Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Crew Roles in the T-34/85

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Crew Roles in the T-34/85

    I've reference to a Sergeant in a tank brigade in June, 1944, that was outfitted with T-34/85s. His position is given as "loader" and "gun-commander" (two different documents). This got me thinking, what exactly was his role in the tank? Just loading, or aiming and firing as well?

    My understanding is there were 5 in the crew: Commander, Loader, Driver and two others. What were the roles of the other two?

    It is interesting; the citation lists as one of the reasons for getting the award is his leaving the tank, reconnoitering the locations of German weapon emplacements and capturing four Germans! So apparently the loader had other things to do besides just load the main gun.
    Dives sum, si non reddo eis quibus debeo.
    I am a rich man as long as I don't pay my creditors.
    Titus Maccius Plautus (c. 254-184 BCE), "Curculio"

  • #2
    T-34-85 crew:
    Tank driver
    Radio-operator-gunner

    Tank commander
    Loader
    Gunlayer

    regards
    Alex
    If you fire a rifle at the past, the future will fire a cannon at you.....

    Comment


    • #3
      The T34/76 had a loader and gunner commander in the turret and the hull driver and radio operator.

      When the T34/85 model 1943 Zis S 53 gun was developed they had the same crew layout that is gunner/commander and loader, on this model the cupola was directly over the gunner. By this time the standard German British US model of tank turret crew disposition enlightened Soviet design and the model 1943 was reconfigured by setting the cupola further back allowing a third turret crew member to take over the command function at the same time the radio was moved into the turret to be acessable to the commander.

      This might be controverial to some but the photographic evidence supports this. In the famous series of photos by SOVFOTO of the 1st Guards Battalion "Dmitri Donskoi" the majority of the T34/85 tanks have four man crews, two have five man crews -which are probably the batalion command tanks-which would have been quite difficult to operate efficently.

      Steve

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by suvorov View Post
        "When the T34/85 model 1943 Zis S 53 gun was developed they had the same crew layout that is gunner/commander and loader, on this model the cupola was directly over the gunner. By this time the standard German British US model of tank turret crew disposition enlightened Soviet design and the model 1943 was reconfigured by setting the cupola further back allowing a third turret crew member to take over the command function at the same time the radio was moved into the turret to be acessable to the commander."
        There appears to be a bit of confusion here.

        The decision to fit a 3-man turret to the T-34-85 seems to have been taken quite early in development, both before the rearward movement of the cupola that you have mentioned and before series production commenced. Also, the early production version of T-34-85 (sometimes referred to as the 'Model 1943') was not fitted with the new ZiS S-53 but with the D-5T, adapted from the D-5S (already in production for the SU-85). This was due to problems encountered trying to fit the new S-53 into the 3-man turret, delaying the installation of this weapon in production. The S-53 was finally ready to be installed in production vehicles and starting from end March/beginning April 1944 it began to replace the D-5T. In total, about 800 T-34-85 had been produced with the D-5T by the time the S-53 had become standard.

        Further turret design changes were approximately concurrent with the beginning of adoption of the new S-53 in production. The older TSh-15 telescope was replaced with the new and longer TSh-16 articulated telescopic sight which, in combination with other changes - some of which were associated with the gun mount - forced a redesign of the interior of the turret, pushing both the gunner's and commander's stations (Zaloga, T-34-85 Medium Tank 1944-1994) further towards the rear. This resulted in the cupola being moved about 41cm (16 inches) rearwards. It was also around this time (the shift in production to the S-53 and associated turret changes) that the radio was moved up into the turret.


        Originally posted by suvorov View Post
        "This might be controverial to some but the photographic evidence supports this. In the famous series of photos by SOVFOTO of the 1st Guards Battalion "Dmitri Donskoi" the majority of the T34/85 tanks have four man crews, two have five man crews -which are probably the batalion command tanks-which would have been quite difficult to operate efficently."
        Based on my references, your assumption would seem to be incorrect as the photos in question do not appear to support any such thing. To quote verbatim from Zaloga:

        "On the initial production batch of the T-34-85 with the D-5T gun, the machine gunner (in the hull) operated the radio. In March 1944, the radio was shifted up into the redesigned turret. During much of 1944, there were severe shortages of trained tank crews. The situation grew so desperate that women who worked in the Urals tank plants were enlisted as tank drivers to make up for the shortages.
        In addition, it took some time before the tables of organization were changed to accommodate the fifth crewman needed on the T-34-85. As a result, many tank units only had four crewmen for their T-34-85s, and sometimes only three. Generally, the hull MG position was the first position left vacant in the event of crew shortages if a full complement was not available
        ."


