Russian tanks towing 4 barreled AA guns?

Post by **aferguson** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 8:54 am

This topic reared its head again on missing-lynx after i saw a video on youtube of a russian t-34 towing something behind it. At the 2:19 mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4gsuj_9u6c

This was discussed before on missing-lynx after i read an article from a stuka pilot where he mentions russian tanks towing 4 barrelled AA guns near the end of the war. The quote is about half way down.

http://www.tarrif.net/wwii/interviews/h ... eumann.htm

It has been heavily poo pooed on missing-lynx as myth. But i dont' see why Neumann would make it up or be mistaken...it would be pretty easy to remember something like that and i don't think he would try to mislead.

To me this suggests it was done, at least in the sector where Neumann flew. I seem to remember Rudel mentioning in his book something about Russian tanks towing AA guns as well. Neumann and Rudel flew near each other.

Anyway, i think if true, it woud most likely be quad 50's on a 2 or 4 wheeled trailer. The russians got lots of them from the US and towing aa guns behind their tanks really seems like something the russians would do, to be honest.

Has anyone else read about this being done?

Also, which trailer would be better for towing quad 50's over uneven ground; a heavy 4 wheeled trailer or the smaller 2 wheeled trailer?

Might be a nifty use for the 21c quad trailer....hook it up behind a trumpeter t-34...

Threetoughtrucks · Post by **Threetoughtrucks** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 2:46 pm

We know, quad .50's were supplied Lend Lease to the Russians. They did use them on half-tracks and towed on trailers. Pics I have seen show the towed guns to be on two wheeled trailers. It would make more sense to use the 4 wheel trailers behind a tank because the 4 wheeled trailer would have room to carry ammo. The back of a tank is not the best place for a large supply of .50cal ammo if the 2 wheeled trailer is to be used.

The Russians also developed the 12.7mm machine guns, DShKM in two barrel and 4 barrel antiaircraft setups, but I can't locate any pics of whether the 12.7 quads were used on trailers. There are plenty of pics of twin mounted trailers, and single mounted on tank turret, but that's getting OT.

I think using the 21C quad trailer behind a T-34 would not be out of line.

TTT

Post by **aferguson** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 4:27 pm

well the dudes at missing-lynx are pretty certain that it never happened. Faulty memory of the pilot, lack of pictures of the guns behind the tanks etc. They are almost passionate about it for some reason.

I can't believe that the german pilot's memory is that faulty. That's a pretty significant detail, especially when they are shooting at you with it. So, it may be a case of just being done on one localized sector of the front where a commander happened to have access to some quad 50 trailers and thought it was a good idea.

Threetoughtrucks · Post by **Threetoughtrucks** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 4:59 pm

I looked at that T-34 video again. That trailer sure to me looks like some kind of AAA.

Especially with the T-34, it sure makes sense since with the turret hatch, they had no AA machine gun. The Stalin and others did have the AA MG on top of the turret.

I'll keep looking.

TTT

KAMIKAZE · Post by **KAMIKAZE** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:32 am

I think that T-34 is towing a 45mm anti-tank gun. The terrain looks too rough for rapid movement of trucks and I believe the move was a necessary one do to the lack of more appropriate transport. None of the other tanks are pulling them and out of about 30 books on T-34 that I own ( a lot of them in Russian), not one shows a T-34 towing an anti-aircraft gun. I'm not saying it wasn't done but it had to be a rarity.

Mark

Post by **aferguson** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:54 am

by anti aircraft gun i mean something like a quad 50 trailer, or russian maxim machine guns. Not larger guns.

The lack of photos makes me think it is a myth but gosh, it really seems like something the russians would have improvised, due to their lack of dedicated AA vehicles....in the same way they improvised by carrying infantry on tanks, due to a lack of trucks.

STUKA · Post by **STUKA** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:13 am

im sure they were used - i remember reading about them - probably the same interview you read

Post by **aferguson** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:43 am

well i'm being bombarded by all sides on missing-lynx. Not one person agrees with me. All are saying it was tactically impractical and that the pilot who was interviewed was mistaken, wrong or lying. They point out small detail errors in what he says in the interview as proof that what he says can't be trusted.

