapons: T-34 tank, 76.2mm gun, 57mm anti tank gun, kachiusa, IL-2 tank buster planes.

 

[gagenater]

[video=youtube;0B8GG_nLwZk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0B8GG_nLwZk[/video]

Here is a Russian language documentary (with subtitles) about the Zis 3 (76.2 mm anti tank gun) for those interested.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

The German soldiers called this thingie Ratsch-Bumm(phonetic) because you first heard the impact and then heard it firing. Hell of a gun.

 

[DoomBunny]

It is hard to compare in general, but the Soviet is strong on tanks and artillery, while weaker compare to the US in airforce. But still strong enough to compete air superiority with the German from Stalingrad.

Western Allied vs Soviet air force comes down to altitude more than anything else. At lower altitudes, Soviet late war fighters hold the edge over US/British designs. Higher up, the Western Allies have the edge. In terms of four engine bombers, the Soviet strategic arm is a joke. The Western Allies meanwhile have a fully developed and highly effective bomber arm. Dedicated single engine ground attack aircraft aren't really something the Western Allies went in for, most of the stuff flying CAS was either a medium bomber or a fighter-bomber. Not that the IL-2 holds much of an advantage there. It lacks the payload, speed, and manoeuvrability of a fighter aircraft (in part due to its older design). The IL-10 is somewhat better. Medium bombers don't have much between them.

I wouldn't say one is necessarily weaker than the other, it very much comes down to the playing field.

The Soviet initially lacked aluminum for airplane and they haved to use the weaker wood material instead, but later they get aluminum from the US.

Wood is nothing to laugh at. Just ask Herman and friends what they think of Berlin's insect nightlife.

 

[Henry IX]

Where Soviet tech was way behind was in electronics. They had a chronic shortage of good radios. Indeed they generally removed the radio from leand-lease tanks because they needed them for their HQs. They also never developed/fielded much in the way of radars, bombing aids, proximity fuses, acoustic devices or advanced radios. (such as burst transmitters). That was the price they had to pay to produce LOTS of tanks and guns.

 

[Henry IX]

Sorry, just also had to add - the Katyusha was not so much a piece of technology as a doctrinal breakthrough. The rockets are very simple to manufacture and are not in essence very different from those used on Napoleonic battlefields. The major breakthrough by the Soviets was the realisation that by using them on mass their significant problem (lack of accuracy) could be largely overcome. A single Katyusha launcher could not do much - the rockets were too inaccurate and had too wide spread to effectively suppress anything. However, a dozen (or 1000) launchers created a very different effect.

 

[chepaeff]

Sorry, just also had to add - the Katyusha was not so much a piece of technology as a doctrinal breakthrough. The rockets are very simple to manufacture and are not in essence very different from those used on Napoleonic battlefields. The major breakthrough by the Soviets was the realisation that by using them on mass their significant problem (lack of accuracy) could be largely overcome. A single Katyusha launcher could not do much - the rockets were too inaccurate and had too wide spread to effectively suppress anything. However, a dozen (or 1000) launchers created a very different effect.

The rockets were pretty expensive compared to shells.

 

[HuzzButt]

The rockets were pretty expensive compared to shells.

I'm interested, anyone care to elaborate?

 

[chepaeff]

I'm interested, anyone care to elaborate?

As of 1941 132mm rocket to Katusha cost around 3 times more than a 152mm HE shell. Of course the cost would lower over the time but I'd say the proportion stayed.