T-34 vs Panther

[Freak]

Hi guys.

I want to open a discussion on the T-34 vs the Panther.

I know the Panther was designed in direct comparison of the T-34, and that the one of the two German designs (which did not make the cut) was almost an exact copy of the T-34 but how does the T-34 stack up to the Panther in armor mobility and gun?

[Cpl Carrot]

Any T 34 in particular? I guess there are three main versions, Shorter barelled 76.2, longer 76.2 and the mighty 85mm version.

IMHO the T34-85 is on par with any Panther. However I'm more than open to any other opinions. I might not listen, but I'm open

[rexford]

Question is complicated by main targets.

T34 with 76.2mm penetrates about 75mm homogeneous armor at 500m, Panther 75mm penetrates about 170mm. Panther round is fired at 935 m/s, T34 at 680 m/s, so if everything else is equal Panther hits more often since faster rounds are less impacted by range estimation errors.

Panther round also had one of the smallest dispersion patterns (scatter from shot to shot with constant aim).

If T34 is firing at PzKpfw IVF2 or IVG with 76.2mm, there is probably enough penetration against their face-hardened frontal armor to knock them out at all practical ranges. PzKpfw IIIH (layered face-hardened armor) and PzKpfw IIIJ,L,M with spaced armor (20mm homogeneous a few inches in front of 50mm face-hardened) would be able to detonate 76.2mm burster between the plates.

So 76.2mm can knock out a PzKpfw IVF2 or G at about the same ranges 75L43 can K-O T34, in frontal shoot outs.

PzKpfw IVH (and later G models) has face-hardened armor hull armor and it can defeat a good share of 76.2mm hits. 76.2mm gun becomes less effective as German armor thickens.

Panther 75mm can penetrate frontal armor on KV-I, T34, SU 85 and IS-2 at fairly long range and turret front/mantlet on IS-2m can be defeated at long range.

But side armor on Panther leaves tank very vulnerable to 76.2mm hits.

As targets change what was sufficient becomes inadequate. Tiger makes T34 with 76.2 gun close to what was considered "suicidal" ranges for side penetration attempts.

The first Tiger combat with T34 was a shock because T34 were used to sitting outside German position and picking off panzers as they approached, due to longer effective range of 76.2mm gun. However, Mister T34 raised his hat when he met a Tiger (T34 turret ended up many yards from tank after 88 did its work).

[Jarmo]

IMO the 76 armed T-34's were somewhat equally matched against (long gunned) PzIV's and Stugs. Quite outclassed against Panthers, no chance of frontal penetration.

85 armed T-34 has a decent chance against Panthers. Might penetrate turret frontally.

[Jeff Heidman]

One for one the Panther was clearly superior to even the T-34/85. Had superior AP firepower, superior mobility, superior protection. The T-34 had better HE shell, and better flank armor. The flank armor was not that much better though in a practical sense, since both vehicles could be easily dispatched by most of their opponents AT guns.

Of course, they never had the luxury of fighting one for one, so the point is somewhat lost.

Jeff Heidman

[Jeff Heidman]

ONe other point:

The US Army had plenty of trouble taking out Panthers with Shermans.

They had no trouble taking out T-34/85s with those very same Shermans a few years later.

Jeff Heidman

[Barticus]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

ONe other point:

The US Army had plenty of trouble taking out Panthers with Shermans.

They had no trouble taking out T-34/85s with those very same Shermans a few years later.

Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree, but I wonder how much of that was superior crew training? After all, the Israelis were STILL using Shermans to knock out T-55's even later!(ok, ok, UPGUNNED Shermans, but still Shermans )

Bart

[PzKpfw 1]

The Panther was designed tobe superior to the T-34-76 & its successor the T-34-85. Which it achieved.

Neither the T-34-76 nor T-34-85 could deal with the Panther frontaly. Ie, the T-34-76 even fireing BR-350P sub calibre could not defeat the glacis or turret front.

The T-34-85's only chance frontaly, fireing BR-365 AP-T, was scoreing a hit on the Panthers small flat surfaces of the turret face. With the appeartence of BR-365P HVAP the T-34-85 had a chance at ranges below 300ms to penetrate the Panthers turret front.

On the other hand the Panther could penetrate the T-34-85's turret front above 1200ms. While both tanks could kill each other from the side aspects in excess of 2500ms.

