T-34 vs Panther

[Stalin's Organ]

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

I'm not debateing the T-34 was not an good tank for it's time 1941 - early 1943. Nor did I say they wouldn't pose a threat to an PzKpfw III J or PzKpfw IV F2, they are just not in the same leauge as the Panther or Tigers, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well of course they bloody well aren't!! No more than Pz-2's and 3's adn 4's of 1941 were a match for them.

No more than Panthers would have been for Chieftans, Centurions, T55's or M-60's.

SO BLOODY WHAT?????

[rwcanuck]

A lot of really great comments on this thread. Ever since I was a young lad I had this love affair with the Panther but don't tell my Wife

Most Grognards have seen my site but if you haven't seen my Panther site here is the URL: http://members.tripod.com/~dietmagic/panther.html

RW

[Mr. Johnson--]

I think what would be better is too have 1 to 3 diffrent vaules for armor quality and evey time you buy a tank the CM engine roles a 3 sided die and gives your tank say 100%, 95%, or 85%. Just like the Tungesten rounds and ammo loadouts.

Realisticly these values for armor quality were subject to real world problems. A bad mix of hard metals, an idiot running the mold, bombing.

And maybe the tank factory in Lenigrad turned out decent armor, the factory in Stalingrad made crappy armor, and the ones near Gorky were top notch and got priority for the good steels and had the best trained engineers in Russia. But thats would require massive amounts of research.

[Grisha]

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

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But then, John, why are we comparing a Panther to a T-34 when the most common German tank was either a PzIV, or a StuG? Of course, this isn't my thread, but just taking your logic a step further. Besides, there was no Soviet doctrine or design that was intentionally formed around the tank vs. tank idea. There was only exploitation and breakthrough

[Bastables]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 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).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It added the design point of manufacturing a Tank for the specific purpose of defeating other tanks also tailing into the most developed suspension in the world to carry the extra weight and enable it to maneuver better cross country than any of its contemporys.

The Germans considered the Panther as a medium tank and deployed it as such, T-34 apologists talking about the disparity in weight play into the fact that the Germans design and manufacturing 45 ton tanks with better mobility than tanks 20-10 tons lighter. The Christie suspension did not allow the T-34 to reach the equivalent speeds of a Panther cross country, its that simple.

People who denigrate anecdotal evidences used in a constructive manner should not then create hypothetical ‘engagements’ themselves.

Mace I should have a turn out to you by next month. Hello John 

[Grisha]

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

I think what would be better is too have 1 to 3 diffrent vaules for armor quality and evey time you buy a tank the CM engine roles a 3 sided die and gives your tank say 100%, 95%, or 85%. Just like the Tungesten rounds and ammo loadouts.

Realisticly these values for armor quality were subject to real world problems. A bad mix of hard metals, an idiot running the mold, bombing.

And maybe the tank factory in Lenigrad turned out decent armor, the factory in Stalingrad made crappy armor, and the ones near Gorky were top notch and got priority for the good steels and had the best trained engineers in Russia. But thats would require massive amounts of research.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, Mr. Johnson, it would be far more accurate to depict such a variable scale as being dependent on year, not factory. The relocation of Soviet heavy industry had much more to do with variable serial production quality than any one particular factory, per se. 1942 was probably the worse year for serial production. Of course, getting hard data in sufficient quantities to validify this will be a problem.

[Freak]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ:

Well of course they bloody well aren't!! No more than Pz-2's and 3's adn 4's of 1941 were a match for them.

No more than Panthers would have been for Chieftans, Centurions, T55's or M-60's.

SO BLOODY WHAT?????<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehehe...have a look at the title of the thread . Just comparing the tanks thats all.

[ 06-24-2001: Message edited by: Freak ]

[Mr. Johnson--]

Grisha said,

"Actually, Mr. Johnson, it would be far more accurate to depict such a variable scale as being dependent on year, not factory. The relocation of Soviet heavy industry had much more to do with variable serial production quality than any one particular factory, per se. 1942 was probably the worse year for serial production. Of course, getting hard data in sufficient quantities to validify this will be a problem."

Which is what BTS is bascilly doing right now. Which is why I have switched from buying the PZ-IVH alot and now I'm buying the PZ-IVG because its armor is 100% while the PZ-IVH is 95%.

[Freak]

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

Hehehe...have a look at the title of the thread. Just comparing the tanks thats all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Stalin's Organ]

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

It added the design point of manufacturing a Tank for the specific purpose of defeating other tanks also tailing into the most developed suspension in the world to carry the extra weight and enable it to maneuver better cross country than any of its contemporys.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Arrant nonsense - these concepts weer precisely those designed into the T34.

Read my post again - I'm talking about concepts - things like great cross-country mobility in a tank considerably heavier than it's contemporaries (including an advanced suspension system), a gun well ahead of it's time, invulnerable (well more effective than was considered normal at the time at least) armour were all in the T34/76 in 1940!

