Mr. Tittles

The Tiger I side armor should be specified. Was it the upper hull? lower hull (which was thinner?) What about the turret?

I think this thread has spent its 6 pages of posts showing the following: 1. Bastables contracted. A lot too. I was holding back on his erroneous info hoping for even more bizarro behaviour from him but JasonC showed him his folly. He went to tell others about the points they were missing in threads far, far away I suppose. 2. Andreas came, blurted/baffled/bafooned and beat a retreat. Facts hit the fan and Andreas-Porgy ran away. 3. JasonC showed some real understanding of historical facts but should not have championed Andreas' blurts. JasonC is no small force in threads but has shown technological shortcomings in the past. I have learned that threads are a learning experience. Forcing me to uncover more detailed layers and finding I am even more correct than ever before. 4. The summary guy showed that he probably followed the thread and noticed that posters were not addressing the same points. He must have a QC background as this is a hallmark of that trade. I do not like the trade as it never assumes responsibilty and is always 'right' ( but uncommitted). If anyone hasn't guessed, I do have extensive manufacturing experience and can see through BS like the KV plant must turn into a T34 plant. What a wimpy argument! But anyway, thanks for jumping in. Please do again. I wish everyone a happy new one and will advise: think/research before you post (or get real lucky like me!). [ January 01, 2004, 10:57 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

In the first half of 1942, there were 3 plants making T34: 1.#183 2. #112 3. Stalingrad So we see the Soviets started with two and have three during the first half of 42. The logic is that they eventually had 7 plants producing by the end of the war. Tank plants are essentially assembly plants. They are supplied by foundrys that make armor plate and perhaps cut it to size, engine manufacturers who supply tested engines/trannys etc, gun suppliers who produce and test guns and supply them. All these items are the assembled into tanks just as cars are made. You do not put an untested major sub-system into a tank. Its a stupid thing to do. I have shown that the Soviets increased the supplier of a major sub-component, the T34/76 gun system. That they dedicated a new plant to this major sub-system, more than anything else, proves the concentration on the t34/76 series. The output of the 3 gun plants (increased from 2) met the needs of the new program. This is what scared Andreas off with a parting shot of throwing a hissy fit. While his talents are not limited to creating scenarios that are best handled with Alt-Q, he likes to jump into a thread late, stir up a hulabaloo and then run off quickly. An interesting example is Uralmash. Initially a supplier of turrets, it was ordered to be a T34 producer (assembly plant itself). It developed a 'pressed-turret' (forged) also and was then directed to be a SU producer. It was probably the center of SU production from late 43 on. The other T34 plants focusing on T34/76 and T34/85. [ January 01, 2004, 10:03 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

Turreted tanks represent offensive combat power. [ January 02, 2004, 03:34 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

With my German stats you can toss the Panthers in with the Tigers as heavies, or in with the IIIs and IVs as mediums. Do as you jolly well please. The Russians were no more focused on the 34 chassis than the Germans were on the III and IV chassis combined. The increase in 34 portion in 1943 was temporary, until the IS series came back on line. This is why we beat dead horses. Cause, unlike real dead horses (who will stop posting eventually), jasonc likes to change the tune again. My point WAS that the soviets concentrated (not to the point of exclusion) on T34 production during 1943. Your numbers show it and if the SU mediums are added, just as you added in the others, it supports me further. YOU focused on the chassis argument and it didnt matter anyway!Thanks. toodles to you and yours.

When you say III&IV, how many different vehicles are you clumping? Is it TEN to ELEVEN??? [ January 01, 2004, 09:02 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

While Jason skews the numbers, I would like to discuss the Panzer III insanity. From almost the start, StuG manufacturing was a major end user of this chassis. Starting in 1940, there were 396 37mm versions and 466 50L42 versions made along with 184 StuG shorts. In 1942 we see L42, L60, AND 75mm short turreted tanks, 90 StuG short 75mm and (thank god) 702 StuG 75mmLong. In 1943 we see L60, turreted 75mm short, 100 flamethrowers, and StuG long. The rest of the war shows 3850 StuG in 44 and 863 in 45. The Germans did not run a program on this tank that showed any focus. Mobilization or not, it was a very diluted effort. [ January 02, 2004, 03:19 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

Maybe you need to define weight class. Does weight class have to do with weight? T34/76 and SU85 and SU122 need to be weighed?

http://www.battlefield.ru/t34_76_2.html This website shows 7 T34 factories during the war. Also has quarterly output of one of the factorys. Interestingly, the 1942 output was ABOVE planning. So we go from 2 plants to 7 plants from the start to the end. [ January 01, 2004, 08:08 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

Cute. You break out the SU chassis on the T34 but include Heavys to include SU 152, ISU, etc. You do the same with the light tanks including SU76. Slice it any which way you please I guess. Even this data (whats your source?) shows that the T34 goes from half the vehicles in 42 to 2/3rds in 43 (actually its higher if you include 'Medium SU').

