"T-28 vs T-35" Topic

T-28 and T-35 seem to based on the same concept (big tank with several turrets) – what are the major differences?. I do admit I know very little about them, is is there a good resource site somewhere?

T28 was a medium tank with a single "cannon" 76mm turret and a pair of secondary MG turrets.

link

T35 was a "land battship" with 5 turrets. One central 76mm turret, surrounded by four smaller turrets, two with 45mm cannon and two with machineguns.

link

Thanks!

I am curious, what was the problem with tanks with several turrets? too heavy?

I am curious, what was the problem with tanks with several turrets? too heavy?

Many! Mobility. Being so heavy, difficult to keep up with the maneuver elements.

More turrets=more guns=more crew=more ammunition expendature=need to store more ammo within the vehicle (and fuel for the additional weight from men, weapons, ammo, fuel, etc.)

It is interesting to wonder, why in a country that helped to develop the Blitzkreig concepts of mobile warfare, did such behimouths allowed to be developed in the first place?

(FWIW, During the years where Germany was not allowed to develop armored vehicles for it's own army, they shipped "tractors" to training grounds in Russia, and jointly developed the Blitzkrieg!)

Tom Dye
GFI

There were several problems with multi-turret tanks.

(1) Command and control was difficult. You can't tell the other gunners which targets to fire at, because they're in another turret structure and can't hear you.

(2) Multiple turrets and guns added weight and width to the tank, which was usually compensated for by thinner armor. Tankers will tell you that this is very bad.

(3) One good hit will effectively take out all the guns in the tank, whereas if the guns are spread among 2-3 tanks, you need 2-3 good hits to do the same damage.

Dye4minis,

Multiple turrets were "in" in the USSR because they were "in" in German and British thinking at the time. Russia had no experience with armor in WWI; they began by copying other nations until they had enough experience to make their own designs. For example, the T-26 light tank was a variation on the Vickers Six-Ton Tank, and the BT series were based on the Christie suspension from the USA.

They hoped to learn as much from the German tank experiments at Kazan as the Germans did. Judging by the tanks that met in 1941, one must wonder.

Command and control was difficult.

In my humble opinion, that would be the most difficult factor, severely limiting vehicle effectiveness.

"Command and control was difficult."

Given the shortage of radios, they may have hoped for better fire control at the expense of units of maneuver.

Didn't this also have to do with the interwar thinking of tanks being vehicles to support infantry instead of being a fighting force on their own? You see that a lot with the earlier WW1 tanks.

One must also note that France experimented with a multiple turret AFV – the Char 2c. It was an evolution that was fashionable in the 1930s.
I also think (and this is just my humble opinion) that it was a example of the people of the time looking upon land armored warfare as somehow analagous to naval warfare, making 'Land battleships' seem like a good idea. Given anough time of peace, perhaps the idea of a 'Land Aircraft Carrier' would have been accepted and produced?

Steve

But they looked really cool wherever they broke down!

I've always thought T35s ought to have smokestacks and naval pennons fluttering from some rigging….

To be fair to the Russians, no one knew exactly what kinds of tanks were going to work well, and which types would be duds. The Russians did a good job hedging their bets by producing such a variety of different models. Since they managed to produce far and away the TWO best tanks to start the war (the KV and T-34) I think its safe to say that in a way, their approach succeeded.

The T-35's crew was linked to each other internally by telephone, so the commander could give orders to the crew in the various turrets. I expect he still had a heavy workload, trying to direct three calibers of weapon in 5 turrets. It was designed to break through heavily fortified defensive lines, the idea being that it could engage infantry, armor, and emplaced weapons simultaneously in all directions. The armor wasn't great, but it wasn't terrible, either – about the same as an early-war Panzer III. One model of T-28 actually had armor almost as good as a T-34. The T-35s were actually pretty hard to knock out, and they had internal bulkheads that kept the whole crew from being killed by all but the most catastrophic hits. The fire control systems on these tanks were okay for their day, but by the time the war broke out, they were showing their age with much more accurate vehicles roaming the battlefield.

Why didn't they succeed? The biggest problems were cost and crew size. I've heard that they cost as much to build as 2+ T-34s, and they required 11 trained crewmen, who then all had to be supplied. No matter how powerful the tank, those 11 guys could only be in one place at a time. The vehicle also required a significant logistic train of it's own, and had a short range.

