Soviet Tank Crews: Selection? Indoctrination?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 чер 2024
- Get the book from Peter IS-2 Stalin's Warhammer - www.is-2tank.com here.
In this video Peter Samsonov (Tank Archives) and I talk about crews selection, second in command, etc.
»» GET OUR BOOKS ««
» IS-2 Stalin's Warhammer - www.is-2tank.com
» Stukabook - Doctrine of the German Dive-Bomber - stukabook.com
» The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company November 1944 (StG 44) - sturmzug.com
» Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com
» Achtung Panzer? Zur Panzerwaffe der Wehrmacht - panzerkonferenz.de
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon, see videos early (adfree) - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/stores/military...
» SOURCES «
our brains
00:00 Intro
00:31 Crew Selection
05:26 Why 3 Lieutenants
08:44 Difference IS-2 vs Medium Tank Crew
11:33 Second in Command
#IS2 #heavytank #redarmy
» IS-2 Stalin's Warhammer - www.is-2tank.com
Tanks for the videos!
You mean Stalin's Titans, which is why he needed Mechanicus Princeps to drive.
Nice to hear more about the IS2 from Peter. I recently listened to him on the Realtime history podcast and I also bought his book. Interesting information all around.
What I like most about the IS2, is that it was part of the tank equipment of the "Kasernierte Volkspolizei", a predecessor to the East German army. So east Germany had heav tanks in ist "police" force. Which in my mind is funny :)
Tanks are a core element of Communist Riot Control Doctrine, that's where the term Tankie comes from.
@@Batmacktankie comes from the approval of the western comunist for the deployment of tanks in the Hungarian civil war in 56.
The Carristi in Italy where a political faction compesed of all the various party members from different party that supported the soviet intervention
You mentioned Russian civilians coming in as a Jr. Lieutenant -- American had a civilian to general: In 1940, US President Franklin Roosevelt, at the recommendation of Bernard Baruch, asked Knudsen to come to Washington to help with war production. Knudsen was appointed as Chairman of the Office of Production Management and member of the National Defense Advisory Commission for which he received a salary of $1 per year.[8]
In January 1942, Knudsen received a commission as a lieutenant general in the U.S. Army, the only civilian ever to join the army at such a high initial rank,[9] and appointed as Director of Production, Office of the Under Secretary of War. In that capacity, he worked as a consultant and a troubleshooter for the War Department.
7:42 In the Spanish Civil War both sides used these kind of officers. In the Nationalist side the rank was called "Alférez Provisional", while in the Republican side the rank was "Alférez de Milicias". Alférez (from "al-Farish", "the officer") is a Spanish rank right below lieutenant. In the Nationalist side there was a saying: "Alférez provisional, cadáver efectivo" (provisional lieutenant, effective corpse).
I suppose having the loader being the second in command makes sense, assuming he's got a hatch that affords him the second best visibility and at that point his normal job is usually the least necessary to the tank's survival. Generally more time in combat is spent miving and searching for targets than engaging them, so he basically becomes a T-34-76 commander writ large, having to judge whether slinging shells is more important than scanning for threats and targets at any given moment.
It's interesting because NATO takes the opposite approach, the loader is the newest member of the crew. His whole job is to sling shells, help with maintenance, and observe more experienced crewmen as they do their job.
In the Red Army, the loader was the XO of the ship (essentially) who could take over the role of any other crewman if they were injured.
@@LAHFaust Well, except the British, of course, who've long formalized the loader as the tank's 2nd in command.
As to everyone else defaulting to gunner as 2IC, I can only presume it' is a matter of priorities (and probably opinions on the perceived technical training requirements of different roles). The Soviets at the time considered surviving the engagement as most important, thus giving the crewman with the best visibility the backup reigns, while the West generally viewed continuing the engagement as more critical, thus the crewman with the trigger is second fiddle.
That said, by the late Cold War you could say those rationales had merged, with the Red Army having eliminated the loader from its modern tanks and NATO gunners being the best suited to identifying threats (at range, at least) by dint of usually being the only person in the tank with access to thermals.
The loader being the second in command isn't strange, it's still British doctrine today. The reasoning is that his tasks don't require his attention to be solely occupied by his station, when the gun is loaded his attention is free for other things. And his position in the turret gives him oversight over the other crewmembers. Something the radioman/assistant driver (when available) doesn't have.
I think in British doctrine he's also in charge of the boiling vessel, which would give him a natural authority, the threat of lukewarm tea for a week should give pause to harshest of men.
The Soviet loaders may have to fall back on less inhumane ways of enforcing their authority, like pistols and whips.
I'm enjoying these Peter Sampsonov editions. Thank you again Bernhard, Really great.
Perfect addition to the videos of Jens Wehner, thank you 👍
Would be interesting to hear about organization of Soviet tank units. It appears heavy tank battalion had only 2 companies of 10 tanks while medium and light had 4 companies.
There were no heavy tank battalions, the regiment consisted of five companies of 4 tanks each, plus one tank with the HQ.
Super Video - wie immer 🤩
Two Officers per tank seems bonkers. We currently run one LT per Troop (same as a Platoon) with the other crew commanders being 1 x SGT and 2 x CPLs.
