One interesting claim Joscha made is that T34/85 tanks were used at Kursk. This is bound to cause controversy because most readers 'know' that they were not in service until '44.

Now take a look at the image at,
<http://www.aviapress.com/magaz/bkl/bkl003/bkl003_6.jpg>

Note that these are both T34s with 85-mm gun and both are combat vehicles with extended range fuel tanks and ball-mount machine guns. The one in the background is clearly the '44 model. The one in foreground is strange, however, because it has an extended mantlet to presumably accomodate a longer gun. It must be an earlier model, but from when? Most likely it was made from excess KV-1S turrets that were spared after SU-152 production began in April '43. This vehicle could very well have been at Kursk which means that Joscha could have been there too.

Has anyone heard from Joscha recently?

The turrets took identical to me. The gun on the foreground tank has a part of it sticking out, like the 76-mm gun (F-34?) on most T-34/76's. Would a KV-1S turret fit on a T-34?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gary Dickson:
Sorry, I'm not familiar with Joscha's claims.

---

Joscha claims that he saw T34/85s at Kursk, "Kursk was our first battle...5 July 1943...the first day we...meet the new 85 mm gun on hundreds of T-34s." see <http://home.att.net/~w.tomtschik/WW2OBindex.html> for the complete posting.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gary Dickson:
The turrets took identical to me. The gun on the foreground tank has a part of it sticking out, like the 76-mm gun (F-34?) on most T-34/76's. Would a KV-1S turret fit on a T-34?

---

The choices are the KV-1, KV-1S, and JS. The KV-1S is the lightest and is the best candidate. Mr. Gander says it came from a KV but Mr. Zaloga says it was from a JS (he calls it an IS). Since the JS turret is much larger and thicker than those fitted to KVs it is probably going to be much too heavy. At any rate the JS turret is more rounded and clearly not the same as the one pictured on the T34/85.

The machine in the foreground appears to have an extended mantlet for some reason. The only reason I can think of to do this is to accomodate a longer gun. The gun in the foreground appears to be about 200-mm longer at the shoulder than the other one.

quote:

---

Originally posted by michael kenny:
I presume we are talking about the Joscha from Feldgrau?
http://www.feldgrau.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=8246&highlight=#8246

---

It does appear that this is the same fellow. Do you know how to contact him?

Note that Joscha's Kursk T34/85s are completely consistent with what Colonel Dupuy wrote in the newsletter V2N1 page 8, "Battle of Kursk" section, "...the Soviets had more tanks and, furthermore, their T–34 was superior to any tank the Germans had available at the time."

The Germans had no significant advantage in armour at Kursk. Advanced Germans tanks were met with equally advanced Soviet ones. Hundreds of KV-1S/85s, T34/85s and SU-152s were used at Kursk and they were just as good or better than their German counterparts. [Note that the SU-152 cannon is in the 6 million foot pound muzzle energy class which is at least double that of the "88"]. However, as Joscha says, the Soviet optics are not as refined.

quote:

---

Originally posted by michael kenny:
The T34/85 did not go into production until late 1943 and thus there is no possibility of these tanks at Kursk.
As I recall Joscha made a number of unsupported claims about his service in WWII.
He said he ended up crewing a TII fitted with night vision and destroyed 20+ T34's with this tank.

---

I'm looking for Joscha and do not understand why it is necessary to make disparaging remarks and contradict him. The veterans showed him respect and that is good enough for me. They recognise their own.

Besides, his story is too strange to be false. He claims to be a veteran of the Eastern Front and later served in Vietnam. This seems preposterous at first, but there is no reason why the U.S. would not enlist foreign WWII veterans to fight the communists.

In regards to the night vision claim. According to the Doctors Hart the Germans did test Infrared night vision systems on tanks at the Eastern front. As I recall, the system worked great at first but was fairly easily countered. Any IR scope including Soviet ones could passively see what the IR searchlight illuminated. I don't remember if the book said Panthers or VIbs but I will check. If they disagree then Joscha could still be right becaust the Harts weren't there.