The most damning evidence is the complete lack of photos. If it were common practice you'd think there would be at least one picture of it somewhere..but nothing. But i find it hard to believe the german pilot is making this up or could be that mistaken..

Threetoughtrucks · Post by **Threetoughtrucks** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 12:49 pm

How about this....... the guys hammering you refer to the incorrect statement that "added armor plate was added" as false. They mention Stalin tanks. OK, I'd buy that, but the German interview didn't mention just Stalin tanks. The T-34 did have added armor plate. Plenty of pics of that. Near the end of the war, ALL Ruskie tanks also added various devices, even bed-springs, to deflect anti-tank infantry weapons.

With the usual practice of loading up a tank with infantry riders, it would be easy to weld on a tow attachment onto a T-34 to pull around a triple A gun, with the riders becoming the AAA crew.

Maybe we haven't seen pics of the 4 barrel guns being towed behind T-34's is because in a big tank battle in open country, is because the AAA gun was detached before the tank battles.

I'm going into my garage library to see if I can prove it.. I don't give up of the idea....

TTT

Post by **aferguson** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:58 pm

well, i lost the argument...and, and....they made me cry.

Post by **aferguson** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 5:00 pm

new hope. Someone posted ready in a book on hs-129's that several pilot accounts stated that russian tanks were towing their own aaa in 1944.

No idea what the guns were but that certainly is interesting news.

Ta-152 · Post by **Ta-152** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 7:41 pm

Unless those screws were hitching rides on T-34s on every sector of the Ostfront during the final months of the war then then all they can do is speculate that it didn't happen.

Was it most likely an uncommon practice? Most likely yes. Could the pilot have a faulty recollection? Entirely possible (one should not dismiss a recollection out-right, but vet's memories DO get hazy).

Post by **aferguson** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:19 pm

well even though there are a bunch of luftwaffe pilot reports now, all reporting russian armour towing aa guns in late 44 early 45, these guys on missing lynx STILL say it didn't happen. They blame it all on faulty memories. As my evidence i have pilot reports, as their evidence they have, well, their opinions...heheh.

They won't even admit it was possible.....not probable but just possible. But nope, they do not relent.

Threetoughtrucks · Post by **Threetoughtrucks** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:34 pm

May I say, that because a few guys on a site, any site, say something, that doesn't mean what they say is carved in stone.

One of the missing-lynx guys seems to be saying Aferg was all wet because the T-34 didn't have a tow hook, so then it was totally silly to suggest towing anything.
So how about this:

This T-34 in the battle of Kursk is towing a T-34 after it's turret was blown off, and the T-34 is using a tow bar, not chains. The front T-34 had to have a tow hitch added.

It's only one step past that to picture a T-34 towing anything, including it's own AAA protection.

TTT

GooglyDoogly · Post by **GooglyDoogly** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 2:32 am

So what does the Soviet archives say about this topic? What do numerous Soviet tank crew veterans say about the plausibility that they have towed their own AA guns?

If this really happened, I'm sure we have read about it, or heard about it from a Soviet veteran. They're quite proud of their T-34s. I would bet a shiny penny that there will be tales of brave Soviet tank crews shooting down (or at least, tried to) an evil facist aircraft with their towed AA guns.

I don't know why a German pilots' accounts should have more merit. Like most people said in that thread, veterans account DO get hazy over time. Maybe he's lying or exaggerating to make a particular war story more detailed and exciting, or maybe not. In the heat of battle, flying an aircraft at 200-300 MPH, at various angles of attack, while keeping your eyes peeled for dangers on all sides, and also for targets of opportunity...do you mean to say that these German pilots cannot be wrong?

If there was a corroborating story in the Soviet side about them towing AA guns with their tanks, i'd more inclined to believe it as highly plausible, even if there are no pictures of it.

