Boris
Kavalerchik, tank expert and author of the Journal of Slavic Military Studies
article ‘Once
Again About the T-34’ has published a book on ‘The
Tanks of Operation Barbarossa’.
Summary:
When the Germans invaded the Soviet Union in 1941 the Red Army had four times as many tanks as the Wehrmacht and their tanks were seemingly superior, yet the Wehrmacht won the border battles with extraordinary ease the Red Armys tank force was pushed aside and for the most part annihilated. How was this victory achieved, and were the Soviet tanks really as well designed as is often believed? These are the basic questions Boris Kavalerchik answers in this absorbing study of the tanks and the tank tactics of the two armies that confronted each other at the start of the war on the Eastern Front. Drawing on technical and operational documents from Russian archives, many of which were classified until recently and are unknown to Western readers, he compares the strengths and weakness of the tanks and the different ways in which they were used by the opposing armies. His work will be essential reading for military historians who are interested in the development of armoured warfare and in this aspect of the struggle on the Eastern Front.
Q&A with Boris Kavalerchik
The author was kind enough to answer some of my questions.
1) How did
you become interested in WWII history and why did you decide to write a book on
Soviet vs. German tanks during the 1941 campaign?
I've been
reading and collecting books and magazines about all kinds of military hardware
since I was 12 years old. In college, I had to go through military training and
become a tank platoon's commander in reserve, so my knowledge of tanks became
much deeper and more practical than before. After a while I started to realize
that military hardware is nothing without the people who use it, and I began to
pay much more attention to military history.
The Great Patriotic War has always
had special importance for people of the USSR, where I used to live. Many of my
relatives, including my father, fought in that war, and some of them were KIA.
Naturally, I have heard and read a lot about these historic events and become
quite interested in them. Eventually, I co-authored a book about the Soviet
Union and Germany's preparations for WWII, as well as that war's beginning. Tank
warfare played a very important part in determining the outcome of these
battles, so I decided to dedicate a separate study to this subject. That is how
my book came to life.
2) What
new information have you uncovered that differentiates your book from other
similar studies?
In the
USSR, only officially approved historians had access to the state archives.
Moreover, their work had to go through government censorship and could only
support the official point of view on history, which very often was far from
reality. After the collapse of the Soviet Union all archives gradually became
open to regular people who were interested in events from the past.
More and more original archival materials began to be published and even became
available online. As a result, I managed to find a lot of information which was
classified until recently and had been generally unknown, especially to western
readers.
This information allowed me to reach quite different conclusions in
comparison to widely held beliefs about Red Army's tanks during WWII based on
old Soviet propaganda. As a mechanical engineer, I also analyzed and compared
Soviet and German tanks from a purely technical standpoint,
but from rarely used angles which as a rule got neglected. The results struck
me as very unusual and I hope they will be of interest to my book's readers.
3) Do you
think that WWII era armored vehicles truly played a decisive role in combat
operations or has their contribution been exaggerated due to the ‘coolness’
factor?
I think
that a very important role in WWII was played not by armored vehicles
themselves but by armored forces which included not only tanks but motorized
infantry, artillery, combat engineers, anti-tank and anti-aircraft units, and
so on. Moreover, as a rule, armored forces fought successfully only in
combination and cooperation with other services and
branches of the armed forces. Tanks do have the ‘coolness’ factor, so
many people mistakenly take
them for wonder-weapons, capable of independently deciding the outcome of any
battle. In reality, this is not the case. Nevertheless, tanks were a
very significant part of the armed forces of all participants of
WWII.
4) In your
opinion what are the worst mistakes that popular history books make regarding
German and Soviet armored vehicles and the Eastern Front in general?
In my opinion, some authors of popular history books mistakenly judge people of previous generations and their armored vehicles from today's point of view using modern criteria. Every tank, without exception, has both positive and negative aspects. In order to determine them it is necessary to know the purpose and objectives of these tanks, which were not the same in all countries or in all periods of time. So, before criticizing any tank from the past, one should determine why it was designed and built the way it was. After understanding all factors which influenced tank design in a particular time and country, we can judge these combat vehicles much more objectively.
I guess one of the weakness of Red Army was lacking good half-tracks supporting tank units. Tank without good infantry support were easily encircled and destroyd/damaged by AT-guns, mines, "bazookas", artillery ...
ReplyDeleteAn interesting question, imho, is what lessons , if any at all, the germans learned and applied after the French campaign.
ReplyDeleteBarbarossa was a crazy gamble with regard to tanks as what 2/3 or 3/4 of the panzers were obsolete. In other words mk3 and mk4 were few. This was a Russian roulette play.
There were a couple of actions where the 8th at solzy and the 7th at dorogobusch came completely unstuck. And these were important pointers.