Soviet 746th Tank Regiment

[James Langham]

As the war progressed, large numbers of captured vehicles became available to both sides. The Soviets took advantage of this and created a number of units using captured equipment. The best documented unit is the 746th Tank Regiment formed in early 1998. This unit was made up as follows:

* Regimental headquarters in 2 M1A1 plus 2 M577

* 1st tank battalion with 41 M1A1

* 2nd tank battalion with 41 Leopard 2

* 3rd tank battalion with 41 M1/IMP M1

* Motor rifle battalion with 31 M113s (mortars were towed behind trucks) oe one source states that one company was in British FV432s and that the mortars were US M106s.

* Anti-aircraft battery with 4 M163 PIVAD


* A combined artillery/ howitzer battery with 8 (as opposed to the normal 6) M109 (assorted models). Sources indicate MLRS was considered as an alternative but not enough ammunition was available.

* A recce company with 6 M2/M3 Bradleys, 3 M1A1 and 2 BRDM2 Rkhs.

* No anti-tank battery was included.

* Logistic vehicles were a mix of NATO types.

This unit was thrown into the front along the Baltic Coast in where it performed well. Gradually however the lack of spares started to show and one by one the NATO vehicles were abandoned until the few survivors were incorporated into the 20th Tank Division when it was withdrawn to the Ukraine in 1999.

Despite common misconceptions, the unit was never used as a deception unit only as a front line combat unit. Vehicles were usually repainted in standard Soviet colours with larger than usual red stars added.

[Legbreaker]

How were such large numbers of serviceable armoured vehicles captured APC's (as a rule) tend to get destroyed pretty much outright when hit by anything substantial and tanks don't fare too well either when knocked out.
Also, to my knowledge, tank crews are supposed to destroy their vehicles by utilising a number of methods if knocked out and likely to be captured before the engineers can recover them.
It is more likely that only a single battalion could be outfitted with NATO vehicles, many of which would sport battle damage and/or be cobbled together from a number of other damaged and stripped vehicles. I'd also be inclined to raise the percentage of British vehicles as they were heavily involved in the fighting and I believe penetrated the furthest into the USSR in 1997 prior to the PACT counter offensive.

[pmulcahy11b]

Kind of makes you wonder how many chimera vehicles are out there -- hulls from here, turrets from there, tracks from here, engines from there, etc.

[James Langham]

Capturing vehicles

How were such large numbers of serviceable armoured vehicles captured APC's (as a rule) tend to get destroyed pretty much outright when hit by anything substantial and tanks don't fare too well either when knocked out.
Also, to my knowledge, tank crews are supposed to destroy their vehicles by utilising a number of methods if knocked out and likely to be captured before the engineers can recover them.
It is more likely that only a single battalion could be outfitted with NATO vehicles, many of which would sport battle damage and/or be cobbled together from a number of other damaged and stripped vehicles. I'd also be inclined to raise the percentage of British vehicles as they were heavily involved in the fighting and I believe penetrated the furthest into the USSR in 1997 prior to the PACT counter offensive.

My gut feeling is that numbers captured would be higher than we expect. Consider the Arab-Israeli wars and the numbers of vehicles captured there. What crews are supposed to do when they abandon their vehicles and what really happens is often different, especially with the poorer trained replacements. Consider that the Russians had REGIMENTS of Panthers in WW2.

APCs do suffer badly when hit but there are plenty of ways that they can be lost.

Good point with the British kit, I'll use that for another regiment. I envision about three or four such regiments using foreign equipment. On the NATO side I imagine the Germans will inherit the bulk as they already have reservists trained on it!

[Adm.Lee]

I'm very pessimistic that the Soviets would be able to restore and operate that many NATO vehicles. Panthers weren't that far technically from T-34's, M1A1 and Leopards are something else. All the high-tech goodies would seem to be irreplaceable.

The Soviets have been very good historically at reverse-engineering captured stuff, but in 1997-98, when this might happen (using stuff captured during the drive back across Poland), that seems a waste of time & effort to try and rebuild the computer elements.

IMO, anyway.

On second thought, I think my objection is more that there would not be enough operating to fill a TO&E like you have. I can definitely see some running vehicles here and there, and perhaps more turned into static defenses.

[Raellus]

I like the idea of an entire unit equipped with captured enemy vehicles but I too think that the numbers are too high.