        However, while I would rate Zaloga an excellent author who usually does thorough research, no author is perfect and if you have better, perhaps fresher, information from a reliable source I would be pleased to consider it.



        Pages 5-7, 18-19, 'T-34-85 Medium Tank 1944-1994', Steven Zaloga, Jim Kinnear & Peter Sarson, Osprey
        Last edited by panther3485; 02 Feb 09, 07:49.
        "England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by panther3485
          There appears to be a bit of confusion here.

          The decision to fit a 3-man turret to the T-34-85 seems to have been taken quite early in development, both before the rearward movement of the cupola that you have mentioned and before series production commenced. Also, the early production version of T-34-85 (sometimes referred to as the 'Model 1943') was not fitted with the new ZiS S-53 but with the D-5T, adapted from the D-5S (already in production for the SU-85). This was due to problems encountered trying to fit the new S-53 into the 3-man turret, delaying the installation of this weapon in production. The S-53 was finally ready to be installed in production vehicles and starting from end March/beginning April 1944 it began to replace the D-5T. In total, about 800 T-34-85 had been produced with the D-5T by the time the S-53 had become standard.
          D-5T was more complicated than ZIS-S-53. THat was the main reason why it was replaced by it. Plant No.13 even couldn't apply its production.
          255 T-34-85 tanks with D-5T gun (including 5 with radio transmitters) were produced

          Regards
          Alex
          If you fire a rifle at the past, the future will fire a cannon at you.....

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by amvas View Post
            D-5T was more complicated than ZIS-S-53. THat was the main reason why it was replaced by it. Plant No.13 even couldn't apply its production.
            255 T-34-85 tanks with D-5T gun (including 5 with radio transmitters) were produced

            Regards
            Alex
            Thanks for that, Alex.

            I think the main point being made in Zaloga's book was that the ZiS-S-53 would have been fitted from the beginning but this was delayed due mainly to problems making it work in the new turret, so the D5-T had to be fitted to begin with.

            As for the number produced with D-5T, I'm happy to accept the figure of 255 you have given. I wonder if Steve Zaloga knows yet? (Not too sure how he arrived at the figure of 800 provided in his book.)
            Last edited by panther3485; 02 Feb 09, 15:15.
            "England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

            Comment


            • #7
              Ok firstly you are correct I got the wrong weapon I am aware that the D-5-T was the first version of the 85mm gun fitted to the T34. I made a mistake when cutting down the original post –fault entirely mine.

              Back to the post, back in the 1990s, there was some discussion in the tank enthusiast press with regard to this subject, I personally thought there was something strange about the early Model T34/85 D 5 T. Rather than go through my reasons for my belief in two man turrets in the early T34/85 point by point I will give you my back up as it will expedite the story. This is an extract from Russian Battlefiled ru. that gives a technical development of what I said in my post

              Quoted from T34/85 development Russian Battlefield

              The tanks, armed with the D-5T gun, were noticeably different from vehicles produced later, both in external appearance and in internal construction. It had a two-man turret and a four-man crew overall. The commander's cupola, with a two-leafed folding hatch and revolving on a ball-bearing support, had been moved sharply forward [in relation to the T43 turret steve’s addition]. An MK-4 observation periscope, permitting an all-around field of view, was mounted on the turret roof. The gun and coaxial machine-gun were fired using the TSh-15 telescopic elbow sight and the PTK-5 panoramic telescope. Both sides of the turret had an observation slit covered with triplex glass. The radio was located in the hull with its antenna lead on the right side, exactly the same as on the T-34. The ammunition load consisted of 56 shells and 1,953 machine-gun rounds. The power plant, transmission, and chassis underwent practically no changes. These tanks differed among themselves dependent on when they were produced. For example, early-production vehicles had one turret ventilator, while most of those produced later had two.


