Tank Warfare on the Eastern Front, 1941-1942: Schwerpunkt

Popular Mythology

The Russo-German War in general, and armoured combat on the Eastern Front in particular, have remained popular subjects in English-language historiography of the Second World War for the past six decades. However, much of what Anglo-American readers know or think they know about armoured warfare on the Eastern Front has been shaped by self-serving memoirs such as Guderian’s Panzer Leader or von Mellenthin’s Panzer Battles, or popular wargames such as SPI’s Panzerblitz (1970) and a new generation of computer wargames. A cult of German tank-worshippers has arisen and its members are now firmly entrenched in their belief that all German tanks (meaning their beloved Tiger and Panther series) were better than any Soviet tanks and that the Red Army’s tank forces only prevailed because of numerical superiority. There is a grain of truth in this argument, which was fostered by German veterans seeking to perpetuate the Third Reich’s propaganda-line that the victory of the Red Army’s ‘barbarian hordes’ was due to mass, not skill. However, the quantity over quality argument ignores a variety of critical factors encompassing the opposing war-fighting doctrines, strategic miscalculations and terrain/weather that significantly influenced the outcome of armoured operations in the East. Key facts, such as the German inability to develop a reliable diesel tank engine while the Soviets had one in production before Operation Barbarossa began, are often just ignored – even though it had a significant impact on the outcome of mechanized operations on the Eastern Front. Yet material factors were not the only influences upon armoured warfare on the Eastern Front. Napoleon’s dictum that, ‘in war, the moral is to the material as three is to one,’ proved quite apt on the Eastern Front of 1941–45, with a host of moral and non-material factors influencing the outcome of battles and campaigns.

Looking across a hexagonal grid super-imposed over a two-dimensional map sheet, cardboard counters or plastic miniatures representing German Panthers or Tigers look so much more impressive than the opposing Soviet T-34s. The German tanks’ strengths – long-range firepower and armoured protection – carry great weight in these kinds of simulations, while their main weaknesses – poor mobility and poor mechanical reliability – are only minor inconveniences, if depicted at all. For example, the oft-repeated canards about the Panther’s ‘teething problems’ at Kursk are fobbed off as a temporary issue, costing a wargamer a few movement points, without realizing that the Panther had persistent mobility issues throughout its career that prevented it from conducting the kind of wide-ranging mobile operations required by German maneuver warfare doctrine. The main strengths of the Soviet T-34 – reliable mobility over vast distances on its own tracks and suitability for mass production – are factors that lie outside most tactical-level simulations. Consequently, two generations of Anglo-American history buffs have been presented with numerous simulations that emphasize the superiority of German tanks and the cannon-fodder nature of Soviet tanks. The Cold War also played a role in shaping perceptions, with a large number of German veteran accounts that were often viewed uncritically, while there was a dearth of useful accounts from the Soviet side. When available, Soviet accounts were routinely discounted as lies or propaganda. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, fifty years after the onset of Operation Barbarossa, this ingrained Western perception began to change as previously unavailable historical material emerged from Soviet-era archives, but the balance of Eastern Front historiography in English is still heavily biased toward the German perspective. This book hopes to contribute to redressing that imbalance.

Another problem in evaluating armoured warfare on the Eastern Front is that much of the analysis to date has been fairly tactical in nature, focusing on a single campaign such as Stalingrad or Kursk, which tends to gloss over the impact of long-term trends that shaped each sides’ combat performance. The Russo-German War lasted for forty-six and a half months. It was not decided by a single battle or campaign. This study intends to examine how Germany’s panzer units performed against the Red Army’s tank units during this entire period and why the Soviet Union prevailed. It is not my intent to provide a detailed chronology of every tank battle, but rather to discern the main trends emerging over time. I also intend to highlight actions that are often ignored or glossed over in other histories, which often suggest that nothing significant was happening on other parts of the Eastern Front when big battles were occurring around places like Stalingrad and Kursk.

As a former tanker myself, commanding M60A3 TTS tanks in the U.S. Army in the Republic of Korea in the mid-1980s, I have an appreciation for how logistics, terrain and weather can affect armour operations and how seemingly minor deficiencies can have major consequences. Having felt the terror of sliding uncontrollably in a tank on an icy downgrade, or the difficulty of recovering tanks mired in deep mud, or fording a boulder-strewn river, I intend to offer an account of tank warfare that encompasses the oft-ignored, but critical, facets of armoured operations that have frequently been missing from other accounts.

Strategic Setting

Adolf Hitler intended to crush the Soviet Union and its inimical Communist ideology in one, swift campaign, using his battle-tested panzer divisions and Luftwaffe air fleets as his weapons of choice. In Führer Directive 21, issued on 18 December 1940, Hitler stated that, ‘the bulk of the Russian Army in Western Russia will be destroyed by daring operations led by deeply penetrating armoured spearheads.’[1] He deliberately chose to unleash a war of annihilation aimed not only at the destruction of the Red Army and Soviet state, but also at the eventual obliteration of the indigenous Slavic populations as a necessary precursor to German colonization in the East. Whereas previous operations in Poland, France and the Balkans had followed the methods of traditional German campaigning, Hitler intended Operation Barbarossa to be a crusade. Yet oddly, Hitler’s grand strategic vision for the War in the East was not matched by sound strategic-level planning. Instead, the War in the East would be conducted primarily on the operational and even tactical levels, often on the basis of ad hoc or opportunistic decision-making, rather than sober assessment of ends and means.

The employment of Germany’s armoured forces in the Soviet Union was shaped by three strategic assumptions made by Hitler and the Oberkommando der Heer (OKH). The first assumption was that the war in the Soviet Union would be a short campaign, resolved in a matter of a few months. Germany made no preparations for a protracted War in the East, including increasing tank production or training replacements, or stockpiling fuel and ammunition. The second German strategic assumption was that terrain and weather would have no significant impact on the conduct of the campaign. Hitler and the OKH regarded the Soviet Union as virtually flat, table-top steppe land that was perfect for rapid panzer operations, but ignored its numerous rivers, dense forests, immense distances and poor road networks. Previous German panzer operations had achieved victories after moving only 300–400km in fair weather over good roads. Indeed, no offensive in German military history had ever covered more than 500km in a single push. Since the first assumption of a short war expected a Soviet collapse well before the onset of the Russian winter, Hitler and the OKH completely disregarded the weather as a factor. The third strategic assumption was that the Red Army could be quickly and efficiently destroyed.