The vehicle's size was sometimes a drawback – they couldn't manouevre well in close quarters, and they were easy to spot and big targets.

The weight of a T-35 (50-ish tons) was a big problem, but not primarily because of bogging difficulties – the Russians had a much better handle on solving ground-pressure problems than did the Germans (for example). The real weight problem was that the drivetrain couldn't really handle it. They were very breakdown-prone, and maintenance-intensive. Many more of them were lost to breakdowns than to enemy action.

They weren't terribly slow, either – about the same as a Tiger, or KV-1, or Grant/Lee, and faster than a Churchill.

Other shortcomings ranged from the fact (quite important, considering their mission) that they were just as vulnerable to landmines as any other tank (then you had all those men and guns stuck in one spot), to it being pretty darn difficult to find a good hull-down position that didn't mask some of the guns. If the battle was going at all well, it was also rare to have targets for the aft turrets, which made bringing them along of dubious value.

Effective or not, I'm glad they built them – they definately have a high cool factor. It's a real shame that (AFAIK) none of them still exist.
-Kle.

It's a real shame that (AFAIK) none of them still exist.

Not so. I recall that Kubinka has a T35 and T28. The Finn have T28's too.

In the 28mm games we've played the rear turrets on the T-35 were redundant – they never had chance to target anything in fire arc. Even so, you've gotta love 'em!

Guy

"I expect he still had a heavy workload, trying to direct three calibers of weapon in 5 turrets".

I think he may have doubled as loader for the 76 too. Nothing like getting value out of your junior officers….

There were also some other scary Soviet multi-turret experiments tested out in 1939-1940 that never made it to production – I think they were called SMK and T-100.

Griefbringer

Yep and SMK actually was tested in the Russo- Finnish war. Essentially super, stretched versions of the KV series which was found to be a much more practical design.

They tended to be mechanical nightmares. You will find picture after picture of these broken down in photos of the early Barbarossa battles, as well as many running out of fuel.

They were designed, as has been said, as breakthrough tanks. An attempt to end the stalemates seen during WWI. The 76 howitzer would target items like machinegun nests. The 45 AT guns would deal with enemy armor. The MGs would deal with the infantry. The rear of a breakthrough tank would be vulnerable. Infantry could pop out of trenches and the like. The concept was the rear turrets would deal with this threat.

Another thing to consider is with their large size they became very visible, and vulnerable, to air attack.

They would have been awesome in WWI but by 1941 they were an anachronism.

The Russians them selves recognised these tanks were no longer fit for front line service and had made moves to take them off the line and put them into tank schools. However war broke out and it was never followed through.

They were also incredibly impressive tanks in terms of the way they looked and as no one at the time knew how effective they were or weren't the fact that Stalin could have lots of them rolling past on parade was as much a warning to the west as anything else.

I think I read somewhere that the T-35 never actually saw combat anywhere. There were only a hundred of them and they were in Moscow for parades and nothing else.

According to Foss, there were 61 built. He mentions that they were ineffective in combat, mostly due to being mechanically unreliable and hard to steer, but he doesn't describe actual combat performance.

No doubt they were thrown into the fray when Barbarossa was launched, and were chewed up like almost everything else in the Red Army at that time.

Thanks for that note about the one at Kubinka – I just found that out and came here to post it, but you *way* beat me to it. Good to have confirmantion.

Now to win the lottery so I can go check it out!

I've read that there were 61, and I've read that there were 100. I've read that they did and did not participate in the wars against Finland. I've read that they fought in Barbarossa in the Ukraine military district, and outside Moscow. I've read that they all had the L16 76.2mm, and I've read that some had the L26 version. I haven't read any accounts of them in battle – AFAICT most of them broke down, the drivetrain really couldn't handle the weight. I don't know how much of this will ever be determined definitively, it's already been a long time and the war created massive confusion and data loss. I expect that some of them did actually fight, and were overwhelmed one way or another. How well they acquitted themselves may well remain a mystery.
-Kle.

The Germans reported that they never knocked one out themselves. All the ones they found were either broken down or sabotaged by their own crews.

For many years tanks of 40 tons and heavier suffered from unreliable transmissions and other mechanical problems.

