Stefan Kotsch had the courtesy of accepting an interview for my site back in 2012. Stefan served as a tanker in both the NVA and Bundeswehr, using a T-55 and T-72 first, and then a Leopard 1. This means he can provide a very valuable opinion on NATO/Warsaw Pact equipment. He is also the creator of the website
http://kotsch88.de/, a reference when it comes to tanks. This interview was first published in Spanish back in 2012, and then updated this year with some extra questions.
Hello Stefan, could you give a brief introduction about yourself? In which units/tanks did you serve?
I served as a platoon leader tank T-55A in the Panzeregiment 21 in the 9th Armored Division from 1980 to September 1983 . By September 1983 until September 1986 I was a company commander tank T-72M. Then I was until September 1989 an Officer for Operational Work (S3 officer) in the staff of the tank regiment. Starting from September 1989 I was one year at the military academy. Unfortunately I could not lock the 3 year study . The GDR did not give it any longer. I decided to serve in the Bundeswehr and went back into my Panzeregiment 21.
Until 1991 I served as S3 officer in the Tank Battalion 403 in Schwerin . Then I was 1 1/2 year company commander tank Leopard A5 and afterwards 1 year company commander of the NCO training company in the same battalion. 1993 I left the army.
What was your opinion on the T-72?
The T-72 is me as extremely reliable tank in memory. I felt the ergonomics as good and appropriate. Even in the later comparison with the leopard! The sight could quite a stronger magnification. Unfortunately no automatic traverse consideration was available for moving targets . But until 2000 m we always hit our (immovable) targets. A second radio for the tank platoons would have been appropriate. The ammunition under my seat prepared headaches for me...
Did you interact with other Warsaw Pact units?
With other Warsaw Pact unit I never co-operated. That was at all a large lack. The Russians were even very averse! It was called, it had fear to disgrace itself. During a 3 months training course in Moscow it was to be felt however that the Russians spoke much respectful about the East German army.
Did you get any contact with Soviet T-64/80. What was your opinion?
I did not become acquainted with the T-64 and the T-80. The Russians us did not near-let . Secretly!
Did you get any information about new T-72 variants (or other tanks) to be acquired by the NVA before 1989?
No. We received no official information. The Russians held their cards face down.
How did the Leopard 1 compare with other Soviet tanks you used?
The Leo1A5 draws out by its excellent fire control system and also its precise gun. I felt the ergonomics as average. Engine, transmissions and steering are already very modern and good to handle. The suspension was too soft. I would have wanted to drive faster, comparatively with my T-72 experiences.
Did you receive intelligence reports on NATO tanks and development?
Intelligence reports about western tanks did not give it. Only what was rarely taken over from the western press. I assume, one wanted to permit no discussion over technical characteristics of the Soviet tanks.
How did the T-55 and T-72 compare? Was the transition simple? The T-72 has a crew of 3 and automatic loading. This feature has led to many debates. How did the rate of fire compared? Did the reduction of the crew badly affect the maintenance/other duties when operating the tank? What is your opinion on the autoloaders?
The transition was very uncomplicated. Even very easy. The basic concept remained unchanged. Only the loader was gone. The autoloader has proved to be extremely reliable. Zero problems. The concept was user friendly. The maintenance of the T-72 is several times easier. Three men are quite sufficient. This unofficially "maintenance" saying is rhyming in the German language: Oel, Wasser, Licht – Luken dicht (Oil, water, shoe band - maintenance end). The T-72 is really a brave reliable companion. In contrast the T-55 - many many welding drops...
Leopard - the Mecedes Benz.
Did you train in NBC scenarios during your time in the NVA/Bundeswehr? What was the procedure?
NBC training was very important in the NVA. For example. Tighten the NBC protective suit in the tank - Get out - Partially decontaminate tank was constantly trained. In the Bundeswehr in the beginning of the nineties NBC training was not in the program.
What were the typical targets/exercises (distances, speed) when practising gunnery with the different tanks you used?
Typical targets for firing in the move during shooting training
shooting with 14,5 mm training insertion weapon (main gun targets):
tank frontal at 1300 - 1000 m day and night
tank hull down day at 900 - 700 m and night with IR-sight 700 - 500 m
shooting with 125 mm full caliber (NVA: with OF-19 / training time fuse because of safety range): tank frontal, not moved, day an night (with light lit) 1800 - 1600 m
7,62 mm:
target "anti tank weapon" 1 m x 1 m at day 600 - 400 and night at 500 - 300 m
or
target "recoilles gun on car" 2,50 m x 1,90 m with 15 - 17 kmh flanking moving, day at 900 - 700 m and night at 700 - 500 m,
What was the maximum distance you could open fire from T-55/72 and Leopard 1? What about the speed of the tank if firing from the move?
T-55 – max was 3500 m (Shooting the company on far away and very important target, only one time!)
T-72 – 1800 m;
Leopard 1A5 1600 m. (but. the targets for the leopard were much smaller, and: also many targets moving in flanks)
Speed T-72: about 15 – 20 kmh; Leopard1A5 analog
When training with T-55/72, what was the procedure for night combat? Did you use flares/image intensifiers/both?
Shoot at the target tank frontal only when the target is lit with white light (training, combat: ??). With Ifrared sight no shooting with 100/125 mm full caliber. In "combat shootings" (unit tactical&firing exercise) (company and higher), white lit targets, great light rokets and hand light rokets were used.
It is commonly stated that one of the advantages of NATO tanks over Warsaw Pact were the thermal cameras. What was your impression when you first used it?
First impression: overwhelming! An extremely serious difference. That also with the aspect that the NVA only the "World War 2 type" TPN-1 could buy. While the Russians have long used the TPN-3. The passive infrared image intensifiers for the driver were also several times better at the Bundeswehr.
Can you describe the T-72 automatic fire extinguishing equipment? Does it pose any problem for maintenance? (*)
This was for T-72M export version basically the same system as the T-55. In general, there were no problems. The system did not require any maintenance. The exchange of the bottles is rather uncomplicated. But the need to change was extremely rare.
When you were in the NVA, was there any NATO equipment (tank, AT missile...) you found impressive/interesting?
Of course, the main battle tanks.
How did the training of NVA and Bundeswehr compared?
NVA: Lack of training for leadership in combat, that means here reacting to the changes of the tactical situation was absolutely not trained enough - no tactical development of the leaders of the leader level platoon and company. But, continuous practical shooting training. Shooting/weapon training two to three times a week, at least one night. However, not enough shooting in full caliber.
Bundeswehr very much tactical further education. A pronounced demand for willingness to make decisions on all leading levels. Shooting training predominantly with full caliber. Hardly comparable, but also very demanding
When you served as part of the Bundeswehr, did you have the opportunity to train with other NATO countries? What were your impressions on their training/equipment?
Yes, we had a brigade exercise with Dutchmen. But there was no opportunity for personal contacts. Service time was too short for more.
Did the diesel engines cause any difficulties when starting in winter in Germany?
No problems. Also not seriously at minus 25 degrees celsius. Under the condition that batteries were technically ok and the compressed air bottles were filled. External starter cables were always available. And also press air could be handed over from one tank to the other. Press air was the main method to start.
Some countries like the US have integrated turbines in their tanks. Others have stayed with diesels. What is your opinion?
I cannot say anything. Because of lack of comparative experience .
(*) Replacing gas cylinders in T-64 tanks is quite time-consuming, so some of commanders while preparing vehicles for checkup where only replacing pyro cartridge, making electronic firefighting system indicate it is OK and charged (while in fact gas cylinders where empty).
References:
