"Heavy Without Alternatives" Topic

"One can often encounter brainstorms about how individual vehicles or even entire tank building schools ought to have evolved. Most of these brainstorms are done by people that are far removed from the field of history, but sometimes even notorious historians take part in this exercise. Among Soviet tanks, the T-28 is a popular character in alternative history. Modern improvements to this tank know no bounds, but the fact that the T-28 was replaced by the KV-1 and not the T-34 is often ignored, as is the fact that a replacement for the T-28 by the name of T-29 already existed…"

link

Main page

link

Armand

"…the fact that the T-28 was replaced by the KV-1 and not the T-34 is often ignored…"
I'd like to see some references that prove this.

(smile)

Armand

"…the fact that the T-28 was replaced by the KV-1 and not the T-34 is often ignored…"
I'd like to see some references that prove this.

To be fair, the website in the link draws only a tenuous line from T-28 to KV…

Without disparaging the T-34's creators, one must admit that it was nevertheless a further development of the BT series. As for the KV, this was an entirely original vehicle. While the concept didn't come from nothing, the difference between it and its predecessors (the T-28 and T-29) is much greater than between the T-34 and BT-7, and that's without considering the other intermediate designs.

The unit organization and doctrine for use of the KV was largely drawn from the experience of T-28 units. T-28 units were organized into 5 tank companies, while BTs (and T-34s) were organized mostly into 10 tank companies, and T-26s (and T-60s / T-70s) were organized into 15 tank companies. These formations were usually put together into mixed battalions with 1 heavy, 1 or 2 medium and 2 light tank companies. (But there were so many variations that I take my reputation in my hand when I dare to post such things.)

Given that the T-28 saw relatively little actual combat, and the unit organizations and doctrine changed extensively after Barbarossa, I'm not sure that anything more than a tenuous link is due.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Thanks

Armand

I think the T-35 to KV link is much stronger, and in fact the right one. T-28 max speed: 27mph, T-35 max speed: 19 mph, KV-1 max speed: 22mph.
Taking improvements in diesel motors between 1928 and 1940, I'd say the T-28 was a breakthrough tank, and not an infantry support tank.

I think the T-35 to KV link is much stronger, and in fact the right one. T-28 max speed: 27mph, T-35 max speed: 19 mph, KV-1 max speed: 22mph.

The technical specs are not the question here. Yes, certainly the T-35 was a heavy tank.

However, there were so few built, and there was so little experience with them, that they were not useful in developing doctrine or future heavy tank requirements. For most of their time in service, all T-35s were in a single heavy tank regiment, while the majority of tank and mech divisions were organized with mixed tank regiments of mixed tank battalions. And that one heavy tank regiment was used primarily for parades.

Only on the very verge of entry into WW2, that one regiment was divided, and the T-35s were sent to the front. They were split between two mixed tank regiments within one division.

No one knew how to use them, they were expended in the first weeks of Barbarossa, and the net impact on further tank doctrine and development can be summed up largely as "Let's not do that again."

T-28s, on the other hand, were deployed across many tank and mech divisions, and were used in many of the large exercises (and were deployed in small scale in the Winter War with Finland). So there was much broader application, and they had greater influence on doctrinal development. As mentioned above, KVs were eventually fit into the doctrine in the same place where T-28s had been. That's where they lived for 1941 and 1942 (the heyday of the KV-1). Only near the end of 1942 did the doctrine of the mixed battalions get (rightfully!) discarded.

Still, the link was tenuous at best. But it was the T-28 that the KV-1 replaced in the TOEs.

Or so I've read. Can't claim to have been there nor done that.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Thanks also…

Armand

Lot of moving parts there, and I'm not as well read as you. There is also the disappearance of the T-26 development line, another slow tank whose speed would have made it little use as a breakthrough tank. OTOH, between its age and the ridiculously high number built the T-26 filled many functions.
By my reading it looks like the Russians had three types of tanks in terms of function: Reconnaissance, breakthrough and infantry support. When you start putting tanks into those three columns, the T-28 was fast enough be a breakthrough tank.
This is also muddied up by the cramming of existing inventory into new organizations. IIRC at the time of Barbarossa there were tank divisions equipped with only T-26's (been a while since I looked at inventories though).
Interesting discussion, thanks.

By my reading it looks like the Russians had three types of tanks in terms of function: Reconnaissance, breakthrough and infantry support.

That's a good start. But depending on when we are examining Red Army tank doctrine (in a very tumultuous doctrinal history), you will find not only those three, but a fourth type of tank: fast tanks.

By Red Army doctrine, largely (and I do not claim this was consistent across any span of more than a few years of time -- the terminology came into and went out of fashion [kind of a tough way of developing doctrine, when firing squads were used to enforce "fashion"]), the breakdowns and equivalent western terminology can be applied as:

1. Reconnaissance: ultra light tanks, sometimes called "tankettes" in the west. MG-only armament, usually amphibious. After 1942 this role was mostly filled by lend-lease halftracks. Lend-lease Valentine tanks were also sometimes used in this role.

2. Breakthrough: Meant to punch holes through prepared/heavy enemy defenses. Bunker busting, etc. Emphasis on heavy armor and armament. This was the role of "Infantry" tanks in separate armoured regiments in the British Army, of Char-Bs in the DCRs in the French Army, and the intended role of Tiger tanks in the German army beginning in 1942. Despite it's speed, this was the role of the T-28. From 1940 to 1941 the KVs began replacing T-28s in the "heavy" companies in the mixed battalions and regiments. Beginning in the second half of 1942 "breakthrough regiments" were formed with KVs, later to be replaced by IS tanks.

3. Infantry Support: Referred to doctrinally as NPP tanks in the Red Army ("Nieposredstviennoy Poddierzhki Piechoty": Immediate Infantry Support). Intended to accompany infantry and neutralize enemy MG nests. Equivalent concept to the US "GHQ tank battalions", and the purpose of the StuG battalions in the Wehrmacht -- separate armored formations assigned to infantry units. But in the Red Army (as in the French Army), the doctrine was to fill this role with light tanks. There were SO many infantry formations that it was intended to use the cheapest, highest volume tanks for this role. T-26 filled this role for the Red Army (R35 were used in this role by the French). Later this was the primary role for T-60s and T-70s. Finally in 1942/43 light tank production was stopped, when it was considered that volume production was high enough for T-34s to be used in NPP formations. Lend-lease Valentines (considered light tanks by the Soviets) were also used in this role, as were SU-76 formations.

4. Fast tanks: The role here was "deep penetration" once the front line had been penetrated, often referred to as the exploitation role. The abbreviation BT (for "Bystrokhodnyy Tank" or "fast-moving tank") was for this sort of tank. This is the equivalent of "Cruiser" tanks in the British Army, and usually a job done by "Medium" tanks in the US and German armies. This was the role of the BT series, and also the intended role for the BT's replacement, the T-34.

To tie this back to the original topic -- T-28s were not used in the fast-tank role (despite having a decent turn of speed). They were used in the breakthrough role. In this, they were replaced by KVs, while the actual fast tanks, the BTs, were replaced by T-34s

Or so I've read.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Thanks Mark 1… quite interesting…

Armand