Given that single-turret tanks like Somua or the T34 with a limited crew often performed fairly poorly compared to a full crew as in the Panzer III and IV, it's no wonder that the T35 was a lemon. The theory might have sounded good, but in the confusion of combat it was impossible for a single commander to effectively direct that many weapons pointing in all directions with limited arcs and different weaponry.

The one good thing that could be said about it is that it looked impressive during parades and to those soldiers that saw it for the first time.

With T34 the era of land ironclads had ended, its successor KV-1 was a far more capable machine overall.

<<The Germans reported that they never knocked one out themselves. All the ones they found were either broken down or sabotaged by their own crews.>>

I've never heard of sabotage by the crews; deliberately *scuttling* the tanks to prevent their use by the Germans yes, but not sabotage in the literal sense. As for who and how the T-35s were knocked out, AFAIK from the assorted sources I've read over 30+ years, the T-35s either (1) broke down enroute to the front either due to engine or suspension/track failures, (2) ran out of fuel and were abandoned, or (3) were such big lumbering targets that they were blasted to junk by marauding Stukas.

Enough samples were captured by the Germans that several samples were sent back to Kumersdorff of r evaluation. The Germans quickly realized the hopelessness of the design and their extreme limitations, and rightly dubbed them "kinderschrek" (ie., "things to frighten children with"). At least one T-35 was briefly used by the ultra-nationalist Ukranian collaborators until it broke down during the first few month sof Barbarossa as well; there's a photo of the silly thing abandoned by a roadside in hastily painted Ukranian nationaist livery in one of the Concord Publications photo books on the Ostfront.

Leland R. Erickson
Grayhawk Studios

The Germans reported that they never knocked one out themselves. All the ones they found were either broken down or sabotaged by their own crews.

I also seem to recall reports telling of 37mm Pak 36 taking out T-35 and T-28 tanks… I mean, 11-30mm of armour, with some 50+mm as an upgrade for the last models, is not at all impressive, especially given the fact that almost all plates were arranged vertically. Given for the intended role as "breakthrough" tanks, facing mainly small-arms-wielding infantry, it might suffice..

You might be confusing it with the KV-1 and KV-2 tanks, which could indeed only be stopped frontally by sFH18 heavy howitzers and 88s.

"Never knocking one out themselves" could just mean "Never got there before they broke down" regardless of penetration.

The Soviet tank breakdown rate during Barbarossa was very high for all tanks. It just impacts 100 tanks far more in real numbers than 1000. It was really caused more by a lack of a proper maintenance train than tank reliability.

Also, IIRC the T-34 and KV-1 were designed based on Spanish Civil War experience.

The reliability issue was complicated by another issue I've seen repeated references to, which is that USSR tank crewmen were very poorly trained at the start of the war. Take an overgunned, underpowered tank, mix in crewmen who don't know how to maintain it, and prepare to be shocked – shocked! – when it doesn't perform well in battle.

The Concord publication "Stalin's Heavy Tanks 1941-1945--The KV and IS Heavy Tanks" has pictures of several broken down, captured and destroyed T35s. One caption reads:
"A total of 48 T-35 heavy tanks were operational with the Red Army at the beginning of the war on 22 June 1941 with the 67th and 68th Tank Regiments of the 34th Tank Division, 8th Mechanized Corps in Ukraine. Of these, only 5 were lost in combat, the remainder were abandoned due to mechnical breakdowns…"

The book "Land Battleships: The Russian T-35 Heavy Tank" by Maxim Kolomiets and Jim Kinnear, Barbarossa Books tends to support this listing the following for T-35s at the outbreak of the Great Patriotic War:
8th Mechanized Corps (67 & 68 Tank Regiments, 34th Tank Division)--48 tanks
VAMM (Moscow Military District)--2
2nd Saratov and Kazan Tank Schools--6
KhPZ plant (for captial repair)--5 tanks.

This is followed by a detailed report from the 67th and 68th listing each T-35 by serial number and cause of loss! They list only 4 as having been lost due to enemy action the rest being mechanical.

4 of the tanks in repair were noted being returned to operational use and lost without specifics and the two in the Moscow area took part in the battle for Moscow being lost to unspecified reasons.

Info on T-35: link

"Operational scheme of T-35 tanks assigned to the 34th Tank Division/8th Mechanised Corps" map (in Russian) showing loss locations for T-35s: picture
The solid black ones are lost to enemy action.

