How about soviet technology in ww2?

I have heard alot about Axis and many of the allies fantastical technology however then I try to look for what technology Soviet used its very hard to find any information more than like t34.

I wonder how Soviet technology could be compared to other major ww2 powers, which areas did soviet have the best technology in compared to other nations and which was their weakest areas, overall technology comparison would be nice to.

I don't think the Soviets were far behind on tech in WWII. If for no other reason than that the tech of the war was mostly a straight forward evolution from what was well known. Which meant that anyone could play, if they had some resources and need. I don't recall that the Soviets did much with radar, and they didn't have a nuclear program. Or much of a naval program at all. But their tanks and aircraft were competitive, as was their artillery and light arms. So they were only really behind at the margins, not at the core, of the tech which was used in the war. And then there were a lot of tech transfers. So in 1945 the USSR had access to almost all the tech the rest of the world had.

The Soviets were very pragmatic engineers, so their equipment was easy to use and maintain, and fairly reliable. T-34-85s were used in the Angolan Civil War in the 1980s, and one was used against UN peacekeepers in Bosnia in 1995.

Much like the US, the USSR was able to "rev up" its war machine in a very short period of time and go from the one-rifle-for-two-men to massive quantities of tanks and artillery in just a couple of years. During WWII, Chelyabinsk became known as "Tankograd" for its conversion of its tractor factory to produce KVs and T-34s. Echoes of Detroit, MI, which was doing the same thing around the same time, but unlike the Americans, the Soviets had to relocate and rebuild some of their manufacturing while being invaded. Conversely, the Germans were unable to use some of their later-war weapon designs because they were unable to retool their factories to produce, for example, the new turrets for the "Eintwicklung" series of tanks that would have replaced the Panther and Tiger and incorporated some design elements from Soviet tanks, such as sloped armor.

In regards to armour, the Soviets were THE BEST. Hands down. It made German armour look like pieces of toys. The Panzer V was a good piece of engineering, though way too complicated and expensive, given that T34/85 has like 75% of its capabilities in tourms of armour and firepower for a significantly smaller price.

The Soviets did lag on nuclear tech and jet engine development. For the latter, they'd even had to import Rolls-Royce engines, if my memory is okay. That said, the Soviets did had some great aircraft later in war, just not jet-based.

the Russians had a nuclear programme , basic starting about in 1940 when it was widespread that there would be nukes soon . In 1943 it became production oriented but nobody had a Manhattan Project size capability , apart from the US that's . As for the aircraft engines they did a nice catch-up with the West after importing some Hispano-Suizas by 1941 . They had preferred to go the German way , the easy way with loot but the Germans were seriously handicapped by lack of heat resistant material and the massive bombardment they were under . Was a deadlock of sorts until Britain exported the Nenes . Centrifugal types , a truly "obsolescent" type in the 1940s . Russians improved on the compressors by sheer mathematical effort and added the mineral wealth of Siberia and they were in the game ...

Kaiserguard said:

In regards to armour, the Soviets were THE BEST. Hands down. It made German armour look like pieces of toys.

Click to expand...

No.

The T34 was great because it was simple and reliable, meaning it could be churned out in great numbers, it had a good gun and sloping armour - a new innovation, but 1 on 1 the big new German tanks (Tiger/Panther) were the best in the world at the time by a mile. However they were complicated, slow to build and suffered from reliability problems.

German tank divisions were swamped by T34s and Shermans, but not outclassed by them.

brennan said:

German tank divisions were swamped by T34s and Shermans, but not outclassed by them.

Click to expand...

The T34 was the 'standard duty tank', comparable to the Panzer IV in terms of design goals, yet the most upgraded T34 could very plausibly beat the creme of the German arsenal. The Soviet equivalent of the Panther and Tiger tanks would be respectively the IS II and KV-tanks (the latter being invented three years before its closest German counterparts).

So more generally, the Soviets swamped AND outclassed the German tanks.

brennan said:

German tank divisions were swamped by T34s and Shermans, but not outclassed by them.

Click to expand...

Yeah.

Tactically the big cats were superior. At least against tanks. Strategically the T34s and Shermans were superior, because you they were much easier to make than the Big Cats, and were often better at what you wanted a tank for most of the time, anyway. (Making infantry hate their life.) Operationally the T34s and Shermans were also better, because they were quite a bit more mobile. Not just because of Germany's unexpected fuel difficulties (no one could have predicted that challenging most of the developed world at once to a war would take so long), but because of maintenance issues.