That's a lot of bogged-down, out of gas, or broken down M1s. Killing one is tough and I don't see too many dead M1s being brought back to life by Soviet maintainance crews, especially after the TDM. I agree with you that not all crews are going follow SOPs and destroy their disabled tanks, but enough will and there are other ways besides crew-initiated scuttling to destroy a tank.

In the book Thunder Run, an M1 from an RCT from the U.S. 3rd Mech ID on its way into Baghdad, is hit in the engine by at least one RPG or ATGM and disabled. The crew tries desperately to restart it but the column to which they're attached needs to move on and they can't slow down to tow it. So, the crew dutifully sets a few thermite grenades inside the turret and bails out for good. Another M1 in the column then puts a couple of 120mm APFDS rounds into it (from behind) for good measure. This was SOP and was executed under enemy small arms, RPG, and mortar fire.

I just don't see 90 M1s being captured in less than two years in good enough shape to be used against their previous owners.

Perhaps, you could replace one of your M1 battalions with Brit Challengers and/or Chieftains or throw in a few M60s and Leopard Is to lessen the numbers of M1s and Leopard IIs. Reserve units would be more likely equipped with older tanks and reservist crews would be a little more likely to panic and bail out without first assuring their tank would not fall into the wrong hands.

[helbent4]

I like the idea of an entire unit equipped with captured enemy vehicles but I too think that the numbers are too high.

Rae,

I mostly agree with you, the numbers do seem high.

After all, unlike the Iraq war there was a liberal use of nuclear and chemical weapons. A tank company could have been wiped out by a nerve agent, leaving their tanks intact, more captured tanks might be on the, ah, "hot" side, and so on.

It's hard to prove a negative, and I agree that some crews would be able to render their tanks ineffective while abandoning them as ordered. If the incoming mail is upgraded from small arms, RPGs and mortars to wire-guided ATGMs/autocannons, enemy tank fire, 155mm howitzers or Katyushas, etc, then I could see things being a bit different. That is, a unit reeling under the determined attack of a Guards Tank regiment might well be too busy bugging out to fully TCB.

Technically, I think that at least in the broader sense that if a tank can be fixed, the Russians would be capable of fixing them. Maybe not to the same standards and not with the same replacement parts.

Overall, I do think the numbers are high, and think there would be other tanks mixed in for a real "grab bag" effect.

Tony

[Raellus]

Those are some good points, Tony. I hadn't considered factoring in the use of NBC weapons. Their use could help explain larger numbers of intact, captured armor in WWIII. I think we agree that James' numbers seem a little high though.

I suppose as long as the crews were caught outside of their vehicles by a sudden, unexpected NBC attack, they could be killed or driven off while the vehicles are left intact to be captured by follow up enemy forces. On the other hand, one would think that WWIII tank crews would be ready for this sort of NBC attack and, once buttoned up inside their tracks, safer than most from its effects.

I wonder how long it would take to make an irradiated/radiologically contaminated tank safe to operate again. I'm sure it could be done and the WWII Red Army wasn't averse to "asking" its soldiers to take great risks in defense of the Motherland.

As for scuttling, your point about the threat environment is well taken. WWIII Europe is bound to be a lot deadlier than 2003 Iraq and that might chase off or kill greater proportions of imobilized tanks' crews. One of the points that I was trying to make is that other, operational tanks can be used to destroy damaged or crewless tanks that need to be abandoned. A couple of APFDS or HEAT rounds from behind will likely render an Abrams dead or too badly damaged to repair.

[helbent4]

I wonder how long it would take to make an irradiated/radiologically contaminated tank safe to operate again. I'm sure it could be done and the WWII Red Army wasn't averse to "asking" its soldiers to take great risks in defense of the Motherland.

Rae,

An American robot is on the roof [cleaning up Chernobyl reactor debris] for five minutes, and then it breaks down. The Japanese robot is on the roof for five minutes, and then breaks down.The Russian robot is up there two hours! Then a command comes in over the loudspeaker: "Private Ivanov! In two hours, you're welcome to come down and have a cigarette break."

I think after the use of "Green Robotniki" (named after their uniforms) in the cleanup of Chernobyl, we can guess what they Soviets would think of as a "safe" level. Of course, conscript labour is a little different than trained and experienced tank crews.