Total SU vehicles (SU76, SU85, SU122, SU152, ISU122) amounts to 4018 for 1943. Its about 16% of the total AFV production. As already stated, T34/76 alone were 71% of the AFV production. The remaining 13% is turreted light and heavy tanks. That means ONE vehcile type (t34/76) was 4.44 times more common than the sum total of FIVE types of SU vehciles put together. Before you were claiming 25% was a 'marginal' number. Slice it any which way that suits you I guess. [ January 01, 2004, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

I think the Germans made another big mistake in the production of Hornets and Hummels and Brummbar and StuGIV in 1943. These vehicles represent 800 some chassis of the Panzer IV type (or a hybrid of panzer III/IV). If just half of them would have been panzer IV/longs, it would have meant a 15% increase in turreted panzer IVs. Considering the power of the Panzer IVlong during 1943, this could have tipped the scales at Kursk or held back the Soviets in the later battles of 1943. The Hornet, as deadly as it was, was overkill in 1943 since the majority of turreted tanks were light tanks and T34/76 or T34 chassis variants! The Hummel should have been made in smaller numbers and 150mm guns just given prime movers (either halftracks or obsolete tanks). The diversion of the T34 chassis to a 85mm gun was especially usefull considering the heavy tanks and armor facing the Soviets. It was a good 4.4% investment that paid handsome dividends. Again, a case of the soviets making the right move at the right time! Its just so funny that the argument that JasonC is trying to make about SU85/SU122 eating into T34/76 production is actually worse in the case of the Panzer IV chassis! Update: SU85 plus SU122 was 8% of total T34 chassis in 1943 [ January 01, 2004, 06:55 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

Turreted tanks (all kinds) 1942 T34/76 was 51% 1943 t34/76 was 78%

I think that DFE was summarizing the thread. He even said so. Anyway.. 51% of Soviet AFV were built in 1942 were on the T34 chassis. 71% of 1943 Soviet AFV were built on the T34 chassis. Did the total numbers of AFV produced go up? No they went down. 550 vehicles or so. As shown before , heavy tanks (even using SU152, etc) went down. Light tanks (even using SU76) went down. [ January 01, 2004, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

All of this is far from the tank fleet mix point, however. Yes, much of it is. I think that JasonC does not read my posts. He is also flip-flopping on his viewing of the data. He needs to throw in assault guns, SPs to try to get some credibility to his numbers game. I knew it would come to that. SU76 (SP) numbers went up because Lt. Tank numbers went down (and perhaps because certain light tanks were canceled altogether). StuG numbers went up because a medium tank was being cancelled. T34 numbers went up and other vehicles based on its chassis ALSO went up. I do not see how that really defeats my threory. If anything, it expands it: The Soviets were concentrating on a chassis type without decreasing an output of medium tanks on that chassis type. T34/76 production went up 25% and the total amount of assault guns on that chassis represent 8% of the total T34 chassis vehicles! Its a very moot point. I find it not as weak as Andreas' stipulation about KV plants having to switch to T34 plants, but its just a poor argument and shows a decline in logic. At best its grasping at straws. If the Soviets had only increased T34/76 production 8% and increased SU based on T34 chassis 25% of the years total, then I would concede the point. But its not the case and I will largely expect that it will be ignored as usual. The SU85 was introduced on an existing MBT and did not interfere with the production and increase in production of that tank. Its quite different than the case of utilizing an existing chassis (like the SU76 or StuG did) to field a better gun on old technology. The Germans had Stug, Panzer IV, Panther and Tigers. All requiring different chassis needs. I have to be honest. I can't finish reading JasonC's posts when he starts on such meanderings. So maybe its fair that he does not read my posts or ignore things like Soviets employing extra plants towards T34 manufacturing. [ January 01, 2004, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

When I was in the service, we had a Korean in our unit who was once in the South Korean army before emigrating to the US. He was incredibly physically tough despite his height. He would laugh at our training and thought army chow was the best food on earth. He would tell us stories of physical abuse by the ROK NCOs. During inspections you stood in formation, if you got 'gigged' on something, the NCO would punch you in the gut (everyone clenched their stomachs during inspection). If you went down, he would kick you till you got up. I have both Koreans and Vietnamese in my business today. I find many Vietnamese to be in a state of perpetual loudness. Koreans seem more reserved but hell breaks loose when they lose it.