Based on a combination of factors – the poor showing by the Red Army in the Russo-Finnish War, Stalin’s purges of the officer corps and incomplete OKH intelligence assessments – Hitler and the OKH reckoned that they could destroy the best part of the Red Army in about six weeks of fast-moving campaigning. With the bulk of the Red Army smashed, including its tank forces, Hitler believed that the Soviet state would suffer a moral collapse akin to what happened in France in June 1940. These three strategic assumptions had a profound impact on German panzer operations in the Soviet Union and when each proved false in turn, they put the panzer divisions at a permanent disadvantage.

Stalin’s immediate objective in mid-1941 was to deter German aggression until the Red Army was sufficiently prepared for him to take a more assertive tack with Hitler. He had foolishly ordered the disbanding of the Red Army’s four existing tank corps in November 1939, only to order them re-formed as mechanized corps in July 1940 and their number doubled in response to the spectacular German victory over France. In order to give Soviet military power credibility in the eyes of Germany, Stalin also directed that the mechanized corps would be reequipped with the new T-34 and KV-1 tanks to replace the lighter T-26 and BT-series models. Soviet industry was ordered to produce over 5,000 of the new tanks and the mechanized corps were expected to be fully-equipped by mid-1942. However, Stalin became increasingly alarmed by reports that Germany was creating more panzer divisions, so in February 1941 he directed that twenty additional mechanized corps – requiring another 11,000 tanks – should be formed as quickly as possible. Even with the Stalingrad Tractor Plant (STZ) joining the Kharkov Plant (KhPZ) to produce T-34 tanks, it was unlikely that these twenty-eight mechanized corps could be fully-equipped before late 1943. Given these arbitrary changes in organization imposed by Stalin, the Red Army’s twenty-eight mechanized corps were only partly equipped and in a state of fatal disarray in June 1941.

The deployment and employment of the Red Army’s mechanized forces was based on three strategic assumptions made by Stalin and his General Staff. First, Stalin believed that there would be adequate early warning prior to any German aggression, giving Red Army units time to prepare and deploy for combat. Due to this assumption, Red Army leaders felt that they could defer measures to enhance combat readiness in favor of other organizational priorities. The second Soviet strategic assumption was that with adequate logistics, training and preparation, the Red Army could hold its own against the Wehrmacht. Tied to this assumption was an implicit belief that enemy incursions could be limited to the buffer zones in Poland and Lithuania acquired in 1939–40. The third Soviet strategic assumption was that industrial mobilization was the key to victory and that campaigns would be decided by the side that had the greater ability to sustain its forces in protracted operations, not by fancy maneuvers. Due to Stalin’s ineptitude, the first Soviet strategic assumption was invalidated and undermined the validity of the second assumption as well. The cost of Stalin’s strategic miscalculations was the loss of the bulk of the pre-war Soviet tank force in the first three months of the campaign. However, the third Soviet strategic assumption proved entirely correct and eventually provided the means for the second assumption to regain saliency by the second year of the war. In short, despite certain blindness to impending war, Stalin and the Soviet General Staff did a far better job laying the groundwork for protracted operations than the Germans, and this strategic calculus would provide the Red Army’s tank forces with a valuable counterweight to the tactical skill of German panzer units. The Soviet numerical superiority in tanks for much of the War in the East – much bemoaned by German veterans – was not some sleight of hand trick, but the result of careful pre-war planning.

Hitler deployed four panzer groups with a total of seventeen panzer divisions and 3,106 tanks[2] for Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of the Soviet Union. In addition, two independent panzer battalions, Pz.Abt. 40 and Pz.Abt. 211, were deployed in Finland with 124 tanks (incl. twenty Pz.III). The 2 and 5.Panzer-Divisionen were refitting in Germany after the Greek Campaign in April 1941 and were in OKH reserve. Otherwise, the only other extant panzer units were the 15.Panzer-Division with Generalleutnant Erwin Rommel in Libya and two panzer brigades in France. No other panzer units were in the process of forming in Germany. Consequently, the OKH was committing virtually all of the available German panzer forces to Barbarossa, with negligible reserves and limited monthly production output to replace losses. In mid-1941, German industry was producing an average of 250 tanks per month, half of which were the Pz.III medium tank. Combat experience in France and Belgium in 1940 indicated that the Germans could expect to lose about one-third of their medium tanks even in a short six-week campaign, which Hitler regarded as acceptable losses. Furthermore, German industry had no tanks beyond the Pz.III or Pz.IV in advance development. The Heereswaffenamt (Army Weapons Office) only authorized Henschel and Porsche to begin working on prototypes for a new heavy tank four weeks before Operation Barbarossa began, and this program had no special priority until after the first encounters with the Soviet T-34 and KV-1 tanks in combat.

The primary operational objectives of the four German panzer groups were Leningrad in the north, Moscow in the center and Kiev and the Donbas region in the south. The distance from their starting positions to their operational objectives was 800km for Panzergruppe 4, 1,000km for Panzergruppe 2 and 3, and over 1,200km for Panzergruppe 1. Hitler expected these objectives to be reached within about ten weeks of the start of Barbarossa, an unprecedented rate of advance in modern military history. However, it was questionable whether German tanks could even move this far in this amount of time, even if much of the Red Army was destroyed on the border. As a general rule of thumb, about 5 per cent of tanks in a given unit will break down for mechanical reasons after a 100km road march, although most can be repaired within a few hours. Just three years before Barbarossa, nearly 30 per cent of the 2.Panzer-Division’s tanks broke down on the unopposed 670km road march to Vienna, along good roads.[3] If the panzer divisions suffered a similar scale of combat losses as in the 1940 Western Campaign, no more than 10–20 per cent of the original panzers would be likely to reach their objectives.