But since there's no mention of this practice anywhere...I'm inclined to believe that those German pilots were simply mistaken.

How could there be possible numerous German accounts of this "towed" AA guns? Here's an example of how it could happen.

Let say a HS-219 pilot attacked a Soviet tank column. He managed to destroy some soviet tanks, but was also met with AA fire. As he was banking out of his final run, he managed to glimpse out of the corner of his eys, for a split second, what seemed to me a four-barreled AA gun firing from behind a tank.

So when he made his after-action report, he reported this possibly new Soviet AA weapon and tactic. Now, it's bound to circulate among German pilots about this new possible threat.

Now when others went in their missions, they might have subconciously be looking out for this new possible danger. And in the heat of the battle, their minds can project the image of a towed 4-barreled AA gun firing at them. Plus the frenzy of battle, the smoke, the sheer rush of combat could also contribute to these "sightings".

Multiple eyewitness testimony isn't really that strong of a proof. Heck, if the justice system sometimes can't even rely on multiple eyewitness account, what does that say to an account 60 years ago? With no proof whatsoever? Just the sheer absence of it in the Soviet side should tell you alot.

And oh. Apparently, no M17 quad trailer were shipped to the USSR, according to US lend-lease records. So that part of the myth is a bust.

Post by **aferguson** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:33 am

well, the Hs 129 pilot's reports were made right after the sortie, not years later, so hazy memories would not be an issue.

Hs-129's would be attacking at fairly low level, not from 10,000 feet. I've been up in planes lots of times at 3000 feet or lower (the height these attacks would be coming from) and you can see things on the ground quite clearly from that height. I could easily see a car towing a uhaul or other small trailer and be able to distinguish it. So the pilots who made these reports would have to all be lying, because there is no way they could mistake it.....it would be very distinct and obvious.

So, unless this is some kind of conspiracy among Hs 129 pilots, i'm inclined to at least acknowledge the possibility that this was done, despite the lack of photographic evidence, at the moment.

As to why there are no photos and tank crew accounts? It was done very late in the war and may have only been done for one campaign or push, or in one sector of the front and was then discontinued because it was impractical or unnecessary with reduced luftwaffe activity. Anyway, that's one possibility.

But the absolute closed mindedness i am encountering has me both baffled and frustrated. While there is only eyewitness evidence that it was done, there is absolutely NO evidence that it wasn't done...just people saying 'nope'; so the fact it was POSSIBLY done has to be acknowledged by any open minded person.

Threetoughtrucks · Post by **Threetoughtrucks** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:40 am

And I didn't say the M-17 trailer and quad setup WAS used, I said that the use of a four wheel trailer would be better than the two wheel trailer quad mount, of which, BTW, there are pics of Ruskies using.

I'm not giving up.

TTT

Post by **aferguson** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:51 am

well it seems that the m51, which is the four wheeled trailer variant of the quad 50 was NOT sent to Russia, so that is no longer a possibility. I don't know if the M55 2 wheel trailer variant was sent or not.

I don't even know if the russian tanks were towing quad 50's....that was just a guess on my part...because the account was '4 barreled aa guns'. Maybe they were towing captured flakvierlings or maybe quad maxim mounts. Or something else altogether..

pickelhaube · Post by **pickelhaube** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:02 am

I want to weigh in on this.

Closed minded is just that.

I have NEVER BEEN IN THE MILITARY.

But I know as a fact if a weapon is available someone will use it.

If it is used and the guy says" that is a piece of crap "

The next guy will use it just to make sure . Then he will say " yep that is a piece of crap "

Then a third guys would say "let me try you guys are stupid ".

Then he will use it and say " yes sirey that is a piece of crap "

Then somehow that weapen will vanish into thin air.

Then one of the guys will say "I don't know what happend to it , you had it last. It was a piece of crap anyway ".

It has been like this since the cave man picked up a stick.

Sometimes that weapon is not a piece of crap

Oh

BTW

Just because the quads were not shipped does not meen that did not end up in the hands of the Russians.

