• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The HOW THE F thread

HansMustermann

Penultimate Amazing
HansMustermann
Joined
Mar 2, 2009
Messages
23,741
In which I wonder about some feats in recorded history, and specifically HOW did they manage that.

And my first question that was gnawing at me for some time has to do with Michael Wittmann's destruction of 6 T-34 tanks in 1941, all alone, starting his long record as an ace tank commander. At the time he was commanding a Stug-III.

Well, there were actually very few T-34 in 1941, but FSM knows it was possible to run into one or six.

But then, how did he kill them?

While the Stug line would eventually account for most tank kills in the war, all through 1941 it was armed with the short barreled 7.5 cm L/24 KwK 37 howitzer. It was an infantry support vehicle. (Probably everyone knows, but L/24 is the length in calibres, including the chamber. So yeah, that was a really short gun, for lobbing HE at infantry at close range. The projectile was actually subsonic, for pete's sake.) It wouldn't be until the Ausf F in 1942 that it got the 7.5 cm StuK 40 L/43 gun, and it wouldn't be until the end of june 1942 that it got the final 7.5 cm StuK 40 L/48 gun that finally made it the tank killer we all know and love.

Most of the ammo carried by a StuG with the L/24 gun was basically a concussive charge. The projectile was a relatively thin steel shell, packed with a pound of high explosive. It was great for lobbing into a trench or through a bunker's window, but that was about it. It tended to do nothing at all even against thinnest armour.

Then it had a few canister shots, which, well, were absolutely devastating against infantry, but did even less against armour.

And a couple of smoke rounds, which, yeah, did even less against armour.

Then came the capped AP shot, which, well, could probably defeat a BT-5, but that was about it.

The best bet would have been really the HEAT shot, but... that wasn't all that great either. The model available in '41 was really able to penetrate anywhere between 39 and 41mm of steel, between 100 and 500m. By 2000m, it fell to 30mm, but it compensated by not being able to hit anything at that distance anyway ;)

So, basically, no ammo he had on that Stug III could possibly penetrate a T34 from the front OR back from more than point blank range, and the low gun velocity meant very unlikely to hit them unless they're stationary. Or, again, point blank. And I'm not sure they even had that many HE shells to start with.

So... how did he do it? Did they get out of the StuG and put some magnetic mines on those T34 or WTH? Or are we talking mobility kills or such?
 
Last edited:
//Total spitballing guess//

The earlier runs of the tanks had some design flaws / manufacturing errors that hadn't been ironed out yet and he was able to a mixture of capitalize on that and take credit for tanks that just... broke down and were either abandoned or scuttled (or whatever the land version of that is) to keep them from falling into the enemy's hands.

I mentioned because I've heard it discussed other contexts that this is something that does legit lead to misconceptions about a weapon's system (and surely this broad concept can apply to other things as well) effectiveness.

You design a new weapons system. A tank or plane or ship, something complicated. Sure if you're a halfway competent military you're gonna put it through its paces in drills and tests but sooner or later you've actually got to the put the thing in combat and you cannot account for all combat variables; operator stress and operational tempo if nothing else.

So you field a new weapons system in combat in relatively large number... it's not unreasonable to think you're gonna lose a few to mechanical and operator error just by pure random chance.

A plane or tank or ship two years into the war where all the design and manufacturing kinks have been ironed out and the operators are now operating on second nature is going to be a different, perhaps radically, different beast then the first fielded production run.
 
Last edited:
HansMustermann said:
In which I wonder about some feats in recorded history, and specifically HOW did they manage that.

And my first question that was gnawing at me for some time has to do with Michael Wittmann's destruction of 6 T-34 tanks in 1941, all alone, starting his long record as an ace tank commander. At the time he was commanding a Stug-III.

Well, there were actually very few T-34 in 1941, but FSM knows it was possible to run into one or six.

But then, how did he kill them?

While the Stug line would eventually account for most tank kills in the war, all through 1941 it was armed with the short barreled 7.5 cm L/24 KwK 37 howitzer. It was an infantry support vehicle. (Probably everyone knows, but L/24 is the length in calibres, including the chamber. So yeah, that was a really short gun, for lobbing HE at infantry at close range. The projectile was actually subsonic, for pete's sake.) It wouldn't be until the Ausf F in 1942 that it got the 7.5 cm StuK 40 L/43 gun, and it wouldn't be until the end of june 1942 that it got the final 7.5 cm StuK 40 L/48 gun that finally made it the tank killer we all know and love.