Operation Barbarossa’s bold scheme of maneuver was undermined by very poor intelligence preparation by German intelligence services. In actuality, the OKH intelligence staff had a faulty understanding of the strength and dispositions of the Red Army. German signals intelligence had not detected the reformation of Soviet mechanized corps in July 1940 and believed that the Red Army’s armour was still deployed as independent tank and mechanized brigades.[4] In early June 1941, Oberst Eberhard Kinzel, head of the OKH’s Fremde Heere Ost (Foreign Armies East), assessed that the Red Army would deploy forty-one mechanized brigades with about 9,500 tanks against the Wehrmacht.[5] Kinzel’s shop produced a handbook on Soviet tanks for the panzer groups, which described the various models of the T-26, T-28, T-35 and BT-5/7 in detail. The handbook also included information about a new Soviet heavy tank equipped with 60mm-thick armour and 76.2mm main armament that had been used against the Finns in December 1939; this was the SMK prototype, which the Germans erroneously labeled as the T-35C. Although Kinzel was clearly aware that the Soviets had fielded a prototype heavy tank eighteen months prior to Barbarossa, he assessed that existing German anti-tank weapons could defeat it.[6]

Prior to the German invasion, Stalin wanted to keep his strategic options open, to gain territory when possible, but to avoid being dragged into a fight before he felt the Red Army was ready. He wanted a sizeable portion of the newly-forming mechanized corps positioned near the western borders to deter German attack, but the rest would be deployed further back in reserve. In the event of invasion, the Red Army’s existing war plan directed that all available mechanized corps should be immediately committed to counterattack any German penetrations across the border. Unwittingly, this plan played into German hands, by forcing Soviet tank commanders to send unprepared units into battle piece-meal, directly into the face of on-coming German panzer schwerpunkt (main efforts). Indeed, the German panzer forces would be at their strongest in the border regions, where distance and logistics had not yet attenuated their combat power. However, the German planners in the OKH had no appreciation for the Soviet military philosophy of echeloned attack and defense, which meant that defeating the Red Army in a single campaign would prove far more difficult than the French Army in 1940. The entire essence of the so-called Blitzkrieg doctrine was in using concentrated armoured formations in short, powerful jabs to dislocate an enemy’s defense by isolating his best forces. A reasonable enemy was then expected to sue for peace due to the sudden setback.

However, neither Stalin nor the Red Army had any incentive to be reasonable once it became clear that Hitler’s strategic objective was to exterminate them. By opting for a war of annihilation, Hitler made it impossible for the Wehrmacht to defeat the Red Army in a single campaign.

Terrain and Weather Factors

Between September 1939 and May 1941, German panzer divisions had encountered no serious difficulties in their campaigns due to either adverse terrain or weather conditions (other than the English Channel, which was conveniently ignored). In particular, Panzergruppe Kleist had been able to quickly pass through the ‘impenetrable’ Ardennes Forrest and then conduct successful opposed river crossings across the rivers Meuse and Somme in France. In April 1941, Kleist’s panzers were able to overrun Yugoslavia and Greece in less than three weeks, despite numerous rivers and mountainous terrain. The overriding impression Hitler and the OKH leadership gained from the Wehrmacht’s preceding campaigns was that terrain in itself was not a serious obstacle to the panzers. Nor did Hitler and the OKH have any useful experience with mechanized operations under winter conditions. In contrast, the Red Army had learned painful lessons about the limitations of mechanized units in forested terrain and winter conditions during the 1939–40 Russo-Finnish War and were in the process of incorporating some of the lessons learned.

Crossing rivers or large streams was an essential feature of military operations in the Soviet Union and the relative fording capabilities of tanks had a major impact on the tempo of armoured operations. Although both Germany and the Soviet Union had a small number of tanks with amphibious capabilities, such as the Pz.III and Pz.IV Tauchpanzer and the T-37, T-38 and T-40 light amphibious tanks, the majority of tanks on both sides could not ford water that was deeper than one meter (i.e. chest deep on a man). The bridging capabilities of the 1941–42 panzer divisions were rather rudimentary – a Brüfckenkolonne B or K could construct a 50-meter long pontoon bridge in about twelve hours that could just support a Pz.III medium tank, but the Pz.IV and later Tiger and Panthers needed proper bridges to get across significant water obstacles. Indeed, the Wehrmacht lagged behind the Allies in assault bridging, having nothing like the British Bailey bridge. Soviet tank divisions of 1941 were supposed to have a pontoon bridge battalion, but most were never fully formed or quickly lost during the hectic retreats of 1941. While tanks could often cross smaller rivers at shallow fording sites, these critical locations were usually defended by anti-tank guns and mines. Larger rivers, such as the Dnieper or Volga, could not be crossed without substantial army-level engineer support. Pontoon rafts could be constructed to get small numbers of tanks across a large river, but this was usually only sufficient to defend a bridgehead against enemy counterattack. Thus, the capture of intact bridges – particularly railroad bridges, which could support the weight of tanks – was an important constant in Eastern Front armoured operations: both sides sought opportunities to seize poorly-defended bridges because they allowed tanks to do what they do best – move fast and use their shock effect to disrupt an enemy’s defenses. When bridges or fording sites were not available, armoured operations came to a full stop.

Generally, you can try to go just about anywhere with a tank – at least once – but you may regret that you tried. Armoured operations on the Eastern Front were often impeded or channelized – forced into narrow mobility corridors – due to ‘no-go’ terrain such as marshes or dense forests. The marshlands between Leningrad and Ostashkov in northern Russia and the Pripet marshes were particularly hazardous for armoured operations. Tanks could easily become irretrievably bogged down in marshy terrain, or forced to move along narrow tracks that made them very vulnerable to anti-tank ambushes. In the early border battles in 1941, the Red Army foolishly lost a number of precious T-34 and KV-1 tanks in water-logged areas in the Pripet Marshes. The best tank country on the Eastern Front was the steppe country of the Ukraine, although this region also had the worst mud during the rainy periods. There were areas of ‘slow-go’ terrain in the Soviet Union, including urban areas and the ravines along the River Don, which could cause tanks to throw track. The Germans were particularly shocked by the almost total lack of decent all-weather roads in the Soviet Union, which increased the wear and tear on all vehicles and greatly reduced their mobility.

The Germans had totally discounted the severity of the weather in the Soviet Union and were shocked in turn by the summer heat, the autumn mud and the harsh winter cold. Mud in particular is the bane of the existence of all tankers, but the idea that it only interfered with German mobile operations and that it was only a problem during the autumn and spring Rasputitsa season is an oversimplification that has been accepted for too long in Western historiography about the Eastern Front. First of all, the Eastern Front stretched over 1,700km from Leningrad to the Crimea and the weather could vary considerably across regions; a typical rain system would cover a 400–500km wide area, but other areas received no rain (or snow). Weather fronts moved from west to east across Russia, meaning that bad weather would generally hit the Germans first. Second, the summer months of June–July tended to have the most rain, but April and May were the driest months. In 1941, Heeresgruppe Süd had twice as much rain in July as it did in September–October, and mud caused significant mobility problems in the summer as well. When mud occurred, the wheeled vehicles in armoured units and towed artillery pieces were likely to be the most affected, but tracked vehicles could generally move until the mud became so deep that the tank either scraped bottom or the roadwheels became too fouled with mud.