I already checked with MGFA and his story is plausable from the German side. It may be harder to check his claims from the U.S. side. There is little that I can find about a "field operative" attached to MAC-V.[note that only some old timers use the hyphen, to others its just MACV]

Sadly, it looks like Joscha really was a WWII vet and he is no longer available for comment.

This is tragic because we have missed forever an opportunity to find out what actually happened over there. Now we must use crap filled archives to understand the past and history becomes fiction as a result.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Murray B:
I'm looking for Joscha and do not understand why it is necessary to make disparaging remarks and contradict him.

---

Bogus claims of T34/85's at Kursk?

quote:

---

In regards to the night vision claim. According to the Doctors Hart the Germans did test Infrared night vision systems on tanks at the Eastern front. As I recall, the system worked great at first but was fairly easily countered. Any IR scope including Soviet ones could passively see what the IR searchlight illuminated. I don't remember if the book said Panthers or VIbs but I will check. If they disagree then Joscha could still be right becaust the Harts weren't there.

---

If references back his claims then he was right. If references do not back him then the references are probably wrong. OK, I understand.

quote:

---

Oh well, happy revisions to you!

---

This is an old battle that was resolved some years ago. Why resurrect it?
I do not intend to add any more replies.

Ближний танк - Т-34 с "увеличенной башней" танка Т-43-2
Дальний - то же самое, но в башне вместо Ф-34-М стоит Д-5. Это самый первый Т-34-85 выпуска завода № 183.

The near tank is a T-34 with an "enlarged turret" T-43-2.
The far tank is the same thing but in the turret instead of a F-34-M is a D-5. This is the very first T-35-85 which was produced by factory No. 183.

quote:

---

Originally posted by michael kenny:
This is an old battle that was resolved some years ago. Why resurrect it?
I do not intend to add any more replies.

---

"Has anyone heard from Joscha" is an old battle that does not need resurrecting?! Got it, and I guess no further replies are needed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gary Dickson:
Those turrets are obviously not KV turrets, either KV-1 or KV-1S.

---

Actually they are pretty much identical to the KV-1S but without the rear machine gun.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gary Dickson:
The KV-85 turret ring had a diameter of 1800mm and the T-34 85's was 1600mm, so the KV-85 turret wouldn't fit on a T-34 chassis.

---

Is that the famous picture of KV-1S hull with Joseph Stalin turret that the 'model maker' claims is a KV-85. If we are to believe that then the Soviets made KVs with 76mm gun for 40 months and then advanced through the 85mm to 122mm in only sixteen weeks. Is that what you want me to believe?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gary Dickson:
The turrets themselves look like T-43 turrets, especially the one in the foreground which looks like it has an F-34 76.2mm cannon mounted, which the first T-43 example had. The second tank seems to me to have the same turret but with a larger cannon, perhaps a D-5T 85mm. The problem with the T-43 theory is that the chassis are clearly T-34s, so the turrets are probably T-34 85 turrets. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if the T-43 and T-34 85 turrets were identical.

---

I'm not that interested in how they label the thing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gary Dickson:
Concerning T-34 85s at Kursk, Russian sources are unanimous that the T-35 85 did not go into series production until early 1944.

---

Geoffrey Jukes tells me that they are unanimous that the Soviets were working on a new 85mm gun in 43 and he also says that the archives record no 85mm ammunition sent to Kursk at all. This is amazing because a request for twice as many 85mm AT guns is recorded.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gary Dickson:
Veterans' memories are not guaranteed to be accurate, especially about the opposing side; just look at how many Soviet reports on Kursk say that the II SS Korps had Panthers, Ferdinands were on the southern shoulder of the salient, and every other tank was a Tiger.

---

Agreed, those veterans' memories can be flawed but so are archives. Archives can contain errors, omissions and intentional fabrications. Then there is the problem of interpretation, which can also have errors, omissions and intentional fabrications.