I think it's really design where you see the strength of Russian technology. The T34s had some real issues, but overall they were a great way of making more out of less. The German stuff like the MG34, Panther, G41, and MP44, to name a few basic tools of war, had some great features and showed a high level of engineering, and were often innovative, but in a lot of ways were better suited to the testing field or a textbook than actual combat or mass manufacture. Practical design is something the Russians seemed to excel at. Most especially compared to the Germans.

The German Stugs were a more reasonable approach. But mostly based on the dated PzIIIs, and they were somewhat outclassed by the T34s and Shermans.

If they'd thrown all the engineering expertise and time, not to mention manufacturing efforts, spent developing or making the Panthers, Tigers, Stugs, and various variants and other vehicles at just the Panther they might have had a really fearsome tank. Something they could manufacture in the numbers of the Stugs, with the best features of the Panther but without most of the problems.

But they didn't.

The Germans also had doctrinal problems. Invaded from two directions, they still had trouble groking the role of the defender. A Panther a mile away hidden in some bocage, or a platoon along a ridge out on the Steppe, was a terribly difficult tactical problem for an Allied force. (Unless you had good air support, or could just bypass and surround.) But way too many were squandered on risky counter-attacks.

The Russians, OTOH, were scary-good by the end of the war and coordinating massive operations and keeping the Germans off balance. Not just a horde of angry (and often desperate) Russians, but a cleverly led horde.

Tanks are not built to fight tanks. Tank destroyers are.

Luckymoose said:

Tanks are not built to fight tanks. Tank destroyers are.

Click to expand...

That was the doctrine at the time in many armies. By the end of the war it was recognized as a poor one, though. TDs didn't cost all that much less than tanks and it was just too tricky, arraigning for the tanks to be over here, fighting the infantry or exploiting a breakthrough, but not fighting other tanks ... while over there you have the TDs fighting the enemy tanks. A tank could have armor, mobility, and a gun good enough for doing everything cruiser tanks, infantry tanks, and TDs were all tasked with.

But the Shermans and T34s could take on anything they met most commonly, from any angle at a reasonable distance. And through most of the war the TDs would have been just about as hosed meeting up with some Panthers or Tigers under unfavorable circumstances. Favorable circumstances, the Shermans or T34s would do.

The British system of including a Firefly in platoons with "normal" Shermans was a good idea though.

The point of tanks like the Sherman is not to fight or seek other tanks, but to act in combination with infantry and provide heavy support. They are not, nor were they ever, designed to take on tanks themselves.

Luckymoose said:

The point of tanks like the Sherman is not to fight or seek other tanks, but to act in combination with infantry and provide heavy support. They are not, nor were they ever, designed to take on tanks themselves.

Click to expand...

Well ... They weren't conceived of with taking on other tanks as their main role, yes. But they were designed, from the very beginning, with the need to sometimes engage other tanks in mind. Even if there wasn't a tactical bomber, TD, or swarm of guys with anti-tank rifles around.

As far as ongoing design went, the 76mm gun on the later Shermans sacrificed some infantry fighting ability (HE load) for better anti-tank performance.

when Sherman was being designed the threat was PzKw-III . How many IIIs were in action by 1945 -as gun tanks ? Sherman's issues stem almost solely from the thing that im Mtzenks or someplace like that a properly handled Russian operation scared the hell out of Germans , they kinda over reacted and came up massive armour plates and massive guns . Which paid off handsomely when the Wehrmacht was forced to a defensive mode . When the Germans could use prepared positions and all .

EgonSpengler said:

Much like the US, the USSR was able to "rev up" its war machine in a very short period of time and go from the one-rifle-for-two-men to massive quantities of tanks and artillery in just a couple of years.

Click to expand...

Much more than that, the USSR had been actively preparing for an invasion since 1928, and its economy expanded massively while the rest of the world was retracting. The US had to "gear up" for war and pull itself out of depression; the Soviets were already at a full sprint when the first shot rang out. If they had been as ill-prepared as the Americans on 22 June 1941, they would have handily lost the war. 3.5 million German soldiers poured across that border...

Kaiserguard said:

...the most upgraded T34 could very plausibly beat the creme of the German arsenal.

Click to expand...

Ah, a ringing endorsement.