Regards, John Waters

[ 06-21-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[offtaskagain]

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

I agree, but I wonder how much of that was superior crew training? After all, the Israelis were STILL using Shermans to knock out T-55's even later!(ok, ok, UPGUNNED Shermans, but still Shermans )

Bart<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

U.S. training really wasn't that great back then. I remember one WWII vet on History Channel saying at tank school the instructors said the Sherman was the best tank in the world, which obviously is less than true. Training probably wasn't that good by the '50s either. The North Korean tankers had a decent amount of battle experience by the time they met green American crews down around Pusan.

[Skipper]

Panther was in many respects a more capable tank than T-34-85, but...

1. Somehow, noone mentioned here that the Panther was considerably heavier than the the T-34. To the point that pre-war soviet classification puts them in different categories - Panther as a heavy tank, T-34 as a medium.

2. Besides, Pz-V was developed as an ad hoc german "reply" to the T-34. It happened few years down the road and german engineers had more than a year to study T-34 in and out.

3. Panther's mobility wasn't better at all. Reliabiilty-wise, by the time Panther was first seen on the battlefield, T-34 saw 2 years of combat and had all its teething problems sorted out.

4. Panther was MUCH mopre expensive and technologically complicated to build.

5. Finally, I dont think I'll ever see a Panther in the setting like this (and you know why):

Caption says: "To creators of the legendary tank T-34". I think, there are several dozen memorial T-34s around Russia.

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

[Commissar]

During the entire war something like 5976 Panthers were produced in Germany and seldom were there more than 500 ever present on the Eastern Front at any give time. The Soviets produced around 57,752 T-34s of various kinds. Whatever your opinion on the Panther, Germany didn't and couldn't produce anywhere near enough of these vehicles to seriously impact the war. Tiger production was a lot less. It probably also explains why recovering knocked out vehicles was so important to the Germans. They made so few of these tanks that recovering and repairing them as much as possible was of prime importance. The T-34 was far more influential than the Panther or Tiger.

The Panther had pretty powerful 75mm gun. Once the teething problems were fixed and a seasonsed crew was put into the tank, the Panther was a real bastard to deal with. It clearly outclassed the early T-34/76mm. The T-34/85mm improved the situation a bit but the German 75mm (the one the Panther had) and the 88mm were still superior in terms of AP performance. However the upgunned T-34/85 had a decent chance of defeating either a Panther or Tiger if properly employed and used.

One thing you need to keep in mind is that the Soviet placed more importance on HE ability for its tanks. Their feeling was that tank v. tank encounters would not happen all that often. The tanks were to be pitted against targets like infantry far more often then any tank duels. The idea is to use your strengh and pit it against the enemy's weakness, not go toe-to-toe with an enemy's strength. I may be wrong on this, but my impression is that tank v. tank duels didn't happen as often as we like to think. Kursk like encounters were not the rule.

In a one-to-one battle, I'd probably want a Panther. However in a regular battle, the Soviets would probably pit several T-34s for every Panther.

]

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

[Andreas]

The point Skipper makes is quite valid - if you have ever seen a Panther and a T-34 IRL, you notice the serious difference in size between them. IIRC the Panther is a good bit bigger than the KV-1 too. They just weren't in the same ballpark.

The T-34 was developed in the late 1930s from a theoretical idea of what would be a good tank (I think they first entered service in late '39 or early '40) and the Panther had a good two or more years of actual combat experience that went into its design.

The correct comparison would be the Panzer IV, or maybe even the Panzer III, IMO.

[Freak]

1) yes it was more of a heavy tank then a medium, but is still classified as heavy medium tank at best.

2) yep, I think I covered that in my original post to start this thread. Perhaps not in those words but yes, the jist was that the panther was a reply to the T-34. In fact Hitler approved MAN's Pz-5 model over Daimler Benz because it was assumed it would cause many problems with identification. Oh and yes we all know that the Panther was designed in reply of the T-34.

3) I have read differently on the subject of the Panthers mobility compared to T-34. I will have to dig around for the info.

5) Without a doubt. The German design is known for it sophistication and beauty.

6) Yeah well thats what happens when ya win a war.

[PzKpfw 1]

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

Panther was in many respects a more capable tank than T-34-85, but...

1. Somehow, noone mentioned here that the Panther was considerably heavier than the the T-34. To the point that pre-war soviet classification puts them in different categories - Panther as a heavy tank, T-34 as a medium.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's because the way 1 country decides to classify anothers tank is a moot point. Weight etc, means little compared to the role the tank design is built to fullfill Ie, compare the Panthers deployment role in the Panzer Div's to the heavy Tiger's employment etc.

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

2. Besides, Pz-V was developed as an ad hoc german "reply" to the T-34. It happened few years down the road and german engineers had more than a year to study T-34 in and out.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, just as the Soviet's feilded the ad hoc T-34-85 in response to the Panther & other countries did the same concerning new tech etc.

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

3. Panther's mobility wasn't better at all. Reliabiilty-wise, by the time Panther was first seen on the battlefield, T-34 saw 2 years of combat and had all its teething problems sorted out.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Panther when running was superior in all aspects mobility wise Ie, cross county, fording, grade, climb, ground pressure, etc to both the T-34 models. In fact the Panther's mobility was superior to every tank it fought in WW2. Compare the performance data yourself on the 3 tanks.

Also the T-34's teething problems despite '2 years' were not completly worked out. The T-34-76 still suffered transmission & other problems, though not as bad as 1941 & 1942 at the time of the Panther's first operational use during Zitadelle.

& The T-34-85 was mechanichly unreliable with severe drivetrain & engine problems to the point that the T-34-85 breakdown rate rivaled the Panther's at Kursk. According to one Soviet report the M4A2 Shermans track shoes had a longer life then the T-34-85's engine etc.

Their is a T-34 book written by 2 Russian authors that goes into alot of things most have never heard of about the T-34, problem is it has been stopped from being published since 1996 for 'security' reasons.

As to cost aye the German's went with quality over quantity & forgot the old Russian addage that, 'quantity has a quality all it's own'. Many belive the Germans should have concentrated all production on the PzKpfw IV as well.

I dont think we will see that either.

Regards, John Waters

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

[The Commissar]

I think this discussion arose several times during the course of my stay on this board and every time we reach a point where to sum up, everyone says that individually, the Panther was superior.

However, since this was almost never achieved, and the T-34 functioned in large numbers, deployment wise and effect on the war, it was superior. Really nothing much more to discussm, except personal preferences as to which vehicle to select in battles.

Just in case, I'd take my platoon of T-34's to one of your Panthers, thank you very much.

[Skipper]

> That's because the way 1 country decides

> to classify anothers tank is a moot point.

Weight is not a moot point at all. It is one of the main tank's specifications. Basically within a given technology level weight is a nice aggregate of firepower, mobility and protection. And cost. And if you want a soviet design "similar" to Panthers, you really should think of the IS.

> just as the Soviet's feilded the ad hoc T-

> 34-85 in response to the Panther

No. T-34-85 was not a response to Panthers. Anyhow, my point was that Panther was expectedly more capable - because outgunning a T-34 was the first item on the client specification. Basically, it was all they cared about.

> The Panther when running was superiop in

> all aspects mobility wise to both the T-34

> models, Ie, compare performance data

> between the 3 tanks.

I guess, we have a terminology problem here. I was talking about cross-country ability.

Freak:

> Without a doubt. The German design is

> known for it sophistication and beauty.

I love BMW, too. Apparently, sophistication and beauty is not the most important characteristic in a mass-produced fighting machine of a total war.

> Yeah well thats what happens when ya win a

> war.

Yup. And in a war like the Great Patriotic one - it is all that really counts.

[Skipper]

> the old Russian addage that, 'quantity has

> a quality all it's own'

Authorship of this "old russian adage" is commonly attributed to Iosif Stalin.

[Freak]

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

During the entire war something like 5976 Panthers were produced in Germany and seldom were there more than 500 ever present on the Eastern Front at any give time. The Soviets produced around 57,752 T-34s of various kinds. Whatever your opinion on the Panther, Germany didn't and couldn't produce anywhere near enough of these vehicles to seriously impact the war. Tiger production was a lot less. It probably also explains why recovering knocked out vehicles was so important to the Germans. They made so few of these tanks that recovering and repairing them as much as possible was of prime importance. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is all very true...that was part of germany's problem in producing AFV's. They were too perfectionist in creating the design that it became something more of a beautiful design more then just a tank. Also, the german war machine was behind in streamline production of vehicles, which in my mind was more costly then anything other in the war for Germany (of course man power is a huge contributing factor, considering that Germany was way outnumbered in population to be a treal factor in competing with Russia)

Also, the fact that Germany did not go on full scale war production until late '43 or '44 boggles my mind to this day.

Another thing to consider was that the Panther was to be the replacment for the Pz-4. Would have been interesting if there were as moany Panthers as there were Pz-4's. Hell wonder what would have happend if Germany matched Russia in AFV production and the Panther...(man power enters into again), but still, 50,000 Panthers vs 50,000 T-34's is an interesting what if.