Most of the ammo carried by a StuG with the L/24 gun was basically a concussive charge. The projectile was a relatively thin steel shell, packed with a pound of high explosive. It was great for lobbing into a trench or through a bunker's window, but that was about it. It tended to do nothing at all even against thinnest armour.

Then it had a few canister shots, which, well, were absolutely devastating against infantry, but did even less against armour.

And a couple of smoke rounds, which, yeah, did even less against armour.

Then came the capped AP shot, which, well, could probably defeat a BT-5, but that was about it.

The best bet would have been really the HEAT shot, but... that wasn't all that great either. The model available in '41 was really able to penetrate anywhere between 39 and 41mm of steel, between 100 and 500m. By 2000m, it fell to 30mm, but it compensated by not being able to hit anything at that distance anyway ;)

So, basically, no ammo he had on that Stug III could possibly penetrate a T34 from the front OR back from more than point blank range, and the low gun velocity meant very unlikely to hit them unless they're stationary. Or, again, point blank. And I'm not sure they even had that many HE shells to start with.

So... how did he do it? Did they get out of the StuG and put some magnetic mines on those T34 or WTH? Or are we talking mobility kills or such?
Click to expand...


Possible, but unlikely unless involving certain conditions, which would have been the case. That is... if it was actually 6 x T34's in one engagement and at least some were not lighter types. The puzzle is not so much T34's (which could be done), but 6 of them in one engagement. Together? Or, encountered separately? It would have to be at close range. With a cool head it could be done, factoring in unfortunate circumstances for the T34's and the less than optimal fighting conditions in them. If the Stug gets behind them, up close it could work. The early T34 had no radio, poor visibility, less than great optics and command conditions. By the time the crews figure out what's going on, locate the attacker and manage an effective, on target response, it's possible a Stug could do it. It's also a possibility that at least some were destroyed without the crew in them. I can't say for sure regarding this particular point in time, but, some T34 and KV crews had little training in their vehicles prior to battle and were not totally aware of their armoured strength. Surviving any hit was seen as a cue to bail out before catching fire. So, it was possible, with a resourceful Stug CO and luck.
 
Last edited:
Well, the problem is that even on the rear hull, the T34 had 45mm armour, sloped. Well, the slope didn't help as much against HEAT ammo as against AP, but that's still 41mm of penetration against 45mm of armour plate even ignoring the angle, and that is if you get within 100m (about 300 ft for you Imperials) of it.

The side of the hull is the thinnest at around wheel level, at 40mm thickness, but that's between the wheels, so you have to be one HELL of a shot with that short gun to knock 6 of them out hitting between the wheels, with the limited HEAT ammo you had. It's pretty much pulling a Deadpool 1 with the ammo count.

And then it's not the commander, but the gunner who is, well, superhuman.

Just about the only place I can find where he'd have enough penetration is the back of the turret, at 30mm. Which even leaves him some wiggle room as angle of the shot goes. But as soon as those guys start cranking the turrets around, by the 6'th one you're definitely hitting at the very least side turret, which is 52mm thick.

I'm seriously starting to suspect that he actually run into 6 BTs. Which is still no mean feat to kill, given that they had very powerful guns for that time, but still, a different class than the T34.


Also as curious questions go, I'd ask what was he doing alone with an infantry support vehicle. Shouldn't he be with the rest of the company supporting that infantry? But then I remember it's the SS, who were always doing the "Leeeroooy Jeenkins!" thing ;)
 
Last edited:
HansMustermann said:
...Just about the only place I can find where he'd have enough penetration is the back of the turret, at 30mm. Which even leaves him some wiggle room as angle of the shot goes. But as soon as those guys start cranking the turrets around, by the 6'th one you're definitely hitting at the very least side turret, which is 52mm thick...
Click to expand...


T34 crews did suffer from a lack of target adjustment and general response. Lack of training and experience played a part, but the poor command co-ordination factors could have been crucial, if it went as claimed. The T34 crews may have been focusing on another target. They did have a tendency to not switch in a timely manner.
 
I do not know much about tanks and combat, but I think you people are making two suspect assumptions.

1. That unless a shell's (average/maximum/recorded/estimated?) penetration in mm is grrater than the amount of armor in mm, a shell does no damage whatsoever. It seems to me that a shell that can penetrate 40mm will still put a hefty dent in 50mm of armor. Possibly resulting in damage or spalling in the interior.