You have posted 133 times since 12-11-2003?

The Stug III actually had a better layout than the T34/76. Both had 4 man vehicles but the Stug had a dedicated commander. He also had a reciever (one of two in the vehicle) next to his position. He could adjust this reciever as needed. The gunner/driver were very close to each other in the Stug and worked to bring the vehicle to bear through voice and physical contact signals. The driver in the T34 was not that close and this further over burdened the commander. The loader in the stug acted as a radio operator also. He had a reciever and transmitter by his station. He was also within close physical proximity to the commander. He could monitor a separate channel while the commander monitered another.

Just clarifying some final issues. I think there might be another interesting side topic ot two. I certainly think JasonC should respond. Don't be so hasty in adopting a traffic cop attitude just so quick. [ December 31, 2003, 12:50 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

Other realities: 1. T34 production ramped up in 42. That is, more were made at the end of the year not at the begining of the year. data shows this. 2. The soviets made about 550 less AFV in 43 than 42! 3. SU85 were NOT introduced as T34/76 were phased out. They were designed and built concurrently. That is, the T34/76 not only increased in production numbers but the SU85 AND SU122 also increased in numbers! 4. The T34 was tank of the year in 1943!

The counter to this seems to be saying "yes they increased production in T-34's but they held steady in producing all other types combined, just not other specific types." Which seems to me to ignore the fact that they increased T-34 production. Not only ignoring fact that they increased T34 production, but that the statement is wrong-headed! They held about steady in ALL (including T34)types combined. Around 24500 approx. But.. Even if counting things like SU76 as a 'Lt. tank', numbers went from 9614 to 5391 from 42 to 43. Even if counting ALL KV and 'heavy tanks' like the SU152, the numbers went from 2547 to 1645 from 42 to 43. Since we are playing the chassis game, T34 chassis vehicles went from 12597 to 17191. An increase of 4594 T34 chassis vehicles! 36% more. Then there is the debate about switching over factories to produce other types of tanks - which MT claims the Germans did and the Russians did not do - giving the Russians an edge in tank production. There is the counter claim that the non T-34 production did in fact get retooled. The light and heavy tanks got retooled. This makes MT wrong. Actually I do not know exactly the German tank plant/supplier situation. My point was that they were switching over models. The Panther was not an upgraded anything, it was a whole new ball of wax. The T34/76 to T34/85 transition was not so radical. No one has shown any proof about T34 or other factories being retooled. If anything, I have shown that a major sub-component (the gun) was switched from KV guns to T34 guns AND a new factory ALSO started producing T34/76 guns in ADDITION to two other factories. [ December 30, 2003, 10:42 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

I hope JasonC comments on your post. My main point is that the T34/76 numbers in 1943 were used in a way that would win a war of attrition. The numbers were also there in 1942 but the Soviets were not using them wisely. Once they learned that 'bullying' non-panzer and non-German units had nice results, German Generals started getting a pucker factor. I never said that heavy tanks as a program were abandoned (just certain light tanks were and eventually all light tanks). I just think that the Soviets knew they needed time to get a heavy tank with adequate speed, low weight, etc. The KV1 was not a great mechanical tank. The soviets were lucky enough to get to know the Tiger and Panther as soon as they made adebut on the eastern front. I believe they captured one of the first Tigers and the Panthers were quickly encountered and probably dragged off after Kursk. The Soviets JS2 was actually a mystery tank to the Germans for a while. So whether by Bureau design or just freaking serendipity, the Soviets pushed with the T34/76 in 1943 while the Germans were changing boats. It was a good time to do it as panzerfaust were not really available for the infantry in great numbers. Quantity has a Qualitity of its own but they must be used right. [ December 30, 2003, 09:19 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

Very nice.

http://www.battlefield.ru/is2_1.html This webpage discusses the decree in 1942 to minimize the consumption of armor materials. I wish there was a qualified policy analyst here who could explain to me what that means...

Did the Koreans make use of rifle grenades? I picture them in the early part of the war with PPsh sub-mgs and bolt action rifles. I recently saw info that the north koreans/chinese used SKS rifles in korea. This fires the AK round I gather.