When the supply trucks couldn’t make it through the mud, armoured operations ground to a halt from lack of supplies and ammunition. Oftentimes, SPW half tracks had to be diverted from their primary combat tasks of transporting infantry to making supply runs through muddy areas or going to pull mired trucks out. Routine track maintenance became much more difficult when everything was caked in thick, gooey mud. Soviet tankers also complained about the mud and it significantly affected their operations as well. The main Soviet tanks in 1941 – the T-26 and BT-7 – had even narrower tracks and less engine power than the German Pz.III, meaning that most Red Army tank units in 1941 were more prone to being impeded by muddy roads. Since Soviet tank brigades in 1941–42 consisted of mixed vehicle types, the superior T-34s would still have to travel at the rate of the slower light tanks.

The first snow arrived over the Eastern Front in October 1941, but in most areas it consisted of only 5cm and turned to rain within twenty-four hours. There were only two or three days with snow in October, with more falling in the humid Ukraine than around Leningrad. Snowfall in November jumped to about 20cm in central Russia, but the heaviest snowfalls did not occur until December–February. German equipment was designed to operate in temperate areas and proved unsuited to cold-weather operations in Russia. Panzer crews were particularly shocked to find that their tracks could literally freeze to the ground in winter months or their batteries crack when the fluid inside froze. The Czech-built Pz.35(t) used a hydraulic system that literally froze in October 1941, bringing that vehicle’s career to an abrupt end. When the German expectations of a short campaign were unfulfilled, the panzers were forced to conduct operations under all weather conditions, for which they were not psychologically or materially equipped.

Doctrinal and Technological Influences

During the interwar period, there were two contending schools of thought among major armies in regard to the proper employment of tanks. The dominant school was that tanks were best suited for the infantry support role and should be attached directly to infantry units. More revolutionary was the concept of armoured units that could operate independently, which was inspired in part by the theories of the British armour theorist, J.F.C. Fuller, and his Plan 1919. Fuller’s theories of mechanization, expounded in his interwar writings, attracted followers in both the Reichswehr and the Red Army. The proponents of creating independent armour units argued for looking beyond the breakthrough battle and for using tanks in a long-distance, exploitation role. However, this kind of radical thinking ran head-on into the powerful cavalry lobbies in both Germany and the Soviet Union, who regarded tanks as a threat to the mounted branch’s traditional use in the exploitation role. Both infantry and cavalry officers generally opposed the creation of independent tank units or tried to place limits on the kind of role they would serve. The infantry school argued for the development of infantry support tanks with a high level of armoured protection and had a howitzer-type weapon, but speed or range were not important requirements. Cavalry officers gradually accepted that tanks would be included in their country’s armed forces, but preferred light, fast tanks that could assist the cavalry in reconnaissance and pursuit roles. These intra-service debates about tank design crossed national lines and shaped tank development in Britain, the United States, France, Germany and the Soviet Union in the 1920s and 1930s.

Armour theorists gradually recognized that in order to develop effective tanks, both the infantry support and cavalry exploitation missions needed to be reconciled in technical requirements. The utopian idea of a single ‘universal tank’ that could successfully accomplish all missions was quickly determined to be unfeasible and theorists recognized that more than one type of tank would be necessary in order to fulfill armour’s potential on the battlefield. The infantry support mission required a tank that was equipped with weapons capable of engaging enemy infantry entrenched in fieldworks, bunkers or buildings. Given the high threat level from enemy artillery and anti-tank weapons, it would also be prudent for infantry support tanks to possess a high level of armoured protection. However, the exploitation mission suggested a tank with the primary requirements of speed and mobility. Most armies struggled with developing the right types of tanks, with the best characteristics and in the best mix to meet these mission requirements. Both the Red Army and the Reichswehr made choices about what tanks they wanted, based upon doctrinal and technological influences in the 1930s, which would shape battlefield outcomes in 1941–45.

Since Germany was not allowed to build or possess tanks due to the restrictions of the Treaty of Versailles after the First World War, the postwar Reichswehr made covert agreements with the Red Army to establish a tank training school at Kazan in 1929. The Red Army, which only had a handful of obsolete tanks left over from the First World War, was desperate to acquire foreign tank technology and willingly cooperated with the Reichswehr. During the four years that the Kazan school was operational, the Germans tested two different tank prototypes there and determined the necessity of mounting radios in every tank in order to exercise effective command and control over an armoured unit (the importance of this was further reinforced when German observers noted the successful use of radios in British pre-war tank exercises). German officers such as Erich von Manstein, Walter Model and Walter Nehring spent time in the Soviet Union and observed Soviet tank exercises, although this apparently did little to enhance their regard for the professionalism of Soviet tankers. As part of the deal for hosting the Kazan school, the Red Army acquired several 3.7cm Pak guns and the design for a 7.5cm anti-aircraft gun from the German firm Rheinmetall, which were used to bolster Soviet research on tank armament. The Soviets also acquired fuelinjection technology from Germany, which was used to enhance Konstantin F. Chelpan’s development of an experimental diesel tank engine at the Kharkov Locomotive Works. However, the Soviet leadership believed that the Germans were not sharing their best technology and finally closed the school in September 1933.

Soviet military theorists such as Mikhail Tukhachevsky, Vladimir K. Triandafillov and Georgy Isserson had been assiduously working on a new military doctrine since the late 1920s.[7]^, [8] This doctrine, known as Deep Battle (glubokiy boy), was partly inspired by J.F.C. Fuller’s Plan 1919 and mixed it with Marxist-Leninist thinking about protracted warfare.