To a large degree, I think tank crews will be contaminated by surface fallout while outside the tank or due to not using the CBW system for whatever reason, not actually irradiated (giving off secondary particles). For the most part the scenario I envision is a tank crew that unexpectedly succumbs to contamination or abandons their tank in a panic, leaving a vehicle that can be decontaminated (mostly).

Likewise, you can't live in bunny suits all the time, and nerve agents are a lot quicker acting than the chemical agents in the Great War. Not to mention in a mobile battlefield where used of chemical agents and nuclear weapons are released to low-level commands, things would be very unpredictable. A chemical attack in support of a local effort could come in completely out of the blue. Some nerve agents can persist for hours or days, making simple travel from one area to another very hazardous.

I agree that other tanks will take out disable tanks, when they can. From the example you posted, those tankers weren't really facing opposition by enemy armour and had an abundant supply chain to replace munitions. Hypothetically, if you have a situation where you had a precious APFSDS round loaded with the choice between a disabled friendly tank and an enemy T-64 in sight, which would you prioritise Even using HEAT wouldn't be an easy choice, if you thought there was a chance of running into some BMPs in the near future.

That's not to say tanks would never deliberately destroy abandoned vehicles when they could, just that it doesn't always seem clear-cut. Much of the time I imagine they will have the time and munitions to do a proper job, just not all the time.

Tony

[Raellus]

I agree that other tanks will take out disable tanks, when they can. From the example you posted, those tankers weren't really facing opposition by enemy armour and had an abundant supply chain to replace munitions. Hypothetically, if you have a situation where you had a precious APFSDS round loaded with the choice between a disabled friendly tank and an enemy T-64 in sight, which would you prioritise Even using HEAT wouldn't be an easy choice, if you thought there was a chance of running into some BMPs in the near future.

That's not to say tanks would never deliberately destroy abandoned vehicles when they could, just that it doesn't always seem clear-cut. Much of the time I imagine they will have the time and munitions to do a proper job, just not all the time.

That's a very good point, Tony. I think that we agree that both sides are going to capture working (or repairable) enemy MBTs and use them against their former owners. My point- and I think you're more or less on the same page- is that it wouldn't be a common enough occurance for one side (or the other) to equip an entire armored regiment exclusively with first-line [former] enemy MBTs.

The WWIII battlefield is going to be very hostile to armor and I think attrition is going to be high, even before the stream of new and remanufactured tanks and spare parts dries up in early '98. In the v1.0 Soviet Vehicle Guide there's a plate (E4) of ex-Finish, Romanian-made M-81 (RW TR-85) in the service of the U.S. 6th ID in Germany c.'97. If the Americans are going to go to the trouble of shipping what's basically a glorified T-55 from Norway to Germany (and refitting it with a 120mm gun) before the TDM, you know that armored forces are losing a hell of a lot of vehicles.

[Abbott Shaull]

That's a very good point, Tony. I think that we agree that both sides are going to capture working (or repairable) enemy MBTs and use them against their former owners. My point- and I think you're more or less on the same page- is that it wouldn't be a common enough occurance for one side (or the other) to equip an entire armored regiment exclusively with first-line [former] enemy MBTs.

The WWIII battlefield is going to be very hostile to armor and I think attrition is going to be high, even before the stream of new and remanufactured tanks and spare parts dries up in early '98. In the v1.0 Soviet Vehicle Guide there's a plate (E4) of ex-Finish, Romanian-made M-81 (RW TR-85) in the service of the U.S. 6th ID in Germany c.'97. If the Americans are going to go to the trouble of shipping what's basically a glorified T-55 from Norway to Germany (and refitting it with a 120mm gun) before the TDM, you know that armored forces are losing a hell of a lot of vehicles.

Um...As I recall several Mechanized and Armored Divisions were outfitted their Armor units with LAV-75s a vehicle that didn't make it out of the blocks and Stingrays which are nice light tanks. So yeah I think both side wouldn't take time to outfit who units.... They would want to place anything that could be considered a tank back to the front as soon as possible..

[dragoon500ly]

I agree that other tanks will take out disable tanks, when they can. From the example you posted, those tankers weren't really facing opposition by enemy armour and had an abundant supply chain to replace munitions. Hypothetically, if you have a situation where you had a precious APFSDS round loaded with the choice between a disabled friendly tank and an enemy T-64 in sight, which would you prioritise Even using HEAT wouldn't be an easy choice, if you thought there was a chance of running into some BMPs in the near future.