Now Joscha speaks of night sights on Tiger IIs on the eastern front. Current historical fiction claims these were only used in the west. So the Germans were getting slaughtered in the East but would not send the night sights even though they had been making them since 1943? What intrigues me about Josha's claim is that the Tiger II had many interchangeable parts with the Panther. Obviously his claim would have been more palatable to the model makers, war game players, and other arm chair generals if he had said Panther. But he did not, he clearly wrote Tiger II and that is definitely news.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Murray B:
So, has anyone heard from Joscha recently?
[/B]

---

Excuse me, but is there a point to this? Why don't you go inquire at Feldgrau, which is where "Joscha" used to post?

And if you ignore all information that is given to you regarding your other questions, then why do you bother asking them?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rich:
Excuse me, but is there a point to this? Why don't you go inquire at Feldgrau, which is where "Joscha" used to post?

And if you ignore all information that is given to you regarding your other questions, then why do you bother asking them?

---

Joscha was horribly abused by all but the veterans on Feldgrau. He also posted here on the TDI site which should not have had this problem.

From this site's about.htm,"...the accumulation of recorded, detailed data from actual battlefield experience..." Joscha may well have been a veteran of Kursk.

From mission.htm "...accurate analysis and unbiased reporting;" Not just whatever the modelmaker and his colleagues say.

and from method.htm, "The Dupuy Institute Methodology...is a systematic, structured, scientific examination of the record of past experience;" Science requires that a rational person modify their beliefs to agree with the facts. Only zealots alter facts to suit their beliefs.

Joscha may or may not have been a veteran of Kursk, I just don't know. If he was then he must be very old and it is important to record his words if only for later consideration. Once he is gone it will be too late.

My research indicates that several hundred of the thousands T34s at Kursk had 85-mm guns. This is in agreement with Joscha and consistent with Colonel T. Dupuy wrote, "However, the Soviets had more tanks and, furthermore, their T–34 was superior to any tank the Germans had available at the time." (Newsletter V2N1 page 8) He obviously means the T34/85 because nobody in their right mind would consider a T34/76 superior to the Panther.

So this is why I was seeking information about Joscha here. It appears that no one knows anything about him and since this was my only question I'll try elsewhere.

Thanks for the whatever it is that was posted anyway, I guess.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Murray B:
My research indicates that several hundred of the thousands T34s at Kursk had 85-mm guns.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gary Dickson:
Very interesting. Can you tell us what research you did?

---

Of course. I explored an obvious disagrement among historians regarding the introduction dates of T34/85 and KV/85 tanks.

Most of the research involved examining the later revisionist texts. These are almost entirely based on non-scientific interpretaion of snippits gleaned from archives. There were so many errors in these texts that they were very difficult to read. It was obvious that none of these works had been subjected to any kind of multidisciplinary review before publication.

After correcting for the errors it becomes clear that the older histories were correct in the first place. The modelmaker and friends are wrong and Col. T. Dupuy, Sir B.H. Liddell Hart, Sir John Keegan, Marshal Zhukov and such are right. This includes Joscha which is why I'm looking for him.

Here is what I learned from correcting the errors of the modelmaker:

The KV-1S was designed for the 85mm gun and all but the first hundred or so carried the larger gun. Virtually all photographs of this model have the bulging and rounded mantlet of the 85.

When the KV-1S/85 was discontinued in April '43 the hulls were used to make SU-152s and the turrets were put on the orginal T34/85s. These vehicles are medium/heavy tank hybrids and are what Joscha saw at Kursk.

Later in the year the KV plant is retooled for the Joseph Stalin (same basic vehicle). The JS turret is much larger than that of the KV to acommodate the giant 122mm gun. The first hundred or so JSs have 85mm guns but that is not what they were designed to carry. It is one of these JS turrets on a KV-1S hull that has been misclassified as the original KV/85.

The actual orginal KV/85 made a year earlier on or about August '42 and is vehicle #104 at Kubinka as far as I can tell.

As Col. Dupuy wrote, the Germans had no technical advantage at Kursk.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Murray B:
Most of the research involved examining the later revisionist texts. These are almost entirely based on non-scientific interpretaion of snippits gleaned from archives. There were so many errors in these texts that they were very difficult to read.