Early on, the Red Army leadership recognized the imperative need to develop a tank force, but was reluctant to choose between the infantry support and cavalry schools. Instead, the Red Army codified its basic tank doctrine in Field Regulations PU-29, issued in October 1929. These regulations specified that PP tanks would provide infantry support, while DD tanks would push deeper into enemy rear areas to destroy their artillery.[9] The Red Army cavalry lobby, in the form of Marshall Semyon Budyonny, also managed to retain enough influence that PU-29 was written to include joint tank-cavalry Deep Operations (glubokaya operatsiya). At the same time, the Red Army established the Office of Mechanization and Motorization (UMM) to develop the tanks necessary to fulfill the doctrine spelled out in PU-29, as well as train and organize all mechanized forces. The first head of the UMM, Innocent A. Khalepsky, decided that the Red Army also needed a heavy breakthrough tank to penetrate fortified areas, so he recommended a 60-ton tank with two 76.2mm howitzers and a 37mm cannon. From this point on, Red Army doctrine pushed Soviet industry to concurrently develop light, medium and heavy tanks.

At the start of the First Five Year Plan (1928–32), Soviet industry was unable to build indigenously-designed tank engines or tank guns and barely able to construct a few dozen light tankettes per year. Since Stalin and the Politburo were more concerned about falling behind Western tank developments than domestic economic consequences, they arbitrarily doubled the number of tanks required by the Red Army and rushed technical development in order to field the largest number of tanks possible. Three tank design bureaux were established under the plan: OKMO and SKB-2 in Leningrad and KhPZ at Kharkov. An artillery design bureau in Gorky was also tasked with developing new tank armament. At Stalin’s behest, the UMM authorized numerous tank projects, many of which proved failures, but this also jump-started the Soviet tank industry. Between the pressure of fulfilling quotas established by the Five Year Plans and the personal consequences of ‘obstructionism,’ the Soviet tank design bureaux were forced to develop tanks that could be built quickly and in numbers, which would prove to be advantageous in a long war.

Through ruthless effort, Stalin’s regime was able to build up the Soviet Union’s defense industrial base at an astonishing rate and succeeded in producing over 5,000 light tanks under the First Five Year Plan. A generation of young Soviet engineers proved adept at using off-the-shelf components and designs acquired legally and illegally from Britain and the United States, while Soviet engineers took the idea of sloped armour from John Walter Christie’s innovative M1931 tank prototype and employed it on the BT-series light tanks. Soviet espionage was also successful in acquiring tank design information in Britain.

Despite negligible experience in armoured vehicle design and fabrication, Soviet engineers were able to move from the prototype stage to series production of the T-26 and BT-series light tanks within less than two years. Although Soviet engineers were forced to use foreign-designed engine components and armament in their first generation of indigenous tanks, the design bureaux in Leningrad, Kharkov and Gorky were also given some of the best engineering talent in the Soviet Union, who were tasked with developing indigenous engines and cannon for the next generation of tanks. In particular, the talented Konstantin F. Chelpan made excellent progress – with the backing of Khalepsky, the head of UMM – in developing a practical diesel tank engine, which would have enormous implications for armoured warfare on the Eastern Front in the Second World War.

Due to the success of the First Five Year Plan, the Red Army had sufficient tanks by 1932 that it could afford to create both an independent tank force and separate tank brigades for direct infantry support. Two mechanized corps were formed – three years before the Germans fielded their first panzer divisions. The mechanized corps were intended for independent Deep Operations, up to 250km in three days. While the T-26 was intended to fulfill the NPP role, the BT-series fast tank (Bystrokhodny tank) was built for speed and mobility for the DD exploitation role. The Red Army formed separate heavy tank brigades with the new T-35 heavy tank and independent mechanized brigades to support the infantry and cavalry. During 1932–33, the Red Army began testing the Deep Battle concept in field maneuvers with the new tank units. When the Red Army had difficulty in actually conducting field exercises according to Deep Battle doctrine, the innovative Aleksandr I. Sediakin, deputy chief of the general staff, was put in charge of combat training and transforming the new doctrine into a practical reality. By 1934, Sediakin had developed a Deep Battle ‘playbook’ for Soviet commanders that instructed them how best to employ a combined arms attack using armour, mechanized infantry, artillery and airpower. Sediakin and his staff intensively studied and tested Deep Battle doctrine, using the mechanized corps as test beds, and one of his crucial findings was the logistical difficulties of getting fuel to tank units that achieved a deep penetration. The Military Academy of Mechanization and Motorization (VAMM) in Moscow also worked to train battalion and regimental-level armour leaders in the new doctrine. In 1936, Deep Battle became the official doctrine of the Red Army in Field Regulations PU-36. It is important to note, however, that Sediakin’s ‘playbook’ approach to Deep Battle was in line with the Marxist preference for prescriptive training, which encouraged junior leaders to follow a checklist by rote, rather than employ initiative on the battlefield.

In contrast to the frenetic pace in the Soviet Union, tank development in Germany did not begin in earnest until 1934 due to the restrictions of the Treaty of Versailles. It took considerably longer for the German military leadership to develop a common picture of how best to use tanks, and even though Adolf Hitler became enamored of the potential of tanks, the creation of independent panzer units was initially opposed by a number of senior leaders, including Generaloberst Ludwig Beck, chief of the Generalstab des Heeres. Generalleutnant Oswald Lutz (Inspector of Motor Transport Troops) and his outspoken chief of staff, Oberst Heinz Guderian, became the primary advocates of an independent armoured force. Eventually, Lutz and Guderian successfully made their case and when Hitler authorized the re-branding of the Reichswehr as the Wehrmacht and expansion to thirty-six divisions in June 1935, three of the new units were designated as panzer divisions. Guderian, a former signal officer with no real command experience, was selected to command the 2.Panzer-Division. However, Beck and his operations officer, Oberst Erich von Manstein, maneuvered to create an alternative to the independent panzer divisions by recommending the creation of sturmartillerie units to provide direct support to the infantry. Manstein proposed providing each infantry division with a battalion of Sturmgeschütz (assault guns), based on a medium tank chassis. Thus, the Third Reich ended with its armoured assets divided between panzer and sturmartillerie units, plus the panzerjägers, who also eventually acquired self-propelled tank-destroyers.

Unlike Stalin, Hitler was unwilling to push excessive rearmament measures because he believed that his political legitimacy rested upon ensuring German economic recovery. Hitler wanted rearmament, but he wanted it on the cheap, so as not to place an undue burden on Germany’s civilians. Armament factories thus continued to work single shifts and production output remained anemic. Amazingly, Hitler did not prioritize tank production before the invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941 and allowed the manufacturing base to operate by peacetime standards even in the second year of the war.