That's not to say tanks would never deliberately destroy abandoned vehicles when they could, just that it doesn't always seem clear-cut. Much of the time I imagine they will have the time and munitions to do a proper job, just not all the time.

Tony

That's something that has been bothering me about the stories out of Desert Storm/Iraq and combat loss M1s...

SOP for the 2nd ACR was that each tank would carry certain additional ordnance; 4 anti-tank mines, 4 claymore mines and 12 hand grenades, 4 of which are thermite grenades according to my old journal.

If we were required to abandon a tank, you manually opened the turret ammo rack, and pulled several rounds out and left them on the turret floor, you then pulled the AT mines out and dropped one in the driver's compartment, one in the gunner's seat, one on top of the radio and one in the engine compartment. Last thing the tank commander did as he left the vehicle was to arm and drop a thermite grenade into the driver's compartment, the turret and the engine compartment...between the thermite, the AT mines and the main gun rounds, there would have been very little left to salvage.

And then you hear stories of crews just leaving the tank...WTF, over!!!

[Abbott Shaull]

That's something that has been bothering me about the stories out of Desert Storm/Iraq and combat loss M1s...

SOP for the 2nd ACR was that each tank would carry certain additional ordnance; 4 anti-tank mines, 4 claymore mines and 12 hand grenades, 4 of which are thermite grenades according to my old journal.

If we were required to abandon a tank, you manually opened the turret ammo rack, and pulled several rounds out and left them on the turret floor, you then pulled the AT mines out and dropped one in the driver's compartment, one in the gunner's seat, one on top of the radio and one in the engine compartment. Last thing the tank commander did as he left the vehicle was to arm and drop a thermite grenade into the driver's compartment, the turret and the engine compartment...between the thermite, the AT mines and the main gun rounds, there would have been very little left to salvage.

And then you hear stories of crews just leaving the tank...WTF, over!!!

Yeah I was wondering the same thing too. What was more shocking were some of the photos of M1s that had been 'disabled' then 'stripped'. You could still see it was M1. Being a former paratrooper, I even knew that there use to be SOP in place that would leave just a hulk of worthless scrap once everything was said and done. I total agree WTF.

Now with that said and realizing that some of these vehicle if not most were later recovered and dispose of properly. It was still one hell of gamble since our supplies lines were at best paper thin.

I think it was just another thing where priorities went askew. Remember the price tag of said M1. Why make it unrecoverable, there was a high likely hood that we would recover it and then send it to the depot to be resurrected. Then they wonder why when something has to be done it isn't done properly....

[Abbott Shaull]

Yeah I would agree the number of M1 recovered to outfit the Regiment seem awful hi... Then again even what I said with my previous post, I can see things going to hell for both sides as they fought across Poland. I can see us recovering several Soviet and Pact AFVs on trip across because things were moving that fast. On the flip side when the Soviets and Pact counter attack and push back into Germany that NATO tank crew not having the time to properly dispose of their tanks due to panic. (Unlike in Iraq where the crews in many cases had time to do the proper job on their old tank)

I would have to agree with having everything brought to one Regiment a stretch. I can see Platoons and some Companies...

[dragoon500ly]

Yeah I was wondering the same thing too. What was more shocking were some of the photos of M1s that had been 'disabled' then 'stripped'. You could still see it was M1. Being a former paratrooper, I even knew that there use to be SOP in place that would leave just a hulk of worthless scrap once everything was said and done. I total agree WTF.

Now with that said and realizing that some of these vehicle if not most were later recovered and dispose of properly. It was still one hell of gamble since our supplies lines were at best paper thin.

I think it was just another thing where priorities went askew. Remember the price tag of said M1. Why make it unrecoverable, there was a high likely hood that we would recover it and then send it to the depot to be resurrected. Then they wonder why when something has to be done it isn't done properly....

There is a major world of difference between leaving a damaged tank with a security section or for a following unit to recover, and leaving a tank loaded with ammo and with its fire control/radios intact so that some gomer could salvage it and use it aginst US forces.

When I was active duty, we trained for dismounted action, how to disable the vehicle, what equipment had to be stripped and taken with you , etc. Yet here are reports of a M-1 being left in the street, and some Iraqis trying to use it against other M-1s...makes no sense what so ever.