PJungnitsch

So the 'gun high' design of the T-34 would make it a good machine to hide hull down but poor to use reverse slopes?

The books I just looked in seem to call them all 'tank destroyers' in English. However if I have this right in German the early lashup types, where they basically stuck an anti tank gun on top of whatever chassis they had spare (Marder I, II, and III) are called 'Tank Hunters' 'Panzerjaeger' the same as the anti tank PAK gun crews were, and for the same reasons. Really they weren't hunting anything, they were defending, but the Germans gave them the term 'Tank Hunter' to boost their morale. 'The tank is not your enemy, you are the tanks enemy!' type of thing. A bit of the military psychology at work, especially valuable for crews like that that are quite vulnerable. The the later purpose built creations (Jagdpanzer Hetzer, Jagdpanzer IV, JagdPanther, JagdTiger) were called 'Hunting Tanks' 'Jagdpanzer', a small difference in wording but signifying the more aggressive tactics possible by the heavier armour and longer range, harder hitting guns. Stugs are an inbetween category, with elements of both types. Nashorns fit more in the former, Elephants in the latter. Interesting question [ 07-05-2001: Message edited by: machineman ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>German panzer crewman who were captured told Russians T34 is blind to the side, side viewing glass has bubbles and does not magnify.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> A good illustration of that, from achtung panzer, is that the Germans were happy to use captured T-34's but made a point to install commander's cupolas from damaged PzIII or PzIV.:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: Could you ask your Grandpa if he has any direct knowledge of the use of Sf14z or other coincidence type range finders by Panzer Crews. Not Stug crews, but honest to god MkIV, MkV, and Mk VI crews. Thanks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> How about the Jagdpanther? Just ran across this at an AFV interiors article on the Jagdpanther, and um, it seemed like the right thread... "The commander has immediate access to two openings over his head, one double-door hatch for entering and exiting the vehicle, and a smaller door for mounting his periscope, which was directly in front of his hatch and could be rotated 360 degrees. The periscope mount contained openings and mounts for both a normal tank periscope and the commander's stereoscopic range finder. The hatch shape you see at the top of this photo is this periscope mount which is located at the very front of the roof. The stereoscopic range finder base clamps to the black bar you see hanging down and can be elevated on the bar to extend up through a small opening in the roof mount. You will often see a similar long vertical bar in other vehicles using the stereoscopic range finder, such as the Elefant and Jagdtiger. The commander's viewing periscope is the typical removable German type that clamps up into the mount behind the range finder with two wing nuts, one on either side of the frame mount. The combination of these two instruments allowed the commander to search and locate targets with his periscope and then range them for the gunner in advance." This photo shows the arrangement, with the kidney shaped hatch for the rangefinder in front of the armoured cover of the periscope:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Man-hours, machining hours, number and complexity of manufacturing operations and scarce commodities required for production all count. T-34s were produced on an assembly line, the design (wartime version of it) provided for all sorts of technological shortcuts (things such as slip bearings instead of ball bearings), and demanded much less deficit things than either Pz-IV or Pz-V.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> True, although crude and simple construction does not necessarily translate into quick and cheap production, in the same way it does not always translate into reliability. I have read stories that Westerners who toured Soviet factories at the time were amazed at how inefficiently they were run and my experience in Communist countries and with Communist built equipment would tend to agree with that. The greater amount of T-34's built compared to Panthersmay (and I of course could be wrong) have more to do with 1)like you say, Germany's slowness to gear up to total war 2)the fact the Soviets could concentrate on tank production while ignoring such things as producing subs and leaving truck production to the Americans 3) Not having to deal with the shortages of raw materials that the Germans had to constantly work around 4) Not getting their factories and transportation system pounded to mush on a regular basis.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Numerically about 2:1<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 3:1 in men, 6:1 in tanks, 4:1 in aircraft. Rommel was also short of fuel, food, and ammo for what he did have. That's whatBrittanicasays anyhow.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Desantnik: Now i agree, Panther DID hold a slight edge over T34 but that edge was not justified by 1) the cost 2) the speed of production 3) the fact that it took them quite some time to work all the "bugs" out. you could build one Panther or whole platoon of T34/85, and quite frankly in WW2 quantity overpowered quality<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 1) and 2) I guess that is what I was driving at. WAS the Panther much tougher to build than the T-34 or is this just another myth? Maybe the Panther was actually not much more expensive or slower to build than the T-34. Ramp up of T-34 production was also a bit of a nightmare with a huge number of initial problems. And once Germany declared 'total war' and Speer had rationalized the industry Panther production soared despite Germany fighting on two fronts, being pounded to pieces from the air, and being starved of raw materials and fuel, all drawbacks the Soviets did not have to face. 3)T-34's were also very buggy initially and the program was in the beginning in constant danger of being scrapped. It also be argued that many of the bugs were never worked out but did not become a real issue because the destruction rate was so high.

