What happened with all the russian tanks?

[Sebastian Pye]

What happened with all the russian tanks captured in large quantities in 1941?

[Vinnie O]

I asked a similar question on the Russian Battlefield forum several years ago and essentially got no answer.

There must have been something on the order of 10,000 BT-5s and BT-7s captured in 1941. Apparently ZERO were taken into service, even the poor Romanians didn't want them. There was a response from a Finn who said that Finland tried a few BT-7s but couldn't keep them in service. I think it's another fundamentally bad transmission problem, although it may be that the tracks (which were designed to be removed to produce a wheeled AFV) kept falling off.

A possible explanation is that the German could produce only a tiny amount of Diesel fuel, and this all went to the U-Boatds. Since all Russian tanks had Diesel engines, the 1941 tanks would have had to be re-engined. But considering the desperate shortage of AFVs, especially amongst the German allies, this would seem worthwhile.

My own interesting "what if" concerned the fact that diplomat negotiations with the Turks broke down in part because Turkey wanted modern equipment, AA guns and tanks, and the Germans claimed they had none to spare. Turkey, with access to Mid East oil, could surely have come up with enough Diesel fuel to run Russian tanks. 1,000 BT-7s in reasonable condition should have been easy to locate, even in early 1942. This should have made a great offer to the Turks. Perhaps the Turks had made it known that the Russians would declare war if the Turks accepted Russian booty??

I'm also surprised that the 45mm AT gun did not enter Axis service, again especially with the under-gunned Romanians. Emplacing redundant BT-& turrets should have made some sense, unless there was no source of 45mm ammo.

[Darrin]

Well as far as I know the only diseal tanks were the T34 and KV types. Also turkey had little oil of its own it would have to take the mideast oil from the brits.

I suspect that in 41 most units were destroyed there was no large scale surrenders such as france at the end of the war. Or the cheqs never going to war. Tanks that were not des by the ger were des by thier crew when they broke down or ran out of fuel. A few may even have been used for target practice, rear area sucurity and training.

I´ve heard the few that were cap and able to function without diverting resources from the panzer divs were sometimes kept on a short term basis by the inf divs. But without spare parts to keep somthing like a late 30's rus tank operating they quickly became more of a drain then they were worth. Even the rus had a hard time keeping thier tanks servicable in 41. While 80% of the rus tanks were survicable by rus def they could move only 20% were actually free of defect. The rest need at least some minor repair. Plus the tanks needed diff ammo and diseal of which the gers used nothing similar. I know the cap 76mm guns were supported early in the war but that meant just T34s and KVs in 41-42.

[Enrico Cernuschi]

Gentlemen,
I'm speaking of only a very little amount of ex Russina tanks in front of the many thousands lost on the battlefields but, perhaps, it may be useful. In sight of the invasion of Malta planned in Autumn 1941 (Esigenza C.3, Op. Herkules) the original project was to use a battalion of light, anphibian Russian tanks. As they were doscovered not to be enough affidable not only to swim but to walk too it was decided to use a company of KV ("dei veri mostri " i.e. really monsters) but also if their Diesel engines were excellent (and FIAT tried to copy them) their mechanic was so poor that the project to use Russian tanks for Malta was cancelled within the end of Spring 1942. Perhaps russians were able to make many tanks but the spare problem was so great that only they could use them effecitvely after the first mounths of life. This, of course, is only an hypothesis. EC

[Sebastian Pye]

Ok, but what happened to all the tanks captured in the beginning of 1942 then? Many of these must have been t-34 and KV1

[Vinnie O]

My understanding, from the Russian Battelfield website, is that Russian transmissions were worthless and that many Russian tanks simply failed trying to drive from the railhead to the frontline, etc. You could tell an experienced Russian tank driver because he carried his own hammer to pound on the gearshift lever.

But then I have never read of any organized effort to recover Russian tanks simply as source of scrap steel. The aircraft recovery program to reclaim scrap aluminium is frequently mentioned and apparently very efficient. Ignoring 40,000 tonnes of high grade steel in the middle of a war is hard to understand.

[Darrin]

My understanding, from the Russian Battelfield website, is that Russian transmissions were worthless and that many Russian tanks simply failed trying to drive from the railhead to the frontline, etc. You could tell an experienced Russian tank driver because he carried his own hammer to pound on the gearshift lever.

But then I have never read of any organized effort to recover Russian tanks simply as source of scrap steel. The aircraft recovery program to reclaim scrap aluminium is frequently mentioned and apparently very efficient. Ignoring 40,000 tonnes of high grade steel in the middle of a war is hard to understand.

The early KV 1 has a reputation of having a bad trans. I don´t think this was indicative of all the rus tanks though. The rus made thier first copy of a french tank around 1920 and by the 30s were making and operating tank numbers much larger then ger was ever going to get. Maybe some of the earliest tanks made had transmission problems but as the later models this was corrected or a new trans used to replace older ones.

And the ger did get scrap metal fromt the east not sure of the source of it. Stell is at its best when used with 20% scrap and the ger made around 30 million tons of stell. At the optimum this meant the ger needed 6 mil tons of stell each and every year. Obviously the scale of this requriment far outpaces even rus and ger des tanks. If the rus lost 20,000 tanks and each one contained 10 tons of stell that would be 200,000 tons. remeber most tanks might weigh 15 tons or more but they were not all stell.

[johnny_bi]

Vinnie O.