2. Especially given point 1, that a tank will only ever get one shot at another tank, ignoring the fact that both tanks possibly have friends around, shooting as well.

I am an utter layman, but these assumptions seem like they would not necessarily be true.
 
Well, regarding point 2, the whole point was that the StuG didn't have any friends in shiny armour around.
 
Last edited:
Just to add, buggering off alone Leeroy Jenkins style and setting up his own ambush that nobody else had heard about, was Michael Wittmann's MO all through the war. When he had a high enough rank, he took his platoon or respectively company with him, such as at Ville Bocage on June 13, 1944, when he also took 5 more tanks with him and utterly destroyed the convoy of the 7th British Armored Division. Before he got enough rank to actually command any other tanks or TDs, he'd just bugger off alone. That meaning not only without more vehicles to support him, but also without the infantry to protect his tank(s) from close range harm.

Generally the SS were hated by the regular Wehrmacht officers precisely for that kind of thing. They tended to not coordinate with anyone else, and use less than sane tactics, typically on the over-aggressive side of the spectrum. And they tended to get rewarded for it. E.g., in 1940, Sepp Dietrich actually disobeyed a direct order from Hitler, and got... decorated for it.

But Michael Wittmann was pretty much Leeroy Jenkins even by SS standards. No, literally. If you haven't watched the legendary WOW Leeroy Jenkins video, go watch it. That was literally Michael Wittmann's MO. And in true SS fashion, he got promoted for it :p
 
HansMustermann said:
Just to add, buggering off alone Leeroy Jenkins style and setting up his own ambush that nobody else had heard about, was Michael Wittmann's MO all through the war. When he had a high enough rank, he took his platoon or respectively company with him, such as at Ville Bocage on June 13, 1944, when he also took 5 more tanks with him and utterly destroyed the convoy of the 7th British Armored Division. Before he got enough rank to actually command any other tanks or TDs, he'd just bugger off alone. That meaning not only without more vehicles to support him, but also without the infantry to protect his tank(s) from close range harm.

Generally the SS were hated by the regular Wehrmacht officers precisely for that kind of thing. They tended to not coordinate with anyone else, and use less than sane tactics, typically on the over-aggressive side of the spectrum. And they tended to get rewarded for it. E.g., in 1940, Sepp Dietrich actually disobeyed a direct order from Hitler, and got... decorated for it.

But Michael Wittmann was pretty much Leeroy Jenkins even by SS standards. No, literally. If you haven't watched the legendary WOW Leeroy Jenkins video, go watch it. That was literally Michael Wittmann's MO. And in true SS fashion, he got promoted for it :p
Click to expand...

Wasn't his MO at Ville Bocage to KO the lead tank then KO the last tank so the ones in the middle couldn't retreat? Perhaps, that tactic was used earlier with the T-34's. If something works you stick with it. Is there any additional historical info for Wittmann's T-34 glory Tag?
 
Well, if you're gonna kill 6 of them alone, definitely taking the first and last would be the thing to do. What I wonder is how DO you kill even the first and last with a gun that can't actually penetrate their armour.
 
HansMustermann said:
Well, the problem is that even on the rear hull, the T34 had 45mm armour, sloped. Well, the slope didn't help as much against HEAT ammo as against AP, but that's still 41mm of penetration against 45mm of armour plate even ignoring the angle, and that is if you get within 100m (about 300 ft for you Imperials) of it.

The side of the hull is the thinnest at around wheel level, at 40mm thickness, but that's between the wheels, so you have to be one HELL of a shot with that short gun to knock 6 of them out hitting between the wheels, with the limited HEAT ammo you had. It's pretty much pulling a Deadpool 1 with the ammo count.

And then it's not the commander, but the gunner who is, well, superhuman.

Just about the only place I can find where he'd have enough penetration is the back of the turret, at 30mm. Which even leaves him some wiggle room as angle of the shot goes. But as soon as those guys start cranking the turrets around, by the 6'th one you're definitely hitting at the very least side turret, which is 52mm thick.

I'm seriously starting to suspect that he actually run into 6 BTs. Which is still no mean feat to kill, given that they had very powerful guns for that time, but still, a different class than the T34.