Note that the Tsarist, Soviet, and Russian military have never had a NCO corps as a consequence of extremely short-term conscriptions. Soviet and until recently Russian NCOs were as likely to earn their stripes by dint of seniority than any kind of training (or experience).
There’s around four lieutenant grades from the Soviet to Russian militaries, and because they’re (service trained) volunteers with minimum time in service requirements they’ve inherited the entire responsibility of a NCO cadre.
Those two officers per tank are in reality two E-4s and the only tank crew who had ever seen the inside of a tank, let alone operated one, before being assigned. They had to literally train each crew position on their own.
The Russian Federation only _started_ addressing this problem piecemeal in 2008 with the introduction of “contract” or post-conscription volunteers. However, the Russian military in general, and the Duma in particular, have been very resistant to creating a professional, volunteer based service because it’s expensive as shit. Moreover, contrary to the bleating jingoism of Western media, current and former senior Russian personnel and analysts have unanimously, and very openly, dismissed the idea of the Russian military engaging peer nations on land.
Russian conscripts today are the same as Soviet ones. Everything from communications to armored unit operations are top-heavy with trained “lieutenants” (or contracts) overseeing folks who have never seen a tank, let alone operated one.
Sorry this turned in to a TED Talk.
@@wafflepoet5437I bet they wished they had a professional NCO corps now.
@@black10872 No more so today than one would have expected them to want an NCO corps all the way back to the 19th century that every major power from the UK and US to the Ottomans relied on.
The entire idea behind contract volunteers starting back in 2008 met _fierce_ resistance from the Duma and the Russian MOD (as I noted above). Russian ground forces have been and presumably will always be conscript based; the fact that RMOD has made absolutely no changes since 2008, let alone 2014 or 2022, bears this out.
Good video. Thank you Bernhard and Peter.
Greetings from Hungary!
Regarding the Germans,I've read a few of their memoires and many of them mentioned that the driver has to be the smartest person and the quick thinker of the crew, to disengage the vehicle (and it's crew) from dangerous situations and somewhat plan ahead or read the situation the fastest. Because of this, many commanders during the war started their careers as drivers instead of gunners, radio operators or loaders. If memory serves me right even Otto Carius mentions this in Tigers in the Mud.
I read somewhere that Guards units had a better pay .
Yep, despite the stereotypes of Communism, the red armies of the world are far more into financial incentives for granular differences.
@12::02, I watched "White Tiger" and I agree
That was a stupid film, good tank scenes though.
Love the videos you do.could you do one on the history of the T10 tank?? It's one of my favorites. J😊😊😊😊
Were there height requirements for Soviet tanks? I have heard comments at other sites
Tanks were designed to accommodate an average person (170 cm tall), but I've never seen any prohibitions on significantly taller or shorter tankers.
Please do more tactics and unit videos
I'd be interested in the changes the StG brought to dedicated squads but he might have done everything he can about that already.
90 Day Wonder program in WW II usually produced Butter Bar Lts.
How did the IS-2 driver got inside without a driver's hatch?
The turret
The real question is how they got out.
3:00 considering how hard it was to get the T-34 out of first gear, maybe they would have benefitted from similar consideration.
You don't need a officer to operate a tank, a Staff Sgt or Sgt will do as a tank commander and even a experienced corporal will do. Company commanders is a different story, they need to know how to do paperwork. The question I have is were the Russians's big on doing cross training of the crews? In the US military cross training is when every crew member knows every other crew members job including the officer's job. It was a pushed hard when I was in the Army back in the 80's and it was a good policy.
✌️✌️
So many officers in a box together. Suppose they thought they'd be safer there.
Officer and map: I saw that happen once. Not funny.
Told Soviets used short men for tanks
Please make a video about the M4 sherman in soviet use.
Comrade John Candy was prophetic. They were the pink menace!
If you could read and understand technical documents they made you an officer. 😆
Before 40s, maybe. 40s were era new generation educated by new soviet system reach their adult age so there is no shortage of educated recuits
@@huntermad5668 Well that's the period under discussion.
Saying ‘Soviet’ and ‘indoctrination’ in the same sentence is redundant
Mr. McCarthy is that you?
why use words when we can make ideological assumptions!
Nope not at all. 🙄
@@alangordon3283 zomg you used sentences and emojis REDUNDANT REDUNDANT REDUNDANT hopefully it wasnt redundant how many times i said redundant, boy would that be embarrassing
@@Prediter5657 Ideological indoctrination in the Soviet Union was the normal and heavy. Betraying people that didn’t tow the ideological line line was a way of advancing one’s own career. It was one of the more disgusting things Soviet Union imposed on Eastern Europe. The venona decrypts showed the McCarthy was right about Soviet penetration of the state department
I love how this channel has total congestive disconnect doing actual history really well but anything from Ukraine is basically Propaganda.
> I love how this channel has total congestive disconnect doing actual history
> really well but anything from Ukraine is basically Propaganda.
well maybe, maybe it is my sources or maybe it is your sources, maybe something in between. In the end, time will tell. Part of the Ukraine videos is also to look back at them and see what my guests and me got wrong and what not.