Consequently, German industry was not pushed and bullied along as Soviet industry was to quickly develop large numbers of new tanks. The cost of new tanks – not an issue in the Soviet Union – was an important one in a Germany that was still recovering from the Depression. Expensive luxuries, like heavy tanks, were deferred. Even developing a reliable medium tank proved to be a much greater challenge for German industry than it was for Soviet industry. While the Wehrmacht leadership wanted tanks that possessed sufficient firepower and mobility to execute the kind of mechanized warfare envisioned by Reichswehr doctrine of the late 1920s, they were initially forced to accept panzer divisions based mostly upon the Pz.I and Pz.II light tanks, and later ex-Czech Pz.35(t) and Pz.38(t) tanks. The Wehrmacht was slow to develop technical requirements for a new medium tank and ending up asking for two tanks: the Pz.III was intended to be the primary tank of the panzer divisions, with its high-velocity 3.7cm gun optimized for the anti-tank role, while the Pz.IV was intended as an infantry support tank, with its 7.5cm low-velocity howitzer.

Both these programs proceeded at a snail’s pace and whereas the Soviets were already demonstrating the ability to move from prototype to mass production in two years, both the Pz.III and Pz.IV programs required five years before they were ready for series production. Nor were German tank designs made with much regard to suitability for mass production, and fabrication was inefficiently spread across eight different firms. Due to a habit of continually introducing upgraded models, production output remained low. Even at the start of Operation Barbarossa, the production of Pz.III and Pz.IV medium tanks was still insufficient to even properly equip all the existing panzer divisions, never mind replace combat losses. Due to these design and production choices, the Third Reich’s panzers were usually outnumbered by their Soviet opponents and their limited ability to replace tank losses shaped how German commanders employed their panzers.

The Pz.III and Pz.IV were both tentative and very conservative designs, and as it turned out, not terribly innovative. The main armament of the Pz.III was based on the existing 3.7cm Pak gun and eventually upgraded to the short-barreled 5cm KwK 38 L/42 in August 1940, which Hitler believed – rightly – was inadequate. He directed that a long-barreled 5cm gun be developed for the Pz.III, but the Heereswaffenamt (Army Weapons Department) failed to take any action on this. A tank is essentially based around its engine and both the Pz.III and Pz.IV were limited by their reliance on the 300hp Maybach HL120TR engine. Due to its low power output, German designers were forced to limit their medium tanks to the 19–22-ton range, which reduced the amount of armour and armament that the vehicles could carry. Reliance on a gasoline-powered engine also meant that fuel economy would be unsatisfactory, which would continue to haunt panzer leaders throughout the Second World War. Hitler expressed interest in developing a diesel tank engine – which he recognized offered savings in fuel and improved range – but German engineers fobbed off such ideas as ‘too difficult and too time consuming,’ so it was allowed to slide. If any word describes the state of German tank design at the start of Barbarossa, it is mediocrity. Furthermore, German tanks became less mobile after 1941, not more mobile, as weight was increased due to additional armour and heavier weapons. Indeed, during the entire period of the Third Reich, German industry never designed a tank specifically for long-distance mobile operations.

Most German officers believed that destroying enemy tanks was incidental to the primary missions of tanks and their preferred doctrinal and technical solution was to use small, easily-concealed anti-tank guns to ambush enemy tanks. High-velocity anti-tank guns such as the German 3.7cm Pak could penetrate 30–40mm of armour at ranges up to 500 meters, which was considered adequate to defeat most medium tanks. Given their small size, anti-tank guns were very likely to get the first shots off in an engagement, which suggested that they could achieve a very favorable kill-loss ratio on the battlefield. Even if enemy tanks won, it was easier to replace an anti-tank gun than an expensive tank. Yet mounting high-velocity guns on tanks such as the Pz.III detracted from their primary mission, since armour-piercing shells were not very useful in a breakthrough battle and were poorly suited to engaging the main threat – enemy anti-tank guns. Furthermore, tank versus tank combat was generally avoided throughout the early years of the Second World War, since it risked heavy losses even for the victor. At the Battle of Hannut in Belgium on 12–14 May 1940, the 3. and 4.Panzer-Divisionen tanks suffered 25 per cent losses in three days of combat with French tanks. Given the limited capacity of German industry to replace tank losses in 1940–41, the Germans had little enthusiasm for attrition-style tank combat. Consequently, the Germans assigned the primary anti-tank mission to their panzerjäger troops in order for the panzers to specialize in the breakthrough and exploitation missions. The development of German kampfgruppen tactics was based on this idea of combat specialization, with tanks forming only part of a combined arms team that also included motorized infantry, engineers, self-propelled artillery, panzerjägers, light flak and signals troops. German doctrine viewed the tank as a weapon system that acted as a ‘combat multiplier’ in the combined arms team, but dependent upon other branches for external support – including Luftwaffe close air support – to offset its limitations.

Unlike German tankers, Soviet tankers believed from their combat experience in Spain that tank versus tank combat was increasingly likely and they wanted tanks that could prevail in these conditions. General Dmitri Pavlov, who commanded a tank brigade during the Spanish Civil War in 1936–7, used his combat experience to shape Soviet tank doctrine as well as tank development in his next assignment as head of the ABTU.[10]

Pavlov knew that in order to prevail in tank versus tank combat, Soviet tanks needed better firepower and better armoured protection. Soviet intelligence learned that the Germans were developing a 5cm anti-tank gun and fully expected them to deploy a high-velocity 7.5cm tank gun in the near future. The obvious solution, which Pavlov recommended, was to develop a new generation of dual-purpose medium-caliber guns that could fire both armour-piercing and high-explosive rounds. With ABTU’s support, engineers on the Kirov Plant’s SKB-4 team in Leningrad began developing the 76.2mm L-11 tank gun, which began testing in 1938, while Vasily G. Grabin’s artillery design bureau in Gorky would be ready to begin testing its own 76.2mm F-32 gun in late 1939. Pavlov wanted whichever of these weapons proved itself superior in testing to be installed on the next generation of Soviet tanks. Pavlov also viewed the German 3.7cm Pak gun as a game-changer, since it made the T-26 and BT-series light tanks obsolete, so he pressed for the development of a ‘shell-proof’ medium tank that could withstand anti-tank fire from 5cm guns. He also lent his support to the development of Chelpan’s 500hp V-2 diesel tank engine, which began testing in April 1938. Pavlov recommended that the new T-34 medium tank and KV-1 heavy tank under development should utilize sloped armour, the brand-new V-2 diesel engine and the L-11 gun in order to gain a significant advantage over Germany’s first medium tank, the Pz.III. Although the KV-1 design was too advanced to incorporate sloped armour, the T-34 received the full benefit of the latest advances in Soviet tank technology. Thus, during the winter of 1940–41 the Red Army was receiving tanks that incorporated revolutionary design features and was gearing up for mass production, while the Wehrmacht was content to rely upon conservatively-designed tanks that were built in totally inadequate quantities.

