Quote:
Smersh said:
here is a direct quote from Zaloga which is where what I said in my post is based on: " It [the 85mm aa gun] was not generally issued to Army units, and unlike its german counterpart, it was seldom used in the anti-tank role except in expedient basis-such as the summer of 1943 when special anti-tank units were formed for a defensives battle at Kursk."
I don't know if Zaloga contradicts himself or claus u had a typo in your post.
but it logically doesn't make sense for a large caliber weapon like the 85mm to be used in 1941, when most germans tanks could be penetrated by the 45mm gun.
|
Cool! We've found inconsistencies an a reference
Zaloga: "Red Army Handbook", Gloucestershire 1998 Page 119 Zaloga refers to the use of 85mm AA guns being used as AT guns in AT regiments due to a shortage of 76mm guns in 1941. Page 121 he shows relevant AT-regiment and battalion TO&Es for 1941 with the 85mm AA gun. On page 127 he refers to TO&Es and the number of anti-tank formations using them, including some with the 85mm AA gun, all effective January 1st 1942, but not later.
The text you quoted is from page 218, stating that the 85mm was "seldom used" and only on "an expedient basis" as an AT-gun, referring to Kursk 1943. Something similar is repeated on page 220 with a picture of the gun which repeats the story of its use at Kursk in 1943 and that it was not "widely [used] for anti-tank fighting".
Seems that the two parts of his book, the part about the organisation and the part about the weapons are not really corresponding. However, seen over the cause of the whole war and the number of anti-tank units raised, he is right that it was seldom used as an anti-tank weapon compared with, say, the 45mm or the 76mm for that matter. So I guess you can argue that the apparent inconsistency can reasonably be harmonized.
Claus B