The T-34 was far more influential than the Panther or Tiger.

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

The Panther had pretty powerful 75mm gun. Once the teething problems were fixed and a seasonsed crew was put into the tank, the Panther was a real bastard to deal with. It clearly outclassed the early T-34/76mm. The T-34/85mm improved the situation a bit but the German 75mm (the one the Panther had) and the 88mm were still superior in terms of AP performance. However the upgunned T-34/85 had a decent chance of defeating either a Panther or Tiger if properly employed and used.

I believe Rexford has some good info on this. T34 85 vs Panther.

I may be wrong on this,but my impression is that tank v. tank duels didn't happen as often as we like to think.Kursk like encounters were not the rule. In a one-to-one battle, I'd probably want a Panther. However in a regular battle, the Soviets would probably pit several T-34s for every Panther.

Regular battles at Kursk, IICRC saw hundreds of Soviet Tanks blown mainly because of suicide like strategy's. I have read accounts of the Soviet tank rush strategy where axis tanks (mostly Pz-4 and Tigers) would sit and pick off Soviet T-34's and long range.

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

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

Regular battles at Kursk, IICRC saw hundreds of Soviet Tanks blown mainly because of suicide like strategy's. I have read accounts of the Soviet tank rush strategy where axis tanks (mostly Pz-4 and Tigers) would sit and pick off Soviet T-34's and long range.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kursk was not a typical East front battle.

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

[Freak]

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

Kursk was not a typical East front battle.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Vanir, I was generalizing about Kursk not the eastern front as a whole

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

[PzKpfw 1]

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

Weight is not a moot point at all. It is one of the main tank's specifications. Basically within a given technology level weight is a nice aggregate of firepower, mobility and protection. And cost. And if you want a soviet design "similar" to Panthers, you really should think of the IS.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree, I believe how the vehichle is designed & it is employed defines the class & why should I compare a Soviet Heavy Tank to a German Medium? it's realy apples to ornges & an old T-34 affindo argument .

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

No. T-34-85 was not a response to Panthers. Anyhow, my point was that Panther was expectedly more capable - because outgunning a T-34 was the first item on the client specification. Basically, it was all they cared about.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How do you figure the T-34-85 was not a response to the Panther as well as the Tiger E? The Soviet's realised with the appearence of the Panther during Zitadelle that the 1943 T-34-76 was outclassed in both armor & firepower.

The whole issue that produced the T-34-85

in the end was the result of the T-34-76's gun's inibility to deal with the Panther & Tiger E frontaly at any range. Before this the Soviets had planned to feild an improved design the T-43 which introduced an new 3 man turret & hevier armor among other things. after

After Zitadelle the T-43 etc was scrapped as the Soviet's realized that the heavier armor was not the answer, & a bigger gun was needed instead which led to GAU contracting an 85mm gun design for AFV purposes which led to the 85mm D-5 gun which was to big to fit in the T-34-76 Model 1943 turret.

Which led to the obiekt 135 program which after a new turret was designed big eneough to accomadate the gun chosen to replace the 76mm, the 85mm became the T-34-85 1943. Basicly the whole series was triggered by the appearence of the Panther & Tiger.

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

I guess, we have a terminology problem here. I was talking about cross-country ability.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd say so as the Panther was superior to the T-34's X country ability as well.

To adress Commisars post which i generaly agree with I would add that from Sept 1944 on the German's maintained close to 700 + Panther's on the Eastren front as well as add that we also can't ignore the PzKpfw IV contribution as it was the Panther's partner in the Pz Divs as well as makeing up half the German tank force, it's apples to ornges know but the old workhorse has to be mentioned .

Concerning the initial Soviet priorities on HE I agree but the emphisis changed after the appearence of the newer German tanks, just as the T-34 resulted in the Panther both the T-34-85 & Panther were results of the evolving gun vs armor race.

Regards, John Waters

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

[JunoReactor]

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

Kursk was not a typical East front battle.

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

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.

[Freak]

Originally posted by Skipper:

No. T-34-85 was not a response to Panthers.

Care to elaborate?

Anyhow, my point was that Panther was expectedly more capable - because outgunning a T-34 was the first item on the client specification. Basically, it was all they cared about.

So then I guess the T-34 85 was not in response to the Panther? I highly doubt that.

I love BMW, too. Apparently, sophistication and beauty is not the most important characteristic in a mass-produced fighting machine of a total war.

I am sure you do . Its