              With regard to the figure quoted by amvas regarding how many built

              It should be noted that the model examined above did not, apparently, figure into statistical accounting as a T-34-85. In any case, at the present time, there exist significant discrepancies in the literature regarding estimates of the quantity of vehicles produced. The basic figure varies in a range of 500-700 tanks. In actual fact, the number was significantly lower. This can be shown by the fact that in 1943, 283 D-5T guns were produced, 260 in 1944, 543 in all. Of this number, 107 guns were used in JS-1 tanks, a 130 (not more than 100 according to other sources) were used in KV-85 tanks, and a few more were used in vehicle prototypes. Therefore, the number of T-34 tanks produced with the D-5T gun is close to 300 vehicles.

              I was quite delighted when I found this on RB site back in 2001, there is nothing having your prejudice confirmed. I did correspond briefly with the Battlefield at that time and found the respondent helpful and well informed –I have a particular interest in Lend Lease and rather than B.S. they were happy to admit the limit of their knowledge, which is rare. It is one of the better Russian Sites if only because of their English translations which is so good for lazy people like me. Unfortunately I don’t think this site will ever recover from its major crash.

              Having said that there is nothing like having your prejudice confirmed – I will only be 100% sure if and when a hard example is discovered- I would have thought a Kubinka example would sort this out but perhaps it is sensitive, was it Grabin that was censured for his part in the development?

              With regard to Steve Zaloga books in particular the Osprey series I tend to take them at picture value only. I’m afraid Mr Zaloga can’t identify an M4A3 from an M4A2, which are his own nations vehicles.

              Sorry now you may understand why I cut down my first post!

              Steve
              Last edited by suvorov; 03 Feb 09, 12:52.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by suvorov View Post
                Ok firstly you are correct I got the wrong weapon I am aware that the D-5-T was the first version of the 85mm gun fitted to the T34. I made a mistake when cutting down the original post –fault entirely mine.

                Back to the post, back in the 1990s, there was some discussion in the tank enthusiast press with regard to this subject, I personally thought there was something strange about the early Model T34/85 D 5 T. Rather than go through my reasons for my belief in two man turrets in the early T34/85 point by point I will give you my back up as it will expedite the story. This is an extract from Russian Battlefiled ru. that gives a technical development of what I said in my post

                Quoted from T34/85 development Russian Battlefield

                The tanks, armed with the D-5T gun, were noticeably different from vehicles produced later, both in external appearance and in internal construction. It had a two-man turret and a four-man crew overall. The commander's cupola, with a two-leafed folding hatch and revolving on a ball-bearing support, had been moved sharply forward [in relation to the T43 turret steve’s addition]. An MK-4 observation periscope, permitting an all-around field of view, was mounted on the turret roof. The gun and coaxial machine-gun were fired using the TSh-15 telescopic elbow sight and the PTK-5 panoramic telescope. Both sides of the turret had an observation slit covered with triplex glass. The radio was located in the hull with its antenna lead on the right side, exactly the same as on the T-34. The ammunition load consisted of 56 shells and 1,953 machine-gun rounds. The power plant, transmission, and chassis underwent practically no changes. These tanks differed among themselves dependent on when they were produced. For example, early-production vehicles had one turret ventilator, while most of those produced later had two.


                With regard to the figure quoted by amvas regarding how many built

                It should be noted that the model examined above did not, apparently, figure into statistical accounting as a T-34-85. In any case, at the present time, there exist significant discrepancies in the literature regarding estimates of the quantity of vehicles produced. The basic figure varies in a range of 500-700 tanks. In actual fact, the number was significantly lower. This can be shown by the fact that in 1943, 283 D-5T guns were produced, 260 in 1944, 543 in all. Of this number, 107 guns were used in JS-1 tanks, a 130 (not more than 100 according to other sources) were used in KV-85 tanks, and a few more were used in vehicle prototypes. Therefore, the number of T-34 tanks produced with the D-5T gun is close to 300 vehicles.