Also as curious questions go, I'd ask what was he doing alone with an infantry support vehicle. Shouldn't he be with the rest of the company supporting that infantry? But then I remember it's the SS, who were always doing the "Leeeroooy Jeenkins!" thing ;)
Click to expand...

What would the explosive round do to the engine air inlets?
 
The engine air inlets of the T34 were in the back of the hull, under some heavy, horizontal metal louvres, a wire mesh to keep foreign objects out, behind some steel wool air filters, and behind the transmission at that. The louvres could actually be closed, kinda like you'd shut the blinds. (Although, in true soviet fashion, you had to be pretty strong and determined to pull that levers either way.)

So I'm guessing worst case scenario, a big enough explosion there could probably damage the transmission, if the louvres weren't closed, possibly the engine cooling too, but that's about it.

The problem with lobbing a projectile there, though, is that the panels with the louvres are horizontal. It's basically the top of the hull behind the turret. And it's literally horizontal. Not even nearly horizontal, but literally as flat as your computer table.

For your projectile to land there, it has to be coming quite steeply downwards, i.e., be lobbed over a high arc. I seriously doubt that any howitzer could actually pull that stunt other than by sheer accident and blind luck, or the Allies wouldn't have had the policy to just charge the tanks through artillery barrages. And pulling it 6 times in a row is pretty much out of the question.

I'm also not entirely sure that the StuG-III actually had enough gun elevation to even try that.
 
I suppose I was sort of imagining something like that might be vulnerable to a molotov cocktail.

So wondered if there was something less improvised that might have been available with similar effects.
 
Well, I haven't studied the internal layout in enough detail to really make that call, nor do I have the required competence, but talking out the butt, I expect a Molotov cocktail could possibly do wonders there.

A shot from an early StuG-III with the stubby gun, well, the question isn't as much explosive power or anything, but more like how would it even get to land there. Having another search, it turns out that the maximum elevation of the gun on the StuG was 20 degrees. Which is pretty good, but it means you have to shoot from like 2-3km distance to land a shot on TOP of the T-34 hull. However, such an arched shot would have incredible dispersion at that range, so you're unlikely to actually hit even a stationary one. The fact that the subsonic shot would take like 10 seconds to get there also doesn't help if they're NOT stationary.

Basically plunging fire may have killed the Hood, but in tank warfare I'd say it's a much less viable tactic. Not the least because there's a bit of a size difference for the target you're trying to hit. Generally what you want is a very flat trajectory that can go through the front or at least side of the thing. You know, the reason why they upgraded the StuG to literally twice the total length of the gun next year.
 
Last edited:
If I were to hazard a guess and "SS kills or most often propaganda" is off the table, I would say that the 1941 Soviet Army attacking his position was in very poor shape and morale was extremely low. Wittman opens up with HE, scares some hits and causes panic in the tank crews which abandon the T-34s. Wittman can then blast the empty tanks at his leisure until they burn.

Also a possibility: T-34 Panic is a thing, much like Tiger Panic, and the Wittman blew the snot out of a squad of T-26 tanks and called them T-34s.
 
I'm guessing possibly more like BT-5. The T-26 was too different in shape, but the T-34 was basically a larger BT-5. If you've never seen a T-34 before, I can imagine someone confusing them.

To return to your first possibility, though, hmm.... you do have even more of a point there. In '41, not only morale was low, but a LOT of mechanized or tank units were not yet operational. A lot were missing their trucks, making them actually less mobile than foot infantry, because those had the horses. In the scenario at hand, it would mean the tanks would missing the infantry to protect them, which might drive the morale even lower. A lot would be missing their AMMO. Not the least because they were lacking the trucks for logistics. So I suppose it's possible that if you're just hauling a T-34 around without ammo and things start to go boom, you'd haul ass out of there.

Mind you, slowly I start to favour the BT-5 possibility, but I suppose T-34 without ammo might also work.
 
Last edited:
That’s my thinking. As Nicolas Moran puts it, getting hit with a tank round, even one that doesn’t penetrate is, in his words, a Significant Emotional Event. The Soviet crews don’t know that they are probably safe from The L/24 rounds, all they know is “Big Bang hit tank!” from something they probably can’t even see between the two man turret and the Stug 3’s low profile. They might decide the tank is in too fat a target to remain in.
 
The ivans were coming over a slope and he could shoot them in their bellies?

The whole thing is a shabby nazi lie - he just winged a couple of them and made the others flee?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom