T-34 vs Panther

[Skipper]

> I have heard arguments that in the end it

> is Germany that has won the war, and maybe

> this is on a more philisophical level, but

> it is interesting to think about.

You do know, I assume, what was on the books for the local population of eastern territories, if nazis were to gain the upper hand? It wasn't exactly the "life goes on" situation.

USSR subsequently lost another war to another adversary, but it was quite another story. I could say that after that one life goes on. For yours truly, at least.

[ 06-23-2001: Message edited by: Skipper ]

[Commissar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Freak:

Maybe. I don't know about that. Where their influences outside of Russia's war development?

[[ 06-23-2001: Message edited by: Freak ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Panther for one. The Panther was developed in response to the nasty surprise the Germans got from the early T-34s. The sloping armor of the T-34 was impressive and something I believe the Germans adopted in the development of the Panther. Other nations also followed suit.

I hear a lot about how German equipment quality is generally quite high or at least good. However, they always are characterized as "overengineered" or too complicated which resulted in low production numbers. Why was this problem of "overengineering" so presistent in German design? Was it cultural? Surely, the Germans realized that they would need to streamline and simplify designs in order to increase production. Why didn't they? IF they did, why did it apparently fail? Bureaucratic malaise?? The problem seems to still exist today. If anyone has ever owned a BMW or Merc they'll know what I'm talking about. Beautiful to drive and great performance but a real pain in the wallet to fix.

My understanding is that after the disaster of '41, the Soviets needed ot replenish the armor ranks and fast. They ultimately decided to freeze improvments for the T-34/76 and just concentrate on building a lot of the T-34/76 as fast as they could. The only changes they allowed were ones that increased simplicity and lowered cost. Apparently, the gamble won and the Soviet tank force was rebuilt fairly quickly. The cost was that Germans had caught up and surpassed Soviet armor technology with the Panthers and Tigers. Soviet tankers were crying for something with a greater "long arm" to deal with German zoo. One quick fix was the SU-85 (based on the T-34 chassis I think). The T-34/85 was also created to give the Soviet tankers more punch in handeling the Panther and Tiger.

[ 06-23-2001: Message edited by: Commissar ]

[Skipper]

Have to go to sleep. Reverting on mobility and what was in response to what some time next week (heck, it's gonna be one of those above mentioned 72 hours weeks, I guess).

As a final note, M.Svirin mentioned in his article on Pz-V that AAR's of soviet units who met fresh new Panthers on Kursk Salient are written in a far less exciting manner than AARs about first encounters with Tigers.

[Freak]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skipper:

You do know, I assume, what was on the books for the local population of eastern territories, if nazis were to gain the upper hand? It wasn't exactly the "life goes on" situation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree Skipp. No doubt about that.

USSR subsequently lost another war to another adversary, but it was quite another story. I could say that after that one life goes on. For yours truly, at least.

Hehehe...I am truly 1000 times glad to hear that. Otherwise we wouldnt be having this conversion right now!

[ 06-23-2001: Message edited by: Freak ]

[Freak]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

T-34s sat back and picked off Pz IVs, not the other way around. Tiger is a different story...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AFAIK, the Pz-4 and Pz-5 along with the Pz-6 all were able to penetrate T-34 at long range. T34 could easily destroy Pz-4 at long range but with bad tactics deployed the soviets did not have a chance. Pz-4 inconjunction with the heavies pentrated T-34 IICRC. I will check reference.

EDIT: note: this is pertaining to accounts of battles of Kursk etc.

[ 06-23-2001: Message edited by: Freak ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Freak:

AFAIK, the Pz-4 and Pz-5 along with the Pz-6 all were able to penetrate T-34 at long range. T34 could easily destroy Pz-4 at long range but with bad tactics deployed the soviets did not have a chance. Pz-4 inconjunction with the heavies pentrated T-34 IICRC. I will check reference.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tiger and Panther, of course, but not the Mk IV. There was a lengthy debate about this a while back, and there was no final resolution, but there is good reason to believe that the Mk IV could not penetrate the T-34 frontally past 1200m or so. It was Soviet SOP to engage Mk IVs at 1200-2000m.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>JunoReactor:

Not really.. There were so many tanks involved in so small a area that the tanks joined in what could be called a massive melee. I am, of course, talking about the tank vs tank engagement that happened after the opening German moves against the Soviet entrenchments. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My second comment was in reference to the East front in general, not Kursk.

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skipper:

[Q]>

Because if you want to compare Pz-V to a T-34, you should compare them a tank vs a full platoon. That's the price difference.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have lost me here as tank engagements were not single German tanks vs Soviet Plts they were Panther Plts vs T-34 Plts Ie, medium tank vs medium tank & more often then not the Panther Plts decimated the T-34 Plts.

Russia paid an horrible cost in tank losses over 98,000 AFVs lost from June 1941 - April 1945. Now these wern't all tank vs tank losses Ie, Stug's accounted for over 20,000 Soviet AFVs the Tiger Abt's alone accounted for another 10,000 etc this doesnt even include the Pz Div tallies or the German AT arm totals.

So if every Panther was killing 3 - 5 T-34's before being lost, what is the price then? is the Panther then worth the cost to produce? would the design then be worth the effort?.

Regards, John Waters

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skipper:

As a final note, M.Svirin mentioned in his article on Pz-V that AAR's of soviet units who met fresh new Panthers on Kursk Salient are written in a far less exciting manner than AARs about first encounters with Tigers.[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll bet considering the Tiger was 1st to appear & caused a real shock. Hopw hashe been I haven't spoken with him in ages.

However I'd also add though the reports are 'less eciteing' they are no lesss grave on the shift in power.

Regards, John Waters

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

Tiger and Panther, of course, but not the Mk IV. There was a lengthy debate about this a while back, and there was no final resolution, but there is good reason to believe that the Mk IV could not penetrate the T-34 frontally past 1200m or so. It was Soviet SOP to engage Mk IVs at 1200-2000m.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Vanir you want to provide a link to that discussion I missed it. Their realy isno reason why the 7.5 cm L/48 could not deal with the T-34 at 2000ms, but thisalso has to do with the Soviet armors manufacture Ie, brittleness that made it overly vulnerable to the lang 7.5 cm guns.

Regards, John Waters

[Vanir Ausf B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

Vanir you want to provide a link to that discussion I missed it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

T34 Vulnerability

Like I said, there was no real concensus reached as there seems to be wildly conflicting data from different sources. I guess I figure the Soviets knew what they were doing when they set up their SOPs. Maybe I'm wrong to assume that.

[Freak]

Quotes by Vanir:

Tiger and Panther, of course, but not the Mk IV. There was a lengthy debate about this a while back, and there was no final resolution, but there is good reason to believe that the Mk IV could not penetrate the T-34 frontally past 1200m or so. It was Soviet SOP to engage Mk IVs at 1200-2000m.

SS: Steel Storm (2000) by Tim Ripley, gives Pz-4 max range up to 2000 meters, though this is obviously its extreme range I imagine. I believe Pz-4 joined in stand off's of Russian tank rushes at kursk. I will try to find the account of it.

[Vanir Ausf B]

And I could quote several sources that give the max range at 1000m. But it's all in the thread I linked to.

[Freak]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

And I could quote several sources that give the max range at 1000m. But it's all in the thread I linked to.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I know thanks. Its not a contest

I posted that info with the hope to follow that up with actual accounts. Still, I tend to agree with you and (though I have not read it yet) the thread on the vulnerability of the T-34 you provided. I wonder how BTS will model this in CM?

Anyway, I would have to assume that there there migt have been some but not much at 2000 meters. Its obvious that 2000 must be extreme if any. Anyway, 1200 meters for tanks in WWII is considered long range for that time IIRC.

[The Commissar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

You have lost me here as tank engagements were not single German tanks vs Soviet Plts they were Panther Plts vs T-34 Plts Ie, medium tank vs medium tank & more often then not the Panther Plts decimated the T-34 Plts.

Russia paid an horrible cost in tank losses over 98,000 AFVs lost from June 1941 - April 1945. Now these wern't all tank vs tank losses Ie, Stug's accounted for over 20,000 Soviet AFVs the Tiger Abt's alone accounted for another 10,000 etc this doesnt even include the Pz Div tallies or the German AT arm totals.

So if every Panther was killing 3 - 5 T-34's before being lost, what is the price then? is the Panther then worth the cost to produce? would the design then be worth the effort?.

Regards, John Waters<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John,

I would have to disagree. For every Panther platoon, there was a company if not more of T-34's. I highly doubt that the Soviets would continue pitting T-34 platoons against Panther platoons after the initial realization that one on one, the Panther was usually superior.

No, I think that the 3-5 T-34's destroyed before going down for the Panthers is a good deal too high, although researching this would be very interesting. I doubt that the majority of Russian AFV losses were even from serious combat. You drive a machine which was quickly made through mud, bad roads, and other hazardous conditions, and you have it breaking down quite a bit. Not to mention combat against Panthers.

Also, we must consider what AFV losses means for the Soviets and what it means for the Germans. Let me elabortae:

In a Soviet offensive, a company of T-34's is issued in support of a certaint amount of infantry. They encounter a platoon of Panthers. Battle ensues, and the Soviets lose 2 of their platoons but manage to totally destroy the single Panther platoon.

OK, now, the battle is over and the Soviets advance. The knocked out Panthers, no matter how badly off they are, are captured and melted down for use in Soviet industry. They are quite truly lost. However, the knocked out Soviet tanks is a different matter.

Sgt Sugachenko had a track hit and his machine was listed as "lost". Sgt Bolkonsky had a turret penetration which injured the tank commander slightly, along with the gun, and the tank was listed as knocked out. Sgt Boguchov's machine lost a track while circling around the Panther platoon's flank and was listed as KO'ed. Out of all the Soviet losses, only 1 or 2 machines were really seriously damaged.

Now, all the Soviets need to do is repair that track, or gun, or whatever else, and the machine is as good as new. The Germans cannot do this. Even when they can somehow recapture their KO'ed machines, they have a MUCH harded time repairing them.

So, for the Germans, the majority AFV losses are truly losses. For the Soviets, the majority of AFV losses are merely repairs needed to be done and crew members replaced.

Oh, and btw, the losses I mentioned for this hypothentical engagement arent even accurate. The Soviets would have probably lost only 1 or 1 and 1/2 tank platoons, not 2.

So now, we can make our little estimates and historical guesses again. How good was the Panther when it was not able to be repaired most of the time when KO'ed, as compared to the Soviet machines which were?

Oh, and a bit off topic, but can someone provide some numbers to overall German AFV losses on the Eastern Front? Just interested.

[Commissar]

Remember that kill ratios are just that: ratios. They do not mean that every single Panther tank and her crew took out 3-5 T-34s before being destroyed. Some made more kills, some made less before being destroyed and some just got destroyed without killing any Soviet armor. It would be a big mistake to assume that a platoon of 4-5 Panthers are automatically going to kill 15-25 T-34s simply because they are German or that it was possible.

Anecdotal reports are nice and fun to read but it's also a mistake to think that a tank or unit that made extraoridinary kills was necessarily a common occurence with that unit or other German units. After all, if the Germans were so incredible all the time and unstoppable, they wouldn't have lost the war. While German tank crew training was undoubtedly better in general, it hardly means that every single German crew was better than every single Russian crew. If BTS were to give a general positive modifier for ALL German units/AFVs against ALL Russian units, ALL the time; CM2 would be FUBAR. Steve has already said this won't happen and for obvious reasons.

Be careful about reading any report whether it be German or Russian. Both sides are open to misanalysis, misperceptions, and even propaganda. For the pro-German faction, just because its a German report hardly means it's correct, objective, and not subject to propaganda. Its the same for the Soviets. Well, enough of the sermon....

I get the feeling a lot of people are going to think the Russians have an "unfair" advantage in CM2. "The Russians are supposed to suck!!" Sort of like when CM1 v112 came out and Tigers weren't this unstoppable, invincible tank because of Allied use of effective tungsten rounds or simply better tactics.

[Mr. Johnson--]

yeah, espcially with all of us warriors who have experiance with quality tactics in CM. We will be using T-34s to great effect.

Nobody has mentioned that the T-34 has a 500 horses Aluminum engine. With one of the best, or the best power to weight ratios of any tank in WW2.

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Commissar:

John,

I would have to disagree. For every Panther platoon, there was a company if not more of T-34's. I highly doubt that the Soviets would continue pitting T-34 platoons against Panther platoons after the initial realization that one on one, the Panther was usually superior.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Commissar, disagree away, I disagree with most of yours as well . When I refered to Plt's etc I'm refering to that; tanks don't fight alone, not that a Panther Plt or a T-34 Plt acted alone or faced each other singularly.

They fought on an frontage as an Abt or Brigada broken down into Company's then into Plts, then pairs. I also thought this thread was a comparison of the T-34 vs the Panther. if so the the advantge in firepower, armor & mobility, go to the Panther in an engagement, the numbers go to the T-34.

As to Soviet AFV losses the loss data concern's Soviet AFVs; lost, as in knocked out at least once, with crew fatalaties, as well as lost; as in totaly destroyed & or captured.

As to a comparison of 'losses' in 1943 the Soviet's lost 23,500 tank's & SU's the German's 8,000, tank's and AGs. Soviet production for 1943 was 24,000 tank's & SU's + another 3,300 tanks recieved Lend Lease. Total German production was 10,747 AFVs for 1943. As of December 1943 the Soviet's despite the losses had 21,000 tank's & SU's available vs 2000 German AFVS.

As to vehicle recovery don't even get me started on that especialy concerning Soviet practices or lack of. As to kill ratios etc, pls Commissar, the data was given as an example & to pose a question, it is not anecdotal it is official claims, now if you would like to disprove the claims, I'll be the 1st to listen to your reasoning.

Now the AAR's we sometime use here our anecdotal etc, & adifrent story but their usualy used to illustrate a point or as an example.

One thing to remember is the ppl writeing them wrote them from their POV which reflect the times, nor I'II bet they wern't expecting a bunch of geeks to be reading them 60 odd years later either .

I also woulds add this, though the Soviet's got better as the war went on their losses , human & material losses in operations climbed. Nor would I expect CM2 to suddenly give us a revisionist modeling of the Eastren Front Ie, all the Soviet squads & units become uber based on the current version of the Eastren Front that is floating around here & on other boards, Ie, Soviet reverses are being written off, the horrible cost in human life in operations is being downplayed, German accounts of the battles being dissmissed as hersey etc, in the rush to rewrite the earlier Soviet images.

I get the feeling ppl are starting to think their just gonna jump into the Soviet side & stomp the Germans, which I'd hate to see their faces when they see the command penalties, or the 2 man turret delays, or the out of contact penalties etc.

And as to invincible tanks you will have tanks that are pretty much immune frontaly to the others wpns Ie, the T-34 & KV1 will run amok till the appearence of the PAK 50, & 7.5 cm L/43 tank gun. While the Panther & Tiger will run amok in their respective periods etc.

Regards, John Waters

[ 06-23-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Mr. Johnson--]

I'm sorry PzKpfw 1 the T-34 had much better speed and low ground pressure, heince better mobility.

And I think most QBs will be set in 1943 mid summer after the game comes out, with rarity turned off.

So the russians will have lots of T-34s, KV-1s, KV-1Ses, and the big bad SU 152, against lots of PZ-IIIs, Panthers and Tigers. Thats gonna be a pretty even match-up

[Grisha]

Interesting that we're comparing a lighter tank to a heavier tank. The PzV was a 'medium' tank in name only. Okay, so maybe it was lighter than a PzVI, but then a Tiger is really just a moving bunker Actually, the comparison should be the PzV and the IS-2, since these tanks were of very similar weight. The T-34 should be limited to the PzIV for comparison really.

[Mr. Johnson--]

well crap, then the russikies win when you consider the numbers built, and the russians won the war.