---

"Non-scientific interpretation of snippits gleaned from archives?" Sounds pretty shakey to me. This isn't reading tea leaves, at least not since the fall of the Soviet Union. There are plenty of Russian experts who are not at all in disagreement. The facts are quite clear. The KV-85 was accepted as a weapon by GKO directive 3891 on August 8, 1943. (see http://www.soldat.ru/doc/gko/gko1943.html) and "literaly within a few days the first production tanks left the gates of the Chelyabinsk Kirov Factory (ChKZ), but in October production of the KV-85 ended and the Chelyabinsk factory switched to making the powerful IS's. Overall, in three months 148 KV-85s were produced." (Front Illustrated, History of the KV Tank, Moscow, 2002).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Murray B:
The KV-1S was designed for the 85mm gun and all but the first hundred or so carried the larger gun. Virtually all photographs of this model have the bulging and rounded mantlet of the 85.

When the KV-1S/85 was discontinued in April '43 the hulls were used to make SU-152s and the turrets were put on the orginal T34/85s. These vehicles are medium/heavy tank hybrids and are what Joscha saw at Kursk.

---

Doubtful. According to "Native Armored Vehicles of the 20th Century, Vol. 2, 1941-1945, Moscow, 2005, the KV-1S (S for speed), was a development of the KV-1 to improve maneuverability and reliability. It retained the 76.2mm cannon. Production started in August 1942 and continued for a year, with a total of 1,083 vehicles made. The KV-85, on the other hand, was a development of the KV-1S to improve firepower, and differed from it in substantial ways. For one thing, although the prototypes fitted the 85-mm cannon to a KV-1S tank (as can be seen at Kubinka), in production tanks, in order to make room for the larger turret ring to fit the 85mm cannon, the radioman/machinegunner was removed and the machine gun was moved to the right and made fixed, to be operated by the driver. The KV-85 turret was larger, had a commanders cupola, and the tank overall was a few tons heavier, thus having worse maneuverability than the KV-1S.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Murray B:
When the KV-1S/85 was discontinued in April '43 the hulls were used to make SU-152s and the turrets were put on the orginal T34/85s. These vehicles are medium/heavy tank hybrids and are what Joscha saw at Kursk.

---

Again, a KV turret does not fit on a T-34 hull. The KV-85 turret requires a 1800mm turret ring, a T-34/76 (which is what you're talking about, because T-34/85s were not in production) had a 1420mm turret ring.

You make a lot of statements, but give no sources.

Finally, I asked the world's foremost expert on the southern face of the Kursk salient, Valeriy Zamulin, Deputy Director and Chief Researcher at the Prokhorovka Field museum, Prokhorovka (no disrespect intended to Chris - where's the book!). He says that while there were three 85-mm towed AT battalions in the 4th Tank Army area, there were no armored vehicles armed with 85-mm cannon, no SU-85s, T-35/85s, etc.

It is no longer necessary to rely on "snippits gleaned from archives" and trying to read between the lines. The Russian military archives may not be open to you and me, but they are to authorized Russian researchers and they are publishing.

[This message has been edited by Gary Dickson (edited 04-27-2006).]

[This message has been edited by Gary Dickson (edited 04-30-2006).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gary Dickson:
You make a lot of statements, but give no sources.

---

Do you mean sources as in archival sources or interpretation therof which is the very thing we are now discussing? You cannot quote these sources or interpetations as proof of their own validity.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gary Dickson:
Finally, I asked the world's foremost expert on the southern face of the Kursk salient, Valeriy Zamulin, Deputy Director and Chief Researcher at the Prokhorovka Field museum, Prokhorovka (no disrespect intended to Chris - where's the book!). He says that while there were three 85-mm towed AT battalions in the 4th Tank Army area, there were no armored vehicles armed with 85-mm cannon, no SU-85s, T-35/85s, etc.

---

Please ask Mr. Zamulin why vehicle #105 in Kubinka which is supposed to originate in August '43 has the old type wheels that were discontinued in August '42. Did they keep a set of the old wheels around for a year just to use in this prototype?