T-100/SMK/KV tanks employment in the Winter War (only one action): picture

Account of a participant: link

Basic T-28 info: link

<<The solid black ones are lost to enemy action.>>

Any details available re: this combat action? Sounds like the potential exists for a somewhat insane skirmish game scenario to me…

Leland R. Erickson
Metal Express
metal-express.net

"Any details available re: this combat action?"

Which action? The map covers a very large area showing the unit's maneuvers in retreat.

In any case, I suspect any information would be in Russian. Trying asking on the RKKA website (multiple links above) or the fora on battlefield.ru.

<<Which action? The map covers a very large area showing the unit's maneuvers in retreat.>>

The vicinity on the map where the four T-35s were knocked out due to enemy action. While the scale of the map isn't immediately apparent, It seems to me that this could easily be a good basis for a somewhat tongue-in-cheek scenario when the lumbering brutes try to stop the panzerwaffe… of course, one could concievably do the entire battle in 15mm or micro armour scale and allow for mechanical breakdowns and Stukas if you're really feeling frsiky..

Leland R. Erickson
Metal Express
metal-express.net

I've just had an insane idea. Why don't I scratchbuild one in 1/32 scale to go with my recently-rediscovered 30-year-old Airfix 1/32 Russian infantry? I scratched two in 1/76 scale years ago using (slightly oversize) wheels and tracks from the Airfix JS3.

Anyone got any links to online plans for these babies?

From the T-35 book they mention actions on 30 June with the T-35s lost in the vicinity of Belo Kamenka, Berbi and Ptich'ye but no details on the battles themselves. But a starting point.

I recall a T-28 in 1:35 from the Russian manufacturer "Alan". Might be worth searching for, provided it is still available. Note, though, that it has single-link tracks, so have fun assembling those.

ICM makes a very nice 1/35 T-28 and T-35. Yes the tracks are individual links or you could use individual metal links from Fruilmodel. I would stay away from the Alan kit.

Trouble is those are 10% too small for my 1/32 and you don't want to understate the size of this puppy…..

Everything you could want to know about the expenditure of T-35 Heavy Tanks while fighting the Germans in 1941. The major cause of their losses was poor maintenance/reliability and lack of spare parts in the field. BTW, take note of the date of the report!

Losses of T-35 Tanks
Report of Commander of 8th Mechanized Corps
10 July 1941

67th Tank Regiment:
Vehicle(s) Date Place, cause
183-6 9.7.41 Volochisk town, failure of sides brakes
183-16 29.6.41 20 km far Lvov, failure of gear-box
744-65 9.7.41 between Tarnopol and Volochisk, failure of gear-box
234-35 30.6.41 Ivankovtzy village, fallen into river
238-69 30.6.41 between Buek and Krasne, failure of gear-box
288-43 26.6.41 Grudek town, failure of main friction clutch
200-5 8.7.41 Zlochuv town, failure of gear-box
234-42 3.7.41 Zapytov town, failure of main friction clutch
537-70 30.6.41 between Ozhidev and Olesno, failure of gear-box
744-62 26.6.41 Grudek town, failure of main friction clutch, run out of ammo
744-67 2.7.41 Zhidin town, crankshaft injury
744-66 9.7.41 Byaozheno village, failure of main friction clutch
196-75 9.7.41 Dzerdzune village, failure of main friction clutch, accumulators are depleted
197-1 25.6.41 20 km eastfar of Grudek town, failure of main friction clutch
744-64, 196-95, 330-75 - left in Grudek town because were immobilized due to rebuilding.

