"Enemy tank ID: How good was it?" Topic

Just wondering…how good were tankers at telling apart enemy tanks? I'm sure a KV85 was easy to tell from a T34.

But could tankers distinguish a T34/76 from a T34/85 at any kind of distance?

Well, nope.

BIG scary tank!

The success rate depended upon (1) training in identification of friendly as well as hostile vehicles, (2) visibility, (3) optics, and (4) experience.

An example off the top of my head comes from the French Campaign May-June 1940, as to why the French were so quick to put big three color cockades (roundels) on their tanks. This was reportedly the result of a nasty friendly fire incident between two tank battalions, in which a unit of SOMUA S35 cavalry tanks and supporting 75mm field guns mistook a unit of Char B1bis heavy infantry tanks returning from a fight with the Germans as hostiles, and let fly with everything they had, resulting in a number of fatalities and damaged or knocked out B1bis tanks.

A combination of inexperience, mediocre optics, and a closed commander's cupola in a one-man turret that reduced situational awareness for the occupant dramatically contributed to the event IMHO.

Another incident from the same campaign involved the Germans where Stukas bombed the stuffing out of advancing Panzers and supporting infantry, mistaking them for French forces. Again, inexperience, and the challenges of identifying moving objects at a distance (especially under fire).

Leland R. Erickson
Metal Express
metal-express.net

Given the "Every tank is a Tiger" mentality, I imagine in many cases it was a lot harder than expected.

And heck, I can barely tell tanks apart when I am sitting with the models.
On a battlefield, 500 yards away, in a small metal box with instant death lurking around every corner? It's all a Tiger to me son :)

I remembered reading that Fireflys were priority targets. This from wiki..
This fact did not go unnoticed by the Germans, who realized that these long-barrel Shermans posed a much greater threat to their heavy tanks than the normal Shermans, and German tank crews and anti-tank gun crews were instructed to eliminate Fireflies first. Similarly, the Firefly crews realized that the distinctive long barrel of their 17-pounder gun made the Firefly stand out from standard Shermans, so crews attempted to disguise their tanks to reduce the likelihood of being targeted. Some crews had the front half of the gun barrel painted white on the bottom and dark green or the original olive drab on the top to give the illusion of a shorter gun barrel.

By the way, one memoir I read explained the "everything is a Tiger." GI's were not stupid. If you needed a bomb dropped on a target, Tigers were priority. Call in a Tiger and a friendly P-47 will happen along. Call in a PzIV and you can get in line for that fire mission….

Generally speaking with the naked eye most vehicles just look like big blobs for over 200 meters. Some may have some obvious features that make it certainly look different than others … That being said, Blackwidows four points, I find to be accurate … With #4 being one of the most important …

But could tankers distinguish a T34/76 from a T34/85 at any kind of distance?

The very long gun barrel and much larger turret would distinguish them much more than trying to tell a T-34M1941 apart from a KV-1.

Interesting point by E Crispy

Also enemy tanks at least In Europe were often well concealed and fired at a fair distance and from cover. One tank commander talked of scanning hedgerows intently for hours on end and firing at any slightly boxy shape that could be distinguished.

But could tankers distinguish a T34/76 from a T34/85 at any kind of distance?

My question is "who would need to?"

Russians – it's a T-34, it's one of ours

Germans – it's a T-34, shoot at it.

I can only speak to my own vehicle identification training I got during the Cold War. In the field, on the move, at a distance I couldn't distinguish a T-55 from a T-62 or a T-72 from a T-80, but at least I knew they were Soviet. There were some guys in my platoon that didn't even know that much. I imagine it went the same way for WWII.

I saw a documentary recently where an RAF pilot confessed that tanks all look the same from 4,000 feet (in explaining why the RAF went after the British ground forces so much at Falaise).

HERE COMES A PANZER TANK!

I'm with wizbangs – in various exercises most troops I encountered couldn't tell the difference between NATO kit, let alone the Warsaw Pact!

I've no reason to think it was any different in WW2, esp as my old man couldn't tell the difference between any of my old Airfix WW2 tank kits – and he served with many of these vehicles first hand!

DB

A Tiger and a late model PZIV look very similar, more so if behind cover of some kind with foliage stuck on it.

A Canadian Staghound driver reported barrelling through a German held village, and a German tank obligingly got out of the way to open the road. Big boxy armoured car looks a whole lot like a tank when it's charging towards you.

For the average infantryman – even officers – any tank is a major threat and therefore no need to learn the fine detail.

ATG crews and tank crews have the optics, motivation and perhaps the training to identify different models of enemy AFV out to several hundred metres given a clear sight. Camouflaged and hull down? Much harder to figure out what is what.

I'd say this is a major case if the 1000' tall general syndrome.

There is an account of Tiger I troops pulling into an east front village full of IS-2s. They thought the IS-2s were king tigers… even at point blank range.

I can only speak to my own vehicle identification training I got during the Cold War. In the field, on the move, at a distance I couldn't distinguish a T-55 from a T-62 or a T-72 from a T-80, but at least I knew they were Soviet. There were some guys in my platoon that didn't even know that much. I imagine it went the same way for WWII.

I can say the same for my own experiences during the Cold War … Like I said, with the naked eye … just ID'ing Friend from Foe was the best you could do generally … Even though at closer ranges I and others could ID exactly what was what … Of course, using binos, sights, etc. certainly helped …

If we aren't in the staging post, it is in front of us, it's moving, its remotely close to us in size? Blow it away.

If its behind us and hasn't fired yet? Turn the turret around and make sure.

If its behind us and did fire…wait, what was the question again?

Unless you're in a specialist recon, intelligence or artillery observation unit whose job it is to report such things, it isn't necessary.

We had playing cards with drawings of all the current AFVs … We'd go over them by squad while waiting for our turn at the range, etc. … It was called concurrent training and was a very good idea. What some don't realize, there is a lot to learn in the military … And ID'ing AFVs and aircraft is just one of the many subjects … To make effective, well trained and skilled soldiers …