[PzKpfw 1]

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

But then, John, why are we comparing a Panther to a T-34 when the most common German tank was either a PzIV, or a StuG? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Grisha I'm glad you brought that up, as concerning numbers it's realy date dependant on when the PzKpfw IV was more 'common' Ie, up till the end mid - late 1944, the PzKpfw IV was the most 'common' German tank, Ie, as of 31.05.44 their were 603 PzKpfw IV's & 313 PzKpfw V's deployed on the Eastren Front, but by 15.09.44 their were 610 PzKpfw IV's & 728 PzKpfw V's deployed on the Eastren Front.

Panther totals from then on remained around 700 + and were even with, slightly less, or more then PzKpfw IV numbers. The last disparity in numbers was on 15.03.45 with 1,239 PzKpfw IV & 762 PzKpfw V.

So basicly their was just as good a chance as running into a Panther as their was a PzKpfw IV.

Regards, John Waters

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

[PzKpfw 1]

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

Hello John <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BAST!!!!!!! Good to see your back. Will talk to you E-mail.

Regards, John Waters

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

[Andreas]

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

Mace I should have a turn out to you by next month. Hello John ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Bastables - so the jungle did not want to keep you. Well at least you have been put in your place here right on your return

[Grisha]

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

Grisha I'm glad you brought that up, as concerning numbers it's realy date dependant on when the PzKpfw IV was more 'common' Ie, up till the end mid - late 1944, the PzKpfw IV was the most 'common' German tank, Ie, as of 31.05.44 their were 603 PzKpfw IV's & 313 PzKpfw V's deployed on the Eastren Front, but by 15.09.44 their were 610 PzKpfw IV's & 728 PzKpfw V's deployed on the Eastren Front.

Panther totals from then on remained around 700 + and were even with, slightly less, or more then PzKpfw IV numbers. The last disparity in numbers was on 15.03.45 with 1,239 PzKpfw IV & 762 PzKpfw V.

So basicly their was just as good a chance as running into a Panther as their was a PzKpfw IV. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting numbers, John, and I don't doubt their validity either. Would you happen to know the general numbers for the StuG in the Russian Front?

[Vanir Ausf B]

This whole business of comparing the Panther to the T-34 is rather silly IMO for several reasons.

The Panther was developed in direct response to the T-34. It can be argued that if there had been no T-34, there would have been no Panther. Or at least the Panther would have been a much different tank.

The Panther is a later design than the T-34. The Germans were able to take concepts pioneered by the Russians with the T-34 (highly sloped armor, high speed) and improve upon them while adding their own innovations.

Comparing the Panther and T-34 is like comparing a M-48 Patton with an Easy Eight Sherman because they were both used in the medium tank role post war. Which is better? Well DUH! I think it may be the later design

Of course the Panther is pound for pound superior to the T-34. It's a latter design. The Germans would really have had to screw something up for it not to be better. I don't even understand why this is worth arguing over, it seems so obvious.

If you want a fair comparison of "medium" tanks compare tanks developed at the same time, so T-34 would be compared to Pz III and IV. Over the course of the whole war T-34s met up with a whole lot more of those than they did of Panthers.

The T-34 needs no one to apologize for it.

[Stalin's Organ]

Nicely said Vanir!

Moreover the t34/85 shouldn't be compared to the the Panther either - the correct comparison is with the Pz-IV F2 and later models - an upgunned 1940 tank.

(or the Sherman 76, of similar vintage and family history)

[ASL Veteran]

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

Interesting numbers, John, and I don't doubt their validity either. Would you happen to know the general numbers for the StuG in the Russian Front?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you happen to know the numbers for the SU 76, SU 85, the SU 100, the SU 122 etc? The StuG is an SP gun - compare it to other SP guns.

[PzKpfw 1]

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

Interesting numbers, John, and I don't doubt their validity either. Would you happen to know the general numbers for the StuG in the Russian Front?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll see what i can dig up.

Ok to sumarize it's been established it's totaly unfair to compare the Panther to the T-34, it's only 'fair' to compare the Panther to the IS-2 Heavy Tank because the Panther was realy a heavy tank by Soviet standards. & It's only fair to compare the T-34 to the PzKpfw III & IV or Stug.

The T-34-85 is not a valid comparison to the Panther, despite it being developed to battle the Panther. So now we need someone to start a T-34 vs PzKpfw IV, thread so no 'unfair' comparisons will be made vs the T-34.....

Regards, John Waters

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

[Stalin's Organ]

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

The T-34-85 is not a valid comparison to the Panther, despite it being developed to battle the Panther. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

More nonsense!

The 85mm gun was installed to combat increasing German armour in general - the Tiger was the first tank to come to everyone's notice in this regard, but even Mk 3's and Mk 4's were up-armoured over the years.

Telling a little bit of the truth is the same as telling most of a lie!