Kaiserguard said:

The Soviet equivalent of the Panther and Tiger tanks would be respectively the IS II and KV-tanks (the latter being invented three years before its closest German counterparts).

So more generally, the Soviets swamped AND outclassed the German tanks.

Click to expand...

The KV series were rubbish. The IS were designed only in response to the Tiger and Panther, not years before.

wiki said:

The KV series of Soviet heavy tanks was criticized by its crews for its poor mobility and lack of any heavier armament than the T-34 medium tank. In 1942 this problem was partially addressed by the lighter, faster KV-1S tank. The KV series were much more expensive than the T-34, without having greater combat performance; the heavy tank program was nearly cancelled by Stalin in 1943. However, German employment of substantial numbers of Panther and Tiger tanks at the Battle of Kursk in 1943 changed Soviet priorities. In response, the Soviet tank industry created a stopgap KV tank, armed with the 85mm 52-K-derivative gun of the T-34-85. This KV-85/IS-85 (Object 237) prototype was accepted for production as the IS-1 heavy tank.

Click to expand...

By contrast, the Germans were designing 100 - 200 and 1000 ton tanks (the 200 ton Maus even made it to the prototype stage despite strains to German industry).

brennan said:

The KV series were rubbish.

Click to expand...

True, yet it is quite telling that such weapons were made years before their proper German equivalents.

brennan said:

The IS were designed only in response to the Tiger and Panther, not years before.

Click to expand...

I only said that in relation to the KV tanks, not the IS tanks, which were indeed designed later.

brennan said:

The KV series were rubbish. The IS were designed only in response to the Tiger and Panther, not years before.

Click to expand...

When properly used, they could make a devastation effect

The 6th Panzer Division's vanguard entered directly into the well-prepared Soviet ambush. Belorussian gun's tank sniper named Andrej Usov knocked out the leading German tank with its first shot. The German column assumed that the tank had hit an anti-tank mine and, failing to realize that they were being ambushed, stopped. This gave to Andrej Usov the opportunity to destroy the second tank. The Germans realized they were under attack but were unable to locate the origin of the shots. While the German tanks fired blindly, Kolobanov's tank knocked out the trailing German tank, boxing in the entire column.

Although the Germans now knew where they were being attacked from, they could only spot Lieutenant Kolobanov's tank, and now attempted to engage an unseen enemy. The German tanks got bogged down when they moved off the road onto the surrounding soft ground making them easy targets. Twenty-two German tanks and two towed artillery pieces were knocked out by Kolobanov's tank before it ran out of ammunition.[1] Kolobanov ordered in another KV-1, and 21 more German tanks were destroyed before the half-hour battle ended. A total of 43 German tanks had been destroyed by the five Soviet KV-1s (two more remained in reserve).

For their actions, Lieutenant Kolobanov was awarded the Order of the Red Banner and his gunner, Andrei Usov, was awarded the Order of Lenin.

The Soviet victory was the result of a well-planned ambush on advantageous ground and superiority of weapons. Most of the German tanks in this battle were light tanks armed with only 37 mm guns. The German tank guns had neither the range nor the power of the 76 mm main gun of a KV-1. After the battle, the crew of No. 864 counted a total of 135 hits on their tank, none of which had penetrated the armor. The narrower tracks of the German tanks caused them to become trapped in the swampy ground.

Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinoviy_Kolobanov

The KV1 was designed in 1938. The Panzer III in 1935 and Panzer IV in 1936. The Tiger in 1941.

There's really not much in it and the difference in design between the KV and the Panzers originated in difference of tank doctrine, not in technology.

Your original statement:

In regards to armour, the Soviets were THE BEST. Hands down. It made German armour look like pieces of toys.

Click to expand...

Is just wrong. There's a reason the Tiger gained it's fearsome reputation.

@Red elk. That's an ambush, not a display of superior technology.

brennan said:

Is just wrong. There's a reason the Tiger gained it's fearsome reputation.

Click to expand...

And it is totally unearned. It was too little too late. If it was developed in 1938, the Germans might have gotten away with its flaws, as the Soviets had with the KV series.

The last good tank (as opposed to TD/Assault gun) the Germans made prior to the Leopard 1 was the PZIV - a relatively cheap, versatile, easily upgradable vehicle that only really became outclassed at the end of the war when its relatively small turret ring precluded the fitting of more powerful guns.