Please also ask what he bases this statement on? There is ample evidence of T34s coming from the KV factory in April '43. Does he maintain that they retooled the factory to underutilize it by making medium tanks?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gary Dickson:
It is no longer necessary to rely on "snippits gleaned from archives" and trying to read between the lines. The Russian military archives may not be open to you and me, but they are to authorized Russian researchers and they are publishing.

---

Yes, and I even found that Geoffrey Jukes had spontaneously 'corrected' a date by a year in one bit he translated for me. Sadly, this is an all too common practice.

Overall, I do not know what motivates any of these "scholars" to publish false information. It is enough that I show that they err and if corrected their work becomes consistent with the original views.

Why do you think that the Russians are disinforming the gullible Americans? How much of your time has been completely wasted by this?

Don't forget that I do not make these revisionsts wrong; they were never right! All I'm doing is pointing out the facts.

P.S. The only person I have contact with at all in Russia is a Mr. Kvashnin in Siberia. Please ask Mr. Zamulin if he would consent to discuss the missing KVs with Mr. Kvashnin. Perhaps together they can figure this thing out.

[This message has been edited by Murray B (edited 04-27-2006).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Murray B:
Do you mean sources as in archival sources or interpretation therof which is the very thing we are now discussing?

---

I mean ANY sources from you. You've given none except to throw Jukes's name around.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Murray B:
Please ask Mr. Zamulin why vehicle #105 in Kubinka which is supposed to originate in August '43 has the old type wheels that were discontinued in August '42. Did they keep a set of the old wheels around for a year just to use in this prototype?

---

I'm not going to waste his time to ask him about something he's already answered.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Murray B:
Please also ask what he bases this statement on? There is ample evidence of T34s coming from the KV factory in April '43. Does he maintain that they retooled the factory to underutilize it by making medium tanks?

---

He bases it on years of archival research with original documents at the Central Archives of the Ministry of Defense.

I don't understand you point about the tank factory. Which one are you talking about? The Chelyabinsk Kirov Factory spent most of it's resources on producing T-34s. So what? Why do you consider that to be underutilization?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Murray B:
Why do you think that the Russians are disinforming the gullible Americans?

---

Why do you think that?

Any SOURCES of what kind? Archival or not?

Vehicle 105 in Kubinka is a source. It is supposed to be one of two "parallel" projects along with what Mr. Zamulin calls a KV-85. The primary distinguishing characteristic between a KV and JS is the turret ring. Since the vehicle he mentions has the JS turret then it is a KV upgraded to the JS standard. It is not a KV anymore.

[quote:]Originally posted by Gary Dickson:
I'm not going to waste his time to ask him about something he's already answered.[/QUOTE]

If he already answered this why didn't you say? How does he explain the, too old by a year, wheels on the KV-85 prototype at Kubinka?

[quote:]Originally posted by Gary Dickson:
He bases it on years of archival research with original documents at the Central Archives of the Ministry of Defense.[/QUOTE]

His interpretation of snippets from the archive and no corroboration with anything else? His words are not compatible with Colonel T. Dupuy's unless the T34/76 is the equal of the PzV.

[quote:]Originally posted by Gary Dickson:
Why do you consider that to be under-utilization?[/QUOTE]

Do you really not understand anything about tank factories or even automobile factories? Okay, the single most important part is the overhead crane. Usually the crane rides on two steel beams. For an automobile plant it might be 10 or 20 ton capacity. For a heavy tank factory it needs to be 30 or even 50 tons. If part of the factory is switched from making heavy turrets to medium ones then they are under-utilizing it.

[quote:]Originally posted by Gary Dickson:
Why do you think that?[/QUOTE]

Because local Russians with an interest in the subject were taught about Kursk T34/85s at school. Further, over the past six years there has been no interest in this subject at all from Russia except for Mr. Kvashnin last December. He has not responded further. Odd that all of Russia would not be interested in a piece proving that their fathers and grandfathers were smarter than most people believe today.

Anyway this revision of fact into fiction by archival zealots is a crime against history. Anyone who is part of this is worse than useless because history literally would have been better off if they had never been born.

How can you be a senior member of a site dedicated to Colonel Dupuy but do nothing but promote his detractors? Many revisionists did the same thing to Sir B.H. Liddell Hart and I just don't understand why. What is the point of pretending fiction is history?