[Commissar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Grisha:

Interesting that we're comparing a lighter tank to a heavier tank. The PzV was a 'medium' tank in name only. Okay, so maybe it was lighter than a PzVI, but then a Tiger is really just a moving bunker Actually, the comparison should be the PzV and the IS-2, since these tanks were of very similar weight. The T-34 should be limited to the PzIV for comparison really.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually that's a good point. Totally forgot about that weight disparity. What the Soviets considered heavy would only be medium to the Germans

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr. Johnson-<THC>-:

I'm sorry PzKpfw 1 the T-34 had much better speed and low ground pressure, hence better mobility.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was going off Jentz's data & remarks concerning the Panther's operational charachteristics & the Panther's ability to cross terrain & deal with obstacles, in which he claims, was better then any Allied tank it faced.

Some comparitive data:

Panther Ausf.G

Combat weight - 45.5 m/tons

Maimum Speed - 45.7 km/hr

Average sustained road speed - 30 - 35 km/hr

Average Cross country speed - 20km/hr

Radius of action road - 200km

Radius of action, cross country - 100km

Smallest turning radius - 4.7m

Trench crossing - 2.45m

Fording - 1.90m

Step climbing - 0.90m

Gradient climbing - 35^

Ground clearence - 0.56m

Ground pressure - 0.75 kg/cm2

Power to weight ratio 15.5 HP/ton

T-34-85

Combat weight - 32 m/tons

Maimum Speed - 47.0 km/hr

Maximum cross country speed - 30km/hr

Radius of action road - 300km

Radius of action, cross country - 160km

Smallest turning radius - 7.7m

Fording - 1.3m

Ground clearence - 0.4m

Ground pressure - 0.87 kg/cm2

Power to weight ratio - 14.2 HP/ton

As we see the Panther had a lower GP as well as better HP/ton, ground clearence, turning radi, fording capability etc. While the T-34-85 has slightly better ma speeds vs the Panther's 'average' attained speeds, & better ma ranges.

Regards, John Waters

[ 06-24-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Mr. Johnson--]

I thought we were comparing the panther to the T-34-76.2....

T-34-76.2

Combat Weight -30.9 M/Tons

Max. Speed -50 Km/hr

Max. off road speed -40 Km/hr

Range On/Off -350/220 km

Smallest turning radius -7.6 (funny is this a magic number for the russians?)

Fording -1.3m

Ground clearence -.4m

Ground Pressure- .75 kg/cm^2

Power to weight ratio -16.2 hp/ton

This puppy had a good engine...It was some good engines that led the Germans to victory in France. Nuff said...

P.S. Just ask Guderian

[Stalin's Organ]

A pointless comparison - the panther is 50% heavier than the T34 or either persuasion.

Why not compare the IS-2 with the Panther??

And to the guy who says the panther was the great-grandaddy of all modern MBT's - the Panther used design concepts from hte T34....it added nothing except thicker armour and a longer gun (not even larger calibre).

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr. Johnson-<THC>-:

I thought we were comparing the panther to the T-34-76.2....

T-34-76.2

Combat Weight -30.9 M/Tons

Max. Speed -50 Km/hr

Max. off road speed -40 Km/hr

Range On/Off -350/220 km

Smallest turning radius -7.6 (funny is this a magic number for the russians?)

Fording -1.3m

Ground clearence -.4m

Ground Pressure- .75 kg/cm^2

Power to weight ratio -16.2 hp/ton

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok then we can compare it to the Panther Ausf D

Combat Weight -44.8 M/Tons

Max. Speed -55Km/hr

Max. off road speed - 20 - 30 Km/hr

Range On/Off - 200/100 km

Smallest turning radius -4.7m

Fording -1.9m

Ground clearence - 0.56m

Ground Pressure- .73 kg/cm^2

Power to weight ratio -15.5 hp/ton

As to comparing it to the IS-2 why would we? encounters between the IS-2 & German tanks were a rarity, the IS-2 was not employed as a tank vs tank, tank it was employed as a special breakthru wpn operateing similar to Tiger Abt's except it's mission wasn't ant armor orientated. The Panther's most common foe was the T-34. TYhe Panther was designated a medium tank & employed as such unlike it's predecesor the Tiger that operated as an Heavy tank & was employed as such.

Regards, John Waters