Were the qquads not issued to the Brits ?

Look at the M-3 Stuart. This is an American tank made by the Americans given to the British.

Toward the end of the war they ended up in Yugoslavian hans. The Yugo were allies of the Germans. When they turncoated they used those Stuarts with German pak guns and anti aircraft cannons against there old allied buddies.

So quad 50's in the hands of Rusies. It could have happend.

Grilledcheese · Post by **Grilledcheese** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:07 am

An old axiom I have often seen and heard repeated on many military history-related sites and forums is that in a war as big as WWII you can be pretty sure that somewhere at some time darned near any combination of equipment/weapons usage could have occurred within any of the armed forces involved. Captured weapons/equipment/supplies were often pressed into service on all sides, but especially with the Russians, as desperate as much of their fighting was. I would not expect record keeping to have been very high on the list of things to worry about in the Russian field armies of the time either.
Quad fifties weren't lend-leased to the Ruskies? Good to know, but there were lots of them in Europe during the war, and lots of other ways for the Russians to get hold of them.
Of course, I have no documentation, but for those yahoos on that other site to flat-out discount ANYTHING of this nature shows close-minded ignorance of the highest level.
I hope you find good pictorial evidence somewhere, Aferg. Those guys desperately need a good comeuppance.

Jeffrey

Post by **aferguson** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:35 am

quad 50's were shipped to russia on halftracks...it's just no trailer mounted quad 50's were sent. It's hard to believe that the russians would take them off halftracks and mount them on some make shift trailer.

But really, quad 50's arent the issue. The issue is: did some russian tanks tow AA artillery behind them, towards the end of the war, as claimed by several luftwaffe pilots.

I was specualting on quad 50's, simply because one account said '4 barrelled aa guns' and that seemed to me the most likely. Maybe they were captured flakvierlings, or something else altogether.

But to say NOPE, didn't happen, in the face of pilot after action reports is crazy.

GooglyDoogly · Post by **GooglyDoogly** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 11:12 am

aferguson wrote:well, the Hs 129 pilot's reports were made right after the sortie, not years later, so hazy memories would not be an issue.

But even then, eyewitness account can still be fairly inaccurate. That is why police and lawyers are leery about relying on eyewitness account alone to prove their case. Because its been proven time after time that even with the best intentions, witnesses can get a LOT of things wrong, and miss a lot of simple, yer crucial details.

Hs-129's would be attacking at fairly low level, not from 10,000 feet. I've been up in planes lots of times at 3000 feet or lower (the height these attacks would be coming from) and you can see things on the ground quite clearly from that height.

A counter argument to that is the fact that identifying certain things are even WORSE at low level. Everything will be zipping by so fast, it would be harder to see things more clearly. Add the fact that doing low-level attacks are some of the most harrowing things that combat pilots could do. So I doubt their minds were into correctly identifying individual pieces of AA guns trying to shoot them down.

So, unless this is some kind of conspiracy among Hs 129 pilots, i'm inclined to at least acknowledge the possibility that this was done, despite the lack of photographic evidence, at the moment.

I don't think its really of a conspiracy. It could have been simply the case of, "I didn't exactly ssee what was peppering my aircraft, but my wingman thought he saw a 4-barreled AA gun, so I'll go ahead and include that in the report", kind of deal.

As to why there are no photos and tank crew accounts? It was done very late in the war and may have only been done for one campaign or push, or in one sector of the front and was then discontinued because it was impractical or unnecessary with reduced luftwaffe activity. Anyway, that's one possibility.

But in that German pilot's account, he said that a lot "most" Soviet tanks were lugging their own four-barreled AA guns around during that time.

So it couldn't have been such a rare occurrence, if you're to fully believe his story.

But the absolute closed mindedness i am encountering has me both baffled and frustrated. While there is only eyewitness evidence that it was done, there is absolutely NO evidence that it wasn't done...just people saying 'nope'; so the fact it was POSSIBLY done has to be acknowledged by any open minded person.