KV85's were being made in 1943.

The hulls were used for SP guns so turrets were spare.

The same factory was producing T34's

The spare '85 turrets were placed on the T34 hulls.

Voila, T34/85's 9 months early.

Problems like the turrets in the first post not actualy being KV85 turrets is a minor detail-much like the irrelevance that KV turrets were too big for T34 hulls

And the early style wheels on '105' (the prototype at Kubinka) is clearly addressed in the publications I have. It says " New road wheels and support rollers were of a lightweight type, especialy designed for the KV-IS-85. THE EXHIBIT HOWEVER USES THE LATE KV-1 ROAD WHEELS."

It is all some vast Russian conspiracy to hide the fact...........well to hide what?

The crane argument is really strange. Where I work the overhead crane is rated at 20t.
It is routinely used for weights much lower than this though. Perhaps I should explain to management they should rip it out and fit a new lighter one. Then we would not be 'under utilised'.

quote:

---

Originally posted by michael kenny:
It is hard going but I think I have worked out the logic being used here.

---

It is interesting that you keep using the word "logic". Do you mean logical in the sense of critical reasoning? By all means let us avoid the common pitfalls of arguments ad hominem, non-sequiturs and circular reasoning.

Actually what I am saying is that several German and Soviet generals put T34/85s and KV-85s at Kursk. They are pretty well all dismissed as "self-serving".

Many great historians also put the vehicles there and their work is dismissed because they did not use the archives.

Even a cursory examination of the revisionist texts shows terrible and sophomoric mistakes. Some are even juvenile.

quote:

---

Originally posted by michael kenny:
And the early style wheels on '105' (the prototype at Kubinka) is clearly addressed in the publications I have. It says " New road wheels and support rollers were of a lightweight type, especialy designed for the KV-IS-85. THE EXHIBIT HOWEVER USES THE LATE KV-1 ROAD WHEELS."

---

Vehicle #105 is a good example of unreliable Russians sources. The diplay is clearly wrong and I speculated that it was mislabled. This could have been the fault of a single Kubinka employee. Now you tell me it is not mislabled but miswheeled.

No decent museum would display such a Frankenstein's monster of vehicle parts for any reason. Your point damns the entire Kubinka museum institution. Falsifying the display in this way takes more that just one person. It is a perfect example of the pitfalls in using Russian sources. Who is saying that thing is miswheeled?

It is all some vast Russian conspiracy to hide the fact...........well to hide what?

Have you found evidence of this conspiracy? I thought it was just due to the dramatic decline in scholarship over the past few decades. Now you tell me it is a conspiracy. Well, I wouldn't doubt it seeng as there was the Cold War and all. If you did a book on the subject it should sell well.

quote:

---

Originally posted by michael kenny:
The crane argument is really strange.

---

Comparing a job site to a tank factory is even stranger. The traditional view from virtually all pre-1970 texts has the turrets from the heavy tank train of the factory going into use before Kursk. Only revisionists claim this train was re-tooled to make medium turrets.

Wrong. The KV-1S (S=skorostniy=fast) was designed to make the KV lighter. Thus the turret was smaller. It simply was not designed for a bigger gun.

Another quote:
--------------------------------------------
"When the KV-1S/85 was discontinued in April '43 the hulls were used to make SU-152s and the turrets were put on the orginal T34/85s. These vehicles are medium/heavy tank hybrids and are what Joscha saw at Kursk"
-----------------------------------------

There was no production model of a KV-1S/85. The KV-1S was produced until August 1943. The KV-1S was armed with a 76.2mm ZIS-5 gun so even if the turrets were fitted to T-34's it was not an upgunned T-34.