One of the prime reasons for this casual German attitude to tank development was that the OKH assumed that the Soviets were not capable of producing anything that could match German tanks. German technical exchanges during 1929–33 assessed Soviet tank technology as primitive and failed to detect the implications of the First Five Year Plan for Soviet tank-manufacturing capabilities. The Abwehr, German military intelligence, had very little insight into the Soviet Union and consistently underestimated the quantity and quality of Soviet tanks. Hitler, who was hell-bent on destroying the Soviet Union, accepted the Abwehr’s flawed estimates of Soviet combat capabilities, since they were in line with his innate prejudices against Slavic culture and Communist ideology.

Despite a huge Soviet lead in doctrinal and technical developments in armour, Stalin squandered much of this advantage with his officer purges of 1937–41 and the abandonment of Deep Battle doctrine. Egged on by the NKVD, Stalin became convinced that mechanization and the desire for an independent tank force was a conspiracy by Tukhachevsky and his reformers to create a ‘state within a state’ in order to wrest control of the military from the Communist Party. Although the subsequent Stalinist purges of the Red Army are often cited as weakening the leadership cadre of the armed forces, it is less often noted that the purges specifically targeted the new mechanized units and the tank design bureaux that supported them. Kassian A. Tchaikovsky, commander of the 11th Mechanized Corps, was one of the first arrested and he died in prison. Marshal Tukhachevsky was executed in June 1937, followed by Sedyakin and Khalepsky in July 1938. Gregory Isserson managed to avoid arrest in the first round of the purges, but was arrested in 1941 and spent the entire Second World War in a labor camp. The NKVD then moved on to persecute the engineers building the tanks: Chelpan, developer of the V-2 diesel tank engine, was executed in March 1938, and the heads of the KhPZ and SKB-2 design bureaux were also executed. The purges continued from 1937 and extended for four years and continued even after the onset of Operation Barbarossa, claiming still more victims, including Pavlov. In addition to the elimination of Tukhachevsky and most of the higher-level tank leadership, the PU-36 Field Regulations and its doctrine of Deep Battle were suppressed. Further adding to the self-gutting process, Stalin ordered the disbanding of the mechanized corps in November 1939. This dealt a devastating blow to the Red Army’s surviving tank forces, which greatly reduced their combat effectiveness for several years.

However, the Wehrmacht’s stunning victory over France in June 1940 caused Stalin to reconsider, and he ordered the re-formation of eight mechanized corps in July 1940. This about-face only provided further organizational and training confusion for Red Army tankers and the new mechanized corps would not be able to participate in large-scale maneuver training until the late summer of 1941. Furthermore, Deep Battle was not reintroduced as official doctrine, so it was unclear how the new mechanized corps would be employed. In contrast, most German tankers had gained valuable combat experience in the Polish, French and Balkan campaigns, and their maneuver-warfare doctrine had crystallized by June 1941. Whereas the largest German armoured formations in the Polish Campaign had been two corps-size formations with only a single panzer division and two motorized infantry divisions each, in the Western Campaign the Wehrmacht had fielded Panzergruppe Kleist with five panzer and three motorized infantry divisions. By June 1941, it had become standard practice for each German army group to have at least one Panzergruppe to lead its schwerpunkt (main effort) and rather than breakthrough attacks, the panzer divisions sought to conduct slashing pincer attacks that resulted in encirclement or kessel battles. The only positive Soviet combined arms experience to balance against this German tactical and operational skill was Georgy Zhukov’s victory over the Japanese at Nomonhan in August 1939, but only a handful of Soviet tank units had been involved.

By June 1941, the Wehrmacht held a clear advantage over the Red Army in terms of practical combined arms experience, which helped to conceal the technical limitations of German tanks.

Tanker Facts of Life

Tanks are complex weapon systems that require a number of sub-systems and the crew to function properly in order to provide the vehicle with its key characteristics: firepower, protection, mobility and communications. Tank crews vary in size, with 4–5 being the norm for a full-strength crew, but combat and noncombat casualties (as well as disease and sickness in winter months) could reduce crews. It is essential that each member of the crew perform his designated task well for the tank to achieve its full capability. A poorly-trained loader might be the lowest man in the tank crew hierarchy, but his inability to reload main gun rounds quickly in combat could easily lead to his tank losing a gunnery duel against a faster opponent. Likewise, the driver’s ability to maneuver over rough terrain and use cover and concealed approaches is critical for the crew’s survival. In June 1941, most Soviet tank drivers – particularly in battalions equipped with T-34 and KV-1 tanks – had very little practical experience, whereas the majority of German tank drivers had one or more campaigns under their belts. German tank driver training was also very thorough for new recruits, whereas this continued to be a weakness for the Red Army well into 1942.

The foremost fact of life as a tanker is the importance of maintenance and logistics. The track system and roadwheels take a great deal of abuse from large rocks, tree stumps and other assorted battlefield wreckage when the tank moves any significant distance. The track, held together by long pins, wants to fall apart and the crew must constantly monitor it for signs of damage. Most tanks carried a few spare track blocks, but extra track pins to hold them together were often scarce. Good crews check the track and roadwheels at every halt of more than a few minutes and conduct spot-tightening. If they fail to do so, crews can expect to routinely throw track (i.e. the track comes off the roadwheels), which immobilizes the vehicle. In tank platoons and companies, it is imperative that junior leaders force tank crews to conduct routine maintenance – even in extreme cold weather, muddy field conditions and during combat operations. Friction is a tank’s worst enemy and river crossings tend to wash grease out of fittings on the running gear, which can cause roadwheel hubs to burn out if not tended to soon after fording. For example, a T-34 required a minimum of 1kg of grease for each 100km the tank moved on dry surface, but this would need to be replaced sooner if water obstacles were crossed. All tank engines and transmissions leak oil to some degree, particularly as filters and gaskets wear out.

