Rocket artillery?

[Alex_brunius]

Most of which were utterly obsolete: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-26, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-37A_tank, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-38_tank

Not such a big difference from the Germans then, 2/3:eds of the German tracked equipment were obsolete or light tanks, and only 1457 of the German tanks were even equipped with 50mm guns or heavier.

They had against them 967 soviet T34s and 508 KV tanks ( total 1475 with 76mm or heavier guns ), which I think everyone agrees were superior equipment to the similar numbers of PzIII and PzIV available on the German side. During 1941 Soviet lost over 3000 T34s and KV tanks since they had no idea how to proper use them taking advantage of such things as combined arms.

It is no secret, Germans, if you factor in their allies, had more troops in uniforms than soviets in 1941. Equipment advantage is meaningless if you don`t have the troops to use it. And traing people for the obsolete equipment like T-26, or I-15 was just a waste.

Yes it was clearly a waste to train people in proper using lighter tanks and obsolete tanks. Such tanks only so happens to be the backbone of the German Blitzkrieg successes during 39-41!!! ( when used properly )

Here is a picture of the German main tank for fighting enemy tanks in 1941:

And enough manpower to man tanks was not a problem for Soviet.

 

[mursolini]

It's funny how the thing with the most advanced sounding name (rockets!) looks like something thrown together in a recycling center.

Rocket itself is not advanced. The propellant charge or engine, is what makes rocket advanced, and those are not visible

Yes it was clearly a waste to train people in proper using lighter tanks and obsolete tanks. Such tanks only so happens to be the backbone of the German Blitzkrieg successes during 39-41!!! ( when used properly )
And enough manpower to man tanks was not a problem for Soviet.

First, German tanks were newer than Soviet T-26. Second, Germans, didn`t have other options, as their auto industry was not producing enough tanks.
Manpower is never a problem in manning tanks. Supplying them with fuel, spare parts, and actually delivering those to tanks was the problem.

It is an enormous waste to keep all your weapons operational all the time, hence the mobilization system, you know, and by the time German offensive started, the Soviets already had other, better tanks in production. Neither T-26, nor BT-7 were in production by the time Germans invaded, so it is hardly surprising that most of them were shuffled to stockpiles.

Interestingly, Soviet old tanks stocks lasted till middle of 1942, as T-26 and Bt-7 were still present during battle of Stalingrad.

But this really is not the tread to discuss tanks, but rocket artillery.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Soviets had more tanks with radios than Germans. German "advantage" in the department is nothing but a myth, based on comparing obsolete 1920s and early 30s tanks, to German ones, ignoring the tanks produced after 1937.

Do you have any source for this claim? First time I read someone claiming that Soviet had equal or better tank radios then the Germans had...

Almost all sources I have read state that only the T34 platoon commander tank carried a radio set until sometime mid war, suggesting they lacked radios for a majority of their state of the art tanks.

But this really is not the tread to discuss tanks, but rocket artillery.

Sure, but I will still disagree with you and claim mobile rocket artillery is better used in mobile divisions ( motorized/mechanized or armored ), then on the defense together with slow leg-infantry.

 

[TheLand]

But why is plastering artillery closer to your lines better than interdicting the enemies jump-off point and transit areas?

Because, by the time you have noticed the enemy attack jumping off and called your artillery, they are now closer to your lines.

A core defensive use of artillery is the "emergency bombardment" where a unit that's being attacked sends up a flare and the artillery makes an immediate, pre-planned concentration of fire on a point fairly close to your own lines to stall an assault. (More complex variants are available). This is much easier with tube artillery which is more accurate (better concentration on the target) and longer ranged (one battery can be on duty for a longer section of line).

Rocket artillery also might not be great at interdicting jumping off points unless you happen to have good intelligence about when the enemy is forming up. Rocket artillery delivers more concentrated fire, but tube is better for "harassing" missions because it is less concentrated.

 

[keynes2.0]

I never said the Soviets posessed no modern equipment. I said that you should understand those large loss numbers for 1941 were the loss of obsolete equipment. This being the paradox forums I should have expected to be misconstrued.