More:
------------------------------------------
"Later in the year the KV plant is retooled for the Joseph Stalin (same basic vehicle). The JS turret is much larger than that of the KV to acommodate the giant 122mm gun. The first hundred or so JSs have 85mm guns but that is not what they were designed to carry. It is one of these JS turrets on a KV-1S hull that has been misclassified as the original KV/85."
--------------------------------------------

Error after error. The IS model was designed to mount the 85mm gun. The IS series was developed as a bigger and wider tank than the KV series. A prototype KV-1S was fitted with a 85mm gun but the space constraints meant one crew member had to be dispensed with. This single prototype is the vehicle on display at Kubinka. It proved too much of a compromise and the decision was made to fit the turret under development for the IS series on a KV-1S hull. The hull had to have fillets fitted to take the new wider IS turret. This became a stop-gap KV-85 tank.
Before the IS tank reached full production status it too was upgunned with a 122mm gun.
The first 110 IS tanks were fitted with the 85mm gun (izd.237)and the remainder 122mm guns (izd.240) At least 100 of the 85mm armed IS tanks were rebuilt as 122mm models.
The 85mm tanks were called IS-1 and the 122mm were IS-2.

Yet more:
----------------------------------------
"The actual orginal KV/85 made a year earlier on or about August '42 and is vehicle #104 at Kubinka as far as I can tell"
----------------------------------------

Wrong year. This prototype was tested in July 1943.

It seems your 'research' has led you to assume rather too much!

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e312/schwere/KV-1.jpg

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e312/schwere/KV85.jpg

[This message has been edited by michael kenny (edited 04-29-2006).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Murray B:
How can you be a senior member of a site dedicated to Colonel Dupuy but do nothing but promote his detractors? Many revisionists did the same thing to Sir B.H. Liddell Hart and I just don't understand why. What is the point of pretending fiction is history?[/B]

---

And how can you continue to bandy about Trevor's good name when you obviously have no idea what he said or what he believed in?

First, Trevor never mentioned the T-34-85, any more than he mentioned the T-34-76, his remarks were directed at the T-34 design, which he considered superior overall to the German tanks. And that in part is because when factored through the QJM/TNDM OLI analysis, it consistantly rated higher than virtually any other German tank, irregardless of whether or not it was equipped with the 76mm or 85mm gun. And that is because in the OLI analysis operational range, ammunitions stowage, and flotation factors tend to favor the T-34 design.

Second, in fact it was just those "snippets of documents" that Trevor dedicated his life work to. Yes, those "snippets" you are so derogatory about are the basis of the QJM/TNDM. They are also the basis of the Kursk Data Base, the last major project Trevor was involved in before his death, wherein curiously enough there are no T-34-85. Because, strangely enough, none of the thousands of pages (do thousands of complete pages constitute "snippets"?) of operational records of the 6th Guards, 7th Guards, 40th, or 69th Armies, or 5th Guards Tank Army
or any of the tank and mechanized corps indicate in any way, shape or form that they possessed a single T-34-85.

Third, your whole argument appears to revolve around (well except for your misreading of Trevor) the supposedly anomolous Kubinka vehicle. And yet you seem to have overlooked that the vehicles in Kubinka, like many museum exhibits, were originally functional prototypes or operational vehicles and that many, if not most, have suffered from various ravages of time. As a result many have been "restored" where original components were missing and IIRC that is the explanation of the roadwheels on 105, the originals were missing so the other ones were substituted when the vehicle was put on exhibit.

Finally, by my light revisionism is when one such as yourself takes a single irrelevant "snippet" of a fact and attempts to blow it into some bizarre conspiracy. But ad hominem attacks are when you dismiss subject area experts like Gary Dickson and Michael Kenny because they are supposedly "revisionists" and you question their capability because they "fail" to adhere to what you imagine is the legacy of Trevor Dupuy.

I have asked you before, do you have a single shred of evidence, beyond the very questionable anecdotal ones you have presented, to prove your point?

[This message has been edited by Rich (edited 04-30-2006).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rich:
I have asked you before, do you have a single shred of evidence, beyond the very questionable anecdotal ones you have presented, to prove your point?

---

If the "Jackalope" of a tank display at Kubinka cannot convince you of the unreliability of Russian sources then nothing will!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Murray B:

It is clear to see why Joscha does not come here anymore and why he will never return even if he is still alive. I'll look elsewhere but thanks for the discussion anyway. It has been a learning experience.

---