German tank engines often relied on rubber gaskets, which were prone to brittleness in the frigid Russian winters, leading to massive oil leaks if not promptly replaced. Turret systems including hydraulic reservoirs, optics and radios needed to be checked as well and the main gun needed to be bore-sighted again (usually by using string across the muzzle and a snake board target) after any significant move or firing. If the optical telescope and main gun went out of alignment due to hits on the turret or a very bumpy ride, then the tank’s gunner would have a difficult time hitting targets. On a weekly basis, crews needed to check the engine and transmission for wear (often detected by tiny metal shavings in the engine compartment, indicating excessive wear), as well as the batteries, leaf springs or torsion bars and brake systems. Contrary to photos depicting the ‘difficulty’ of panzer crews in cleaning the gun tube with a cleaning rod (a five–ten-minute job), one of the worst tasks was replacing a snapped torsion bar, which necessitated pulling off multiple road wheels and plenty of sledgehammer work to get the broken pieces out (in typical field conditions, a four–six-hour job). If tanks were driven with one broken torsion bar, the shifting weight would likely break the next torsion bar as well. Both sides often pushed their tanks to operate in ‘degraded mode’, with broken or worn parts, but tanks in this condition were often little more than placeholders with decreased combat value. The most important vehicles at the tank battalion level are the recovery vehicles and fuel trucks, which are essential to keeping the unit functional.

The man standing in the cupola of the tank turret is usually divided into one of two types: a tank commander or a tank rider. The Wehrmacht was particularly adept in 1941–43 at putting the right officer or NCO in the cupola, a man with the training and proven leadership ability to aggressively lead his tank section, platoon or company into combat. A tank commander is bold and is trained to use the shock effect, firepower and mobility of armour to accomplish his mission. In contrast, the Red Army was very weak in junior officer and NCO training at the start of the war and few tank commanders displayed bold aggressiveness. A tank rider is a passive fellow, a follower, one who obeys orders but shows little initiative. Unfortunately, Stalin’s purges had stifled initiative at lower levels and encouraged a great deal of passivity in the ranks, which greatly undermined the combat value of Red Army tank units in the first year of the war. A common mishap – other than sudden death – for tank riders was to allow their tank to ram its gun tube either into the ground, or trees or buildings while moving, damaging the weapon. Eventually, by 1943–44, the Red Army began to gain experienced, aggressive junior leaders who could excel at small unit leadership in combat, while the quality of German junior tank leaders declined steadily after 1942.

In combat, the crew became a closed-off entity, with only fleeting awareness of friendly tanks and infantry around them. German tank commanders were trained to move and fight ‘unbuttoned’ (i.e. cupola hatch open and head out), which gave them better situational awareness in battle, but exposed them to the risk of injury from artillery, snipers or machine-gun fire.[11] Soviet tank commanders were taught to fight ‘buttoned-up’ and to rely upon their vision blocks, which proved totally inadequate. For a system that placed so little value on the lives of its soldiers, it is odd that the Red Army enforced ‘buttoned-up’ tank operations, since this sacrificed situational awareness and often enabled small numbers of German tanks to outfight superior numbers of Soviet tanks. Many of the accounts that extol the lethality of German tank gunnery fail to note the contribution of ‘buttoned-up’ tactics to these kill tallies; better situational awareness allowed the Germans to shoot first and inflict massive damage before the surviving Soviet tanks could even detect them. Inside the tank turret, experiencing the main gun firing is akin to a small explosion inside a building, and the turret quickly fills with choking ammonia fumes. A good crew turns on the turret blower before firing, which reduces the noxious gases, but it was not unusual for novice Soviet crews to be vomiting inside their turrets after half a dozen rounds were fired. German tanks normally did not fire their main guns while on the move as it was too inaccurate; they preferred to seek out good defilade positions, where terrain obscured the hull but allowed the turret to fire at approaching enemies. In contrast, the Red Army had attempted to develop gun stabilization systems before the war and often encouraged crews to fire on the move. Very little tank fighting occurred at night, since tanks could not effectively engage targets at ranges much beyond 100 meters unless flares were fired, but this tended to aid the defender more than the attacker.

Aside from maintenance and combat, the rest of a tank crew’s life was focused on getting adequate food and sleep. Compared to infantrymen, tankers are very comfort-oriented and this often led them to commit tactically imprudent actions. When panzers from Kampfgruppe Eberbach stormed into Orel in October 1941, one platoon from 6./Pz.Regt 35 left their vehicles unguarded so that they could go sleep in nearby buildings – and were then surprised when Soviet tanks counterattacked into the city during the night.[12] Semen L. Aria, a Soviet tanker, recalled that on a freezing night in the winter of 1942–43, his crew decided to sleep in a peasant hut without posting a guard over their T-34. In the morning, the tank had been stolen by another unit; Aria was sent to a penal unit.[13] During a big push, tank crews were usually given several days’ rations, but these were soon consumed and it could take days or even weeks for normal supply services to catch up. Both German and Soviet tankers often had to rely upon appropriating food from local civilians during mobile operations. Soviet tankers called this ‘Grandmother’s rations’. German tankers called it looting. Tanks were often required to move at night to avoid enemy aerial observation and sleep-deprived crews were more prone to road accidents. In moving through wooded areas at night, it was not unusual for tank commanders standing in a cupola to be abruptly woken up by tree branches across the face. Commanders had to constantly talk to their drivers over the intercom during night road marches, lest they nod off.

In combat, only about one-quarter of tanks hit by enemy action actually caught fire and burned out. Both sides tended to claim every enemy tank hit as a ‘kill’, but a good percentage of hits either bounced off the armour or failed to penetrate. Based upon post-battle analysis of both sides’ records, the Germans appear to have often exaggerated their tank ‘kills’ by up to 200 per cent and the Soviets by 500 per cent. Even those tanks that were considered ‘knocked out’ could often be repaired, since the damage inflicted by armour-piercing ammunition was usually not catastrophic. Crew casualties were usually limited to 0–2 fatalities per tank knocked out, with the rest of the crew wounded, so it was not unusual for a given crew to have been knocked out several times during the course of the war. In the early years of the war, Soviet tankers often abandoned their tanks if hit, and simply walked back to their own lines. The Red Army eventually issued a directive that tank crews that returned to their lines without their tanks would be sent to penal units, which forced Soviet tankers to stick with their damaged vehicles.