[PJungnitsch]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ:

Moreover the t34/85 shouldn't be compared to the the Panther either - the correct comparison is with the Pz-IV F2 and later models - an upgunned 1940 tank.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fair or not, the T-34/85 and the Panther were certainly used the same way at the same period of time, designed to oppose each other in the medium tank role of each army.

I see the point being made, but if you want to go down that road by the same token it could be said that it is not fair to compare the T-34, developed in '39-'40, with the PzIV, developed in '35-'36. Really then PzIV should be compared to the BT-5 or BT-7.

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ:

[QB]

More nonsense!

{/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Soviet's did not even consider the Tiger an serious threat because of it's low numbers & the fact they knew it would never be deployed in substantial numbers during the war. They even refused to consider looking into upgunning the T-34 despite tank crew requests for a new better gunned tank. Even after the appearence of the PzKpfw IV,F2 with the 7.5 cm L/43 gun they still refused to upgun the T-34.

Instead they approved a design proposal to increase the T-34's armor with the T-43 project. After the appearence of the Panther during Zitadelle & increasingly heavy tank losses in tank vs tank combat & finaly the realization the Germans were employing a new medium & it would be produced in large numbers, unlike the Tiger.

Their was no urgency in a new tank gun into June of 1943, it wasn't until after the July - August fighting that priority was given to a new more powerful gun.

Fortunetly GAU w/o authorization had looked into developing a new gun after the 1st encounters with the Tiger, & had been working on the 85mm DT-5 since January 1943 the DT-5 led to the S-53 & a faster incorperation into the T-34-85 design .

Regards, John Waters

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

[rexford]

The 122mm APBC round fired by IS-2 could penetrate a good quality Panther glacis at 1500m, and a flawed glacis at over 2500m. This is based on tests and combat experience.

The 122mm AP round bounced at all ranges against good quality Panther glacis, and might penetrate a flawed glacis at up to 700m.

122mm penetrates Panther 100mm cast mantlet to really distant ranges.

Panther 75mm will not penetrate IS-2m glacis at any range, but will penetrate 100mm turret and mantlet armor at really far ranges.

Panther has more APCBC rounds than IS-2m carries AP or APBC. 10 armor piercing rounds don't go far. Combine that with low rate of fire and IS tanks have problems going toe to toe with Panther, and maybe even a PzKpfw IVH.

Regarding IS-2/2m vs Panther, Russians were very concerned when initial combats showed 122mm AP to be near useless against Panther glacis. I did not mean to say the Tank vs Tank combats 'tween Panther and IS-2 were everyday affairs, but they appear to have occurred on other than a rare occasion.

Back in the 1980's I bought a computer wargame with historical scenario's and one of the battles had a large Panther unit attacking an advancing IS-2m group. Panthers won.

Combat directives may have said that IS-2 tanks were to concentrate on infantry defensive positions, but just like the Shermans that were directed to attack infantry and leave tank fighting to others (M10 units), IS tanks and Shermans would get drawn into tank combat when defensive positions were reinforced or counter attacks were made. Despite combat directives to the contrary, how many Shermans ended up fighting Panthers and PzKpfw IV in France?

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

Fair or not, the T-34/85 and the Panther were certainly used the same way at the same period of time, designed to oppose each other in the medium tank role of each army.

I see the point being made, but if you want to go down that road by the same token it could be said that it is not fair to compare the T-34, developed in '39-'40, with the PzIV, developed in '35-'36. Really then PzIV should be compared to the BT-5 or BT-7.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. BT-5 and 7 were certainly not medium tanks by any stretch of the word.

You can't get around the fact that Panther was developed using some ideas gained directly from T-34. No T-34, no Panther. Or maybe a Panther with non-sloped armor. People forget that one of the rejected designs of the Panther was almost a clone of T-34 (Hitler would have none of that!)

T-34/85 was a stopgap effort while the IS series was developed. It is still a T-34, not to be treated as a whole new design.

Comparing Panther and T-34 is fair in as far as they were "medium" tanks and saw combat against each other. But M1A1s and T-72s can be compared using the same logic and it is just as pointless.

Panther was the better tank. So what? Later designs are supposed to be better than earlier ones. End of discussion.

[ 06-24-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[PJungnitsch]

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

You can't get around the fact that Panther was developed using some ideas gained directly from T-34. No T-34, no Panther. Or maybe a Panther with non-sloped armor. People forget that one of the rejected designs of the Panther was almost a clone of T-34.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No one is arguing that.

But recognition problems were probably the main reason for not adopting that design directly, plus the inherent disadvantages of rear wheel drive and a forward mounted turret. Hitler was said to favor the simpler 'T-34 type', but the final straw was the inability to mount the L/70 gun, from what I remember.

Photo courtesy of: http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz4.htm#panther

[ 06-24-2001: Message edited by: machineman ]

[Stalin's Organ]

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

Fortunetly GAU w/o authorization had looked into developing a new gun after the 1st encounters with the Tiger<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Make up your mind please!