- 02/07/2020 at 17:20 #139436
Fiddling with my ‘Guards Tank Brigade’ rules, where 1 base = 1 company, and thinking about the Soviet ZiS-3 76mm gun. It was deployed in Anti-tank regiments as well as being part of divisional artillery. I assume that:
- Anti-Tank regiments would have a higher proportion of armor-piercing rounds, fewer HE FRAg rounds, and no fire direction center for indirect fire.
- Divisional artillery would have a few armor-piercing rounds, but most HE FRAG and have fire direction centers, etc and be primarily focused on providing indirect fires or direct fires against soft targets
I have no data to support this…
Does anyone have any insight? I’d like to be able to make a tactical distinction if there was one, even though it is the same weapon, units have different roles.
http://jozistinman.blogspot.com/03/07/2020 at 00:49 #139479John D SaltParticipant
As far as I can make out, IPTAPs and similar units were organised according to the following Shtats:
Shtat No. 08/100 5 x 4-gun bty 45mm, 260 pers
Shtat No. 08/107 5 x 4-gun bty 76mm, 489 pers
Shtat No. 10/466 4 x 4-gun bty 85mm
Shtat No. 10/462 21 x SU-85, 318 pers
Shtat No. 08/531 5 x 4-gun bty 76mm
Shtat No. 08/532 5 x 4-gun bty 45mm
Shtat No. 08/597 5 x 4-gun bty 76mm or 57mm, 454 pers
I have never seen any evidence of fire direction centres being established in IPTAPs. Unfortunately the only one of the above shtats I have so far been able to unearth is for 45mm-equipped IPTAPs. Shtat 08/100 in more detail, from https://www.hgwdavie.com/blog/2018/8/10/soviet-mechanised-corps-ii gives:
Personnel: Regt comd -- 3 Staff -- 7 Sigs det -- 14 Party apparatus -- 2 Light aid det -- 11 Regt aid post -- 5 Echelon -- 6 Tech stores -- 6 Log det -- 11 5 x bty, each 39 39 officers, 87 sergeants, 134 other ranks 20 45mm guns 22 jeeps, 15 cargo vehs, 2 specialist vehs
There seems to be surprisingly little variation in the basic 5-battery organisation throughout the war.
Bear in mind that the IPTAPs and similar specialist tank destroyer units were regarded as an elite, with their own distinguishing marks, sometimes described in modern Russian accounts as “artillery Spetsnaz”. I was surprised to discover that their personnel were additionally motivated by the payment of cash tank destruction bounties. They really were quite focused on killing tanks. I wonder if this focus, and their use of the same equipment as the divisional artillery, is behind some of the silly comments one sometimes hears about the Russians not being technically advanced enough to conduct indirect fire.
All the best,
John.03/07/2020 at 02:10 #139480
Wow! Thanks for the detailed reply. I will distinguish between the different units with the dedicated anti tank units only able to direct fire but having a good anti tank rating with div arty units having minimal anti tank capability as that was no thief role
http://jozistinman.blogspot.com/03/07/2020 at 03:07 #139482John D SaltParticipant
Not sure about “minimal”; I believe the Red Army, like the Wehrmacht, had all batteries carry 10% AP rounds, and 76mm HE unfuzed would not be much of a laugh for early-war tanks. Gunners of most nations are pretty stolid when it comes to close defence of the battery position; I liked the rule in the last WRG set of rules that rated artillery of any nation as “Stubborn”.
I have never been able to find any really useful information on the allocation of sub-calibre (APCR) rounds in the Great Patriotic War, but I imagine that IPTAPs would be the folks with the highest priority for it.
All the best,
John.04/07/2020 at 01:09 #139597
Hey John, I overstated. What I will do is make the dedicated anti-tank units more effective., but leave the artillery battalions with some capability. Thank you very much for the data and sharing your knowledge.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.