                I was quite delighted when I found this on RB site back in 2001, there is nothing having your prejudice confirmed. I did correspond briefly with the Battlefield at that time and found the respondent helpful and well informed –I have a particular interest in Lend Lease and rather than B.S. they were happy to admit the limit of their knowledge, which is rare. It is one of the better Russian Sites if only because of their English translations which is so good for lazy people like me. Unfortunately I don’t think this site will ever recover from its major crash.

                Having said that there is nothing like having your prejudice confirmed – I will only be 100% sure if and when a hard example is discovered- I would have thought a Kubinka example would sort this out but perhaps it is sensitive, was it Grabin that was censured for his part in the development?

                With regard to Steve Zaloga books in particular the Osprey series I tend to take them at picture value only. I’m afraid Mr Zaloga can’t identify an M4A3 from an M4A2, which are his own nations vehicles.

                Sorry now you may understand why I cut down my first post!

                Steve
                If your information comes from credible Russian sources, then I must say that I am now rather inclined to swing my opinion in your direction. I have just begun to believe that the very early production T-34-85 turret may very well indeed have been set up for two men. In fact, you had me on board, enjoying your post and with gradually growing respect for you, right up until your final comment about Steve Zaloga, at which point my respect turned 'due South'.

                Yes, I agree that the Osprey volumes are variable in quality and limited in scope; of necessity, given their very compact size and relatively inexpensive cost. I do see most of them as fair basic primers on the subjects they cover; a starting point, if you like. However, I still have considerable respect for Mr Zaloga who remains, in my opinion, one of the best Western authors over the last couple of decades or so when it comes to WW2 Soviet armour. Yes, on one hand I have found a few questionable things in some of his books and on the other, have noted how he has progressed from his earlier works to some of his more recent stuff. No, he ain't perfect but IMO he is both ardent and genuine, and has evidently been quite painstaking in his research, within the limits of the information he has found available. As regards US armour, I find it most difficult to believe that he would truly be ignorant of the difference between an M4A2 and an M4A3 and I consider that specific comment rather 'below-the-belt'. If something you saw in one of his books indicated that he was, I would be strongly inclined to believe that there must be some other explanation. Many errors I have seen in books would not necessarily be attributable to the author himself/herself and even when they are, they can sometimes be an honest 'brain fart' rather than a shortcoming in research or knowledge.

                Sorry, I didn't mean to turn this into a discussion on the perceived merits vs shortcomings of Steve Zaloga but I think you could have made your case perfectly well without that last comment.

                As for the number of T-34-85 fitted with the D-5T, I was already quite prepared to believe the figure put forward by Alex (255), which is in the ballpark of what you have just indicated.
                Last edited by panther3485; 04 Feb 09, 09:36.
                "England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Panther3485

                  Last part first: I quoted the section with regard to the number of D 5 T fitted to T34 to agree with Amvas I was not trying to challenge him.

                  As to the other point I can back up my comment on what I said, vis Mr Zagolas books, if you want we can go to P.M.s to do it.

                  Other than that once an author publishes then critism short of liablous statements (which I have not made) is fair. For what of a better word it is academic rigor.

                  S

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I really like Steve Z. books and have a few of them but it's true to say he did a mistake upon M4A2/A3 in one of the first Concord books "Tank battles of the Pacific war".
                    It was the legend about US Marines using only diesel powered tanks (aka M4A2) upon Okinawa when they used M4A3.
                    This mistake has been corrected by himself now.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Bruno View Post
                      I really like Steve Z. books and have a few of them but it's true to say he did a mistake upon M4A2/A3 in one of the first Concord books "Tank battles of the Pacific war".
                      It was the legend about US Marines using only diesel powered tanks (aka M4A2) upon Okinawa when they used M4A3.
                      This mistake has been corrected by himself now.
                      Fair enough, and a responsible author will acknowledge and correct his mistakes. But would this mean that he didn't know the essential difference between an M4A2 and an M4A3? I very seriously doubt it.
                      Last edited by panther3485; 05 Feb 09, 07:45.
                      "England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by suvorov View Post
                        "As to the other point I can back up my comment on what I said, vis Mr Zagolas books, if you want we can go to P.M.s to do it."
                        Your general position regarding Steven Zaloga's books is not an issue to me; your opinion and you are entitled to it, just as I am entitled to mine. We obviously differ in our assessment of this author and I doubt that difference is likely to be reconciled, by PM or otherwise.


                        Originally posted by suvorov View Post
                        "Other than that once an author publishes then critism short of liablous statements (which I have not made) is fair. For what of a better word it is academic rigor."
                        This "academic rigor" may well be widely accepted but it does not address the point I was trying to make regarding your final statement:
                        Originally posted by suvorov View Post
                        " ... I’m afraid Mr Zaloga can’t identify an M4A3 from an M4A2, which are his own nations vehicles."
                        An error regarding US Marine tanks in the PTO, which he may have made as far back as 1983 in an Osprey volume entitled 'Armour of the Pacific War', he then seems to have repeated in the 1995 Concord publication, 'Tank Battles of the Pacific War 1941-1945'. I see this as evidence of a perpetuated misconception regarding the Marine's use of diesel engined Shermans (as opposed to petrol engined versions; the use of diesels not being as long lasting and/or widespread as was once held to be the case in some sources. Apparently, Mr. Zaloga has subsequently corrected himself on this.) To be sure, an unfortunate misconception and one that went on for quite a few years before it was discovered and corrected, but I do not see it as evidence that Mr Zaloga was unaware of the essential difference between the M4A2 and M4A3. That just does not seem probable to me, and to portray it as such was, IMO, not fair and almost certainly not accurate.
                        Last edited by panther3485; 05 Feb 09, 07:43.
                        "England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          And indentifying an M4A2 from an A3 from a side view when the hull is covered with wooden planks and sand bags is not an easy task !
                          The only "tell tale" (correct ?) is a small steel square welded on the engine deck to hold the engine louvers when opened.
                          Really hard to see on the famous pics of M4 on Iwo...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Brono,
                            In reply to your post as 3475 doesn’t want me turning the thread into a discussion about the relative merits of Mr Zagolas books, I tried to send you this post by P.M. but Hmtl is off so pictures cannot be sent. I am restricting this to the Sherman thing only I am not even going to bother about any other subject covered over the years.

                            20years ago Steve Zagola wrote US Marine Tanks in World War Two here are three photos

                            Photo1
                            Comet 38.jpg

                            From page 50. The text is ….Here “COMET 38”, an M4A2 of Company C 4th Tank Battalion prepares for action on the Shores of Iwo Jima February 1945.

                            The large triangular object behind the turret is the motor radiator protection plate a standard feature of M4A3.visible when the engine deck is open. The tank is probably a POA CWS H1 flamethrower hence the “oil tanks” and CO² gas bottles along with M.G. ammunition boxes.

                            Photo2
                            CO-ED.jpg

                            To compound the error on Page 51 COED 40 (above) is shown in the famous photo as it sprays flame fuel. The text includes the line “By the time of Iwo Jima fighting, light tanks had been completely removed from Marine tank battalions to be replaced with Flame Tanks based on the M4A3, the latter were fitted with POA-CWS-H1 flamethrowers like COED of Company C 4th Tank Battalion…..

                            The tank CO-ED photo marked as a M4A3 was featured in R.P. Hunnicutts excellent book Sherman which was published in 1978, the standard work on the Sherman.

                            photo3
                            img032.jpg

                            From page 59 here again accredited as an M4A2, hard to tell isn’t? all the plank work sand bags as you said in your post difficult? –no it is not, look at the deck behind the turret, there are double handles - M4A3s have them but M4A2s do not, on the M4A2 the handles are only on the rear most portion of the deck doors and are crossways not long-ways.

                            Note well an author see photos at far better resolution than the book reader does.

                            Some battalions on Iwo were issued with M4A2s and at least one the 3rd had a mixture of M4A3s and M4A2s.

                            With any Sherman identification can be difficult, if you cannot find the distinguishing features there is an obvious way to avoid a faux pas that is, called it a Sherman.

                            The same error was repeated in the Concorde books how many years later? I don't have a copy of the Concorde book to hand perhaps you might have the date.

                            I wrote to Mr Zagola in 1989, I was told by two British tank authors, who I am on first names terms, that I was wasting my time- they were right. I also know that two of the best tank researchers in the UK also wrote about problems in Mr Zagolas books again they were ignored. So that is 3 from Britain that I know of, I am sure people in the USA did not miss the errors. I am aware that authors have their work butchered but this is too technical for errors by a sub editor.

                            I never said these errors were deliberate but I think I have prooved my point about accuracy and dare I say it truth. To re-iterate it took approximately 10-16 years to acknowledge an error, that is true arrogance, it is compounded by the fact that in the past I have had to try to explain to some kid that what he read in an Osprey book might be wrong whilst people like our friend Panther3485 worships the man as though he is a modern day Mosses.

                            FYI if you want to reply to this it will have send it through Admiral as do not intend to return to this site.

                            Steve

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Dear Mr. suvorov,

                              Regardless of whether or not you intend to return to this site, you have made an exaggerated and unfair representation of my position and that will not go unanswered. You have also spoken of me to another member as if I were not present, instead of addressing me directly as would be appropriate if you didn't like what I said. I find this to be very poor manners.

                              Originally posted by suvorov View Post
                              "In reply to your post as 3475 doesn’t want me turning the thread into a discussion about the relative merits of Mr Zagolas books, I tried to send you this post by P.M. but Hmtl is off so pictures cannot be sent."
                              That's not quite what I said, mate:
                              Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
                              "Sorry, I didn't mean to turn this into a discussion on the perceived merits vs shortcomings of Steve Zaloga ..."
                              In other words, I was apologizing to you because I felt slightly uncomfortable about engaging you in further discussion about Steve Zaloga, which had the potential to veer us off-topic if we were not careful, but I still felt that I needed to say something about it.


                              Originally posted by suvorov View Post
                              "... it is compounded by the fact that in the past I have had to try to explain to some kid that what he read in an Osprey book might be wrong whilst people like our friend Panther3485 worships the man as though he is a modern day Mosses."
                              I too am aware of the potential shortcomings of volumes in the Osprey series and have, on occasion, brought attention to errors in some of them. And Steve Zaloga is very far indeed from being the only author who contributes to the Osprey series, so linking the two in this way, as if Osprey = Zaloga, is somewhat misleading I think.

                              As for Steve Zaloga himself, I have stated that I have high regard (or words to that effect) for his work, particularly on WW2 Soviet tanks which seems to have been his main area of interest over the years. However, I have also acknowledged that mistakes have appeared in his books and my position is very far indeed from being one of "worships the man as though he is a modern day Mosses." All authors are human, all capable of error, some better than others, and I do not take that position with any of them, and that includes the likes of Spielberger or Jentz, for whom I have extremely high regard - higher than Zaloga. A person who "worships an author as though he is a modern day Moses" would not say:
                              Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
                              "However, while I would rate Zaloga an excellent author who usually does thorough research, no author is perfect and if you have better, perhaps fresher, information from a reliable source I would be pleased to consider it."
                              ...indicating ready acceptance that Zaloga has made, and can make, mistakes and that more accurate info may be available elsewhere.

                              And this:
                              Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
                              "Yes, I agree that the Osprey volumes are variable in quality and limited in scope; of necessity, given their very compact size and relatively inexpensive cost. I do see most of them as fair basic primers on the subjects they cover; a starting point, if you like. However, I still have considerable respect for Mr Zaloga who remains, in my opinion, one of the best Western authors over the last couple of decades or so when it comes to WW2 Soviet armour. Yes, on one hand I have found a few questionable things in some of his books and on the other, have noted how he has progressed from his earlier works to some of his more recent stuff. No, he ain't perfect but IMO he is both ardent and genuine, and has evidently been quite painstaking in his research, within the limits of the information he has found available."
                              Again, indicating ready acknowledgement of the limitations of the Osprey series and acceptance of the occurence of errors both in Osprey volumes and in Steven Zaloga's work.
                              Where we differ is in our overall opinion of his value as an author, with you apparently rating him very low and me rating him fairly high, notwithstanding some errors in his work. This is merely a difference of opinion; something you seem unable to tolerate.

                              For you to attempt to portray my position regarding Steven Zaloga - or any author for that matter - in such a light as you have done, is at best a gross exaggeration and at worst, smacks of immaturity or possibly even dishonesty, something you seem quick to accuse Steven Zaloga of.
                              Last edited by panther3485; 07 Feb 09, 23:38.
                              "England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X