68th Tank Regiment:
Vehicle(s) Date Place, cause
200-4, 196-94, 148-50 24.6.41 left in Sadovaya Vishnya because were immobilized due to rebuilding. All vehicles have been blown up by their crews, optic and armament have been taken away
220-29, 213-35 25.6.41 sunk in swamps, abandoned
200-8 26.6.41 failure of crankshaft, optic and armament have been taken away, vehicle have been abandoned
220-27, 537-80 24.6.41 near Grudek town, failure of gear-box and transmission, machine-guns and ammunition have been taken away and buried, vehicles have been abandoned
988-17, 183-16 29.6.41 near Lvov, vehicles have been abandoned due to rebuilding, optic and armament have been taken away
288-11 29.6.41 near Lvov, fallen from bridge and burned with his crew
200-9, 339-30, 744-61 30.6.41 abandoned due to failure of transmission, 200-9 has been knocked out by enemy and burned, optic and armament have been taken away from all vehicles
399-48 30.6.41 near Belo-Kamenka, has been knocked out by enemy
183-3 30.6.41 near Belo-Kamenka, abandoned due to engine failure, ammunition and armament have been taken away and buried
148-39 30.6.41 near Verba, knocked out
482-5 29.6.41 Zapit' town, failure of transmission
288-74 1.7.41 near Tarnopol, failure of transmission, knocked out by crew
196-96 2.7.41 near Tarnopol, failure of transmission, abandoned, optic and armament have been leaved
148-22 1.7.41 abandoned in wood near Sosovo village due to failure of gear-box, machine-guns have been taken away, optic has been buried
288-14 28.6.41 near Zapit' village, lost without a trace
220-25 30.6.41 Ptich'e village, knocked out during attack
744-63 1.7.41 abandoned in route from Zlochuv to Tarnopol due to engine failure, machine-guns have been taken away
988-15 1.7.41 abandoned in Zlochuv town due to failure of gear-box, optic, armament and ammunition have been taken away
715-61 - 15 km far from Lvov, abandoned due to failure of gear-box, machine-guns have been taken away
988-16 30.6.41 Ptich'e village, knocked out during attack
715-62 29.6.41 Lvov city, abandoned due to failure of cooling system, machine-guns have been taken away
339-68 30.6.41 failure of side clutch, hit by enemy and burned near Brodu town
200-0 - Ptich'e village, knocked out during attack

Hope this is illuminating!

Mark E. Horan

It's scary that a tank that big could be "lost without a trace." But then, the USSR was an awfully big place to lose things in. It must still be there, sunk in a bog or something.

What does "immobilized due to rebuilding" mean?

Griefbringer

Means they were doing major maintenance on the tank, it wasnt in running order so was destroyed rather then being captured.

I took 3 pics at Kubinka of the T35, and a pic of the T28 in the Moscow Army Museum. They arent the best shots, but the lightw as pretty poor.

link and search for T35 or T28

There is also a 2-turreted T26 in these as well…

Tim
madaxeman.com

Mark,

I have a magazine style publication in Russian (a friend got it for me from the MOscow military museum in the late 90s along with a pile of Premo/Rocco T-35s and T-28s for about a dollar per model!). I've never had it translated, but that list looks like it comes from that publication.

Do you have the whole thing translated by any chance? I also have a similar magazine on the T-28 and he BT series of tanks.

Tim;

Regretfully, that is the only information I have. It was sent to me in correspondance in the very early 90s back when the internet was in its infancy and I was still using a DOS editor!

I always wanted to wargame my 1/72 scale early model Pz IIs/IIs/IVs against a force of these behemoths, but as yet, have not managed to arrange it.

Mark

CharlesRollinsWare wrote:
<<<Everything you could want to know about the expenditure of T-35 Heavy Tanks while fighting the Germans in 1941. The major cause of their losses was poor maintenance/reliability and lack of spare parts in the field. BTW, take note of the date of the report!>>>

That's *really* cool, thanks!
Any idea what the original reference work was? I'd love to see a book with that kind of detail on these tanks.
-Kle.

Does anyone read Russian?
On the map referenced above, could the large city between the two map keys be Lvov, and the second-farthest SE city be Tarnopol? They are in approximately the correct relationship, geographically.

We might be able to match up the map and the list of losses.
It would be cool to generate a historical scenario.
-Kle.

Regretfully, that is the only information I have.

Too bad, thanks though, Mark.

I always wanted to wargame my 1/72 scale early model Pz IIs/IIs/IVs against a force of these behemoths

It's a favoujrite theme of mine! My two T-35s are the less common 1938 version with sloped turret sides (there are several pics of these in the publication I was asking about):

link

link

"On the map referenced above, could the large city between the two map keys be Lvov, and the second-farthest SE city be Tarnopol?"

That is correct.

And cyrillic alphabet is pretty easy one to learn (unfortunately the rest of Russian language proved a bit too tricky for me to grasp).

Griefbringer