I don't think it's really about close-mindness, but we're in an era now in which we are enjoying a WEALTH of information previously unknown to us. So a lot more people demand proof if something is out of the norm. Not because they don't want to believe it, but because they want to know if it would be really historically correct.

Heck, check their discussions about Villers Bocage. The amount of details they go through, even with aerial photos of the aftermath of the battle, is amazing!

So to them, "What ifs" and "Well, it could be true" arguments doesn't hold water anymore.

Because you gotta admit, some pilots' accounts couldn't even be called "circumstantial evidence".

Threetoughtrucks · Post by **Threetoughtrucks** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 11:50 am

Guys, we're getting a little off the track. There is NO question about quad .50's being supplied to Russia.

Quad .50's were supplied to Russia.

http://www.o5m6.de/m17.html

The only question is whether quad .50's were towed on two wheeled trailers behind tanks.

Now, I will dig around and find Russian pics of quad .50's on trailers. Which, BTW, I have seen in the past while researching some Ruskie WSC's.

TTT

GooglyDoogly · Post by **GooglyDoogly** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 11:52 am

And IMHO, it's fine to do a "what if" scenario. It's fine to do a "what if" vehicle.

Without going into a religious debate here, the arguments I've read here seems similar to the arguments about the existence of God.

Man 1: God exist!
Man 2: Well, you can't prove that God doesn't exist either!!

See what I mean? It's not really a sound debate if you're relying on "Well it could happen" reasoning. That's not scientific. That's not a good historical debate.

Heck I could paint my Pershing with a red star and say that's its a Lend-Lease Soviet tank.

It could have happened! There are plenty of ways the Soviets could have gotten a hold of one.

See how silly that sounds?

All I'm saying is, when talking about the historical veracity of a subject, please be prepared to offer some proof, and don't just accuse people of being close-mindness and some people here cannot seem to help themselves and hurl insults at people they don't even know.

Because really, those ML guys may not agree with you, but at least they've given some good counter arguments why your theory might not be correct.

Because believe it or not, those guys would honestly LOVE it if Soviet tanks really did towed AA guns. Because they are hardcore modelers, and major history buffs. Heck, even Mr. Zaloga was in that thread!

Plus modeling Soviet armor can get boring sometimes.

Post by **aferguson** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:27 pm

TTT: yes i know the quad 50's were sent to russia on halftracks. None were apparently sent of 4 wheeled trailers, so the only issue as u said is whether they were sent on 2 wheeled trailers or not....and if so, would it be of any use behind a tank or would it flip over in 5 seconds on uneven ground and where would you put the ammo.

But as i said above, at this point the gun type is of secondary importance.

The main issue is: did some soviet tanks tow their own AA gun (of some type) late in WWII?

For some strange reason this topic is evoking the same sort of passion from GooglyDoogly that it did from a few of the guys on missing-lynx. Not sure why. I have never said it happened. I have never said it probably happened. All i have ever said is that, with eye witness accounts, it possibly could have happened. Hardly the same as the religious argument analogy.

Because there were several eye witness accounts by luftwaffe pilots of soviet armour towing AA guns, which is something that would be unmistakable and obvious, if it were true, i tend to think there is something to this. That's all. Nobody will ever know for sure, either way unless photos or soviet documentation are found.

If people choose not to believe it until there is a clear photo...fine.

I understand that eyewitness accounts cannot always be trusted. But we're not debating whether the tanks had white aerial recognition stripes painted on them or not, were painted brown not green or some other small detail that could easily be forgotten or noticed incorrectly by an eye witness. A tank towing an AA unit would be pretty obvious and conspicuous and unmistakable. I could even see Neumann getting the number of barrels wrong and it was not 4 barrelled. Maybe 3 or a twin. That is the kind of detail an eye witness can goof on. But to all of a sudden have reports of soviet armour towing AA guns, when they had never done that before, that is something that should make anyone sit up and take notice and think that it POSSIBLY could be true.