I'm also surprised that the 45mm AT gun did not enter Axis service, again especially with the under-gunned Romanians. Emplacing redundant BT-& turrets should have made some sense, unless there was no source of 45mm ammo

You're wrong... the Romanians did use ... the 45 mm and mostly the 76,2 mm ... See more details here :
http://members.tripod.com/~Sturmvogel/romafv.html

[Enrico Cernuschi]

Germans used surely scrap from Russian tanks; in 1942 the Italians send home with their train used to carry the new divisions of 8th Army ARMIR some thousand of tons of copper, steel, ect. captured in Russia during the summer advance. The Germans become furious in front of this initiative and stopped the trains asking and obtaining from the too much weak 8th Army commander Gen. Gariboldi and the less and less vigorous Duce, the trains come back empty in Italy.
About the huge number of Russian tanks produced before and during the war I would like to know if it was an other example of Soviet pianification like the farm tractors: i.e. to make many thanks to achieve the ambitiuous budget, but no spare parts, so if you built 100 veichles you have to dismantle an half to keep in order the other half and if there are serious damages or mechanical problems you dismiss the tank and use a brand new one digging (litterally) the older veichle.
Any ideas?

[Arne]

That captuered tank matter is one of my favorits...

What happend to the 10000+ AFVs captured in 1941: most of them did not survive the mud periods, the just rotted away.

My approach was the question: Why did this occure in Russia but not in France?

The answere is simple: One single person (Hpt. Alfred Becker, 227. ID (Artillery) was in charge ot the salvage the whole French captured AFV's. He collected the scrap in one place and did a triage with the vehicles:
1. Minor repairs and refits
2. Major repair and refits
3. Spare parts source

The the vehicles where repaired by importance all of one type in one step. All remaining spare parts where stored away. What was left was shipped back to the steelworks.
The Wehrmacht had only on Alfred Becker, so most captured vehicles in Russia where doomed!

Alfred Becker was an interesting guy. He started the war in the west with his Batterie (12.) horsepowered. After reaching the first dutch artillery depot on the way of 227. ID he equiped his Batterie and the recon element of 227. ID with motorized vehicles.
OK, motorized is fine, but mechanized is better. So Becker started to refit his Batterie with SPA's (!!!) (BY HIMSELF, WITH AN ARCWELDER !!!! ). After 6 month the FIRST armored artillery Battery of the German Wehrmacht was combat ready (without one vehicle build by a professional manufacturer!!!). The armoured artillery vehicle was composed from Vickers Mk.6 under-carriages with 10,5cm Feldhaubitze 16.
After that Becker was instantly transfered to Alkett to help this armourworks build a SPA on a French Lorain ammo-carrier.
In 1942/3 Becker salavaged all usable tank wreckage he found in France as described above. Now his unit was called "Baustab Becker". His production output (more than 1800 tanks and other Vehicle) was used to form "verstarkte schnelle Brigade West". Becker was also simultaniously commanding officer of Sturmgeschütz-Abt. 200 (later Sturmpanzer-Abt. 200).

[John W. Howard]

Thanks for the great post Arne!!! Becker sounds like a very talented guy. Best Wishes.

[Sebastian Pye]

Thx arne that was a VERY interesting post

[Vinnie O]

The Red Army lost at least 20,000 tanks between June and December 1941.

Even the BT-5s and T-26s had armor plate, which is practically indestructible, and the tanks themselves were commonly parked out in the weather at their motor pools in garrison. In must in fact have been a common problem for German units to simply clear a path through the droves of Ruski tanks broken down on the roads.

The most common causes of Russian tank loss were mechanical failure (typically transmissions) and simply running out of fuel. THOUSANDS of Russian vehicles better than the German Pzkw-I, II, and early III were simply lying around waiting for someone to spend a few hours fixing them or just pouring in some fuel. With the Germans DESPERATELY short of vehicles by the Spring of 1942, it's amazing that there was no program at all to pull turrets off T-26s or BT-7s and simply use them as tractors.

The Germans organized a recovery system for their own vehicles that sent wrecks back for overhaul. I have to believe that the Germans considered using the many Russian tanks available to them and concluded that not even German mechanics could keep them running long enough to do any damage to the enemy.

[xavier]

Lots of equipment were re-cycled into the german army, mostly where vast stores of useable ammunition were available or a conversion was very easily done.

much guns were sent to norht africa, ans some more mounted on obsolete pz II and czech origin chassis. some more were sent to the atlantikwall emplacements.

left to rot in the battlefield? not so, material that could be brought to railhead was sent back to germany to the smelter.... otherwise the sappers took care of it, so it would be of no use to partisans or russians taking over the same piece of land again.

Arne: Nice post...! is somewhere more info available on the recovery efforts conducted by Becker?

regards

Xavier

[Rob S.]

Relatively simple answer as to why Germans didn't use any Russian tanks; because by the time they realised they needed them the war was already being lost.

German Panzer Divisions consistantly numbered 2, 3, to 4 times less than Allied Armor Divisions. Meaning they used a fraction of the amount of tanks than the allies. While this may seem like nothing but a worthless number, it reflects the production of German Armor realistically. Hence, with such small requirements, it was easier to fill, refill, and form brand new Panzer Divisions.

Using Russian equipment was a waste of time because in the process of recovering them they could just as easily produce new Panzers which were already compatable with field supplies and production.

An FYI: While it is true the Armor and Weaponry of the I, II, III, and IV may have been undertoned the truth of the matter is that they were still more complex than the British Crusader series or the Russian BT series. Most importantly, the Allies utilized Cast Armor, which is somewhere between 15 to 20% weaker than German Armor. German guns also produced a perfect graph for armor penetration. I have the exact tables for the 76.2 US and Russian, and 75 L42 German laying around here somewhere. All in all, German guns shot harder at the right ranges. Russian guns dissapated less after longer ranges, but likewise didn't build up enough at shorter ranges. American/British guns were weaker than German but better than Russian.