Here's another question on the Panther vs T-34 issue. I just read on another board that the Panther's price was almost the same as the PzIV: "the cost to produce a Panther was not not much more than a IV - PzIV 103,462RM, Pz V 117,100RM Pawlas, Datenblaetter fuer Heeres-Waffen" Was the Panther actually significantly more expensive to build than the T-34? I always had the impression that a PzIV, T-34, and Sherman were comparable to manufacture.

The Panthers could certainly get a lesson taught to them by well handled T-34's, ie this account of the fighting at Kursk from the forum at http://www.dupuyinstitute.org "A typical encounter in the deep system of enemy fortifications developed on the morning of July 7. The detachment, its fight strength whittled down to less than half its original size, attacked in formations with the 10th Panzer Brigade starting from the Dubrova area in the general direction of Syrtzev through a valley floor and toward a gradual, semicircular incline, gunner had to observe while being blinded by a bright blue sky. Suddenly, the first tanks hit a mine obstacle and the attack faltered. Simultaneously, extremely well camouflaged, dug-in T-34 tanks opened fire. Our formation was caught up front, particularly at the flanks. Fire from these enemy tanks was very precise, because it was fired from a fixed position. On the other hand, the enemy tanks were not be recognized except for the split second when they actually fired. Within only a few moments we suffered severe losses; I believe we lost close to 30 Panther's there. After those tanks that remained serviceable had retreated out of the enemy's gun range, a tenaciously fought battle resumed. The Panther's decided it to their advantage due to their excellent gun and the superior range. Eventually, the enemy's position was undermined from the flank and free passage was achieved. Nevertheless, we felt the day was a defeat and long thereafter referred to the "Panther cemetery at Dubrova". We had by far the highest casualty rate in that engagement." [ 06-25-2001: Message edited by: machineman ]

<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 ]

<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.

What an interesting thread that was. I wonder how much information on the subject Steve has found between then and now?

Hmmm, interesting. I was under the assumption that Dupuy's figures were not there to prove WHY there were differences, but rather that differences existed. There were plenty of other factors that contributed to the Germans effectiveness, ie greater encouragement of individual initiative by the lower command levels 'every man a leader', a replacement and organizational system that was very effective at keeping unit cohesiveness under stress 'men fight best for their buddies', the policy of keeping commanders close to the front so they were better abreast of changing conditions..... I'm sure there are others, but all have been looked at very closely by most modern armies.

The 'gist' I got out of reading up on Bagration was that the Germans were counting on being able to block the Soviet advance in that area by holding the 'dry zones' through which armies normally had to go. The difference this time was that the Red Army was suddenly very well motorized with a flood of American six wheel drive trucks, the best transport trucks of the time. So while the Germans were holding the dry areas, the Soviets just drove around them. And not only could the Soviets use the bad terrain to advance, but they could advance in it much faster by truck than the Germans could retreat and reorganize by feet and horse.

Thanks fallschirmjager for the link, interesting reading. Seems quite likely (to me) what a 20 year old would write at the time. As far as the kill numbers go, not only is this a tale of an 'ace', but T-34's WERE shot up in vast quantities. There was a good reason the Soviets had to make 40,000 of them to win. Other than that it seems pretty well balanced 'Karl my gunner must have fired about 30 shells god knows where he got trained to aim!' Made me laugh, after all those arguments on how accurate the gunnery should be.

I've got some pretty good results for some Stug formations, ie 244th Assault Gun brigade with a record of 54 American tanks taken out for loss of 2 of their own during the Ardennes offensive. Did Stugs really have results that were that good?

Not wanting to belabour a point, but this looks more like soft armour than hard, doesn't it? A chemical analysis of the armor showed that on both tanks the armor plating has a shallow surface tempering, whereas the main mass of the armored plating is made of soft steel. http://history.vif2.ru/library/archives/stat/stat7.html Perhaps there is no standard for T-34 armour, that variations in quality control could result in all kinds of hardnesses, depending on the factory, the foreman, who was on that shift, etc. [ 04-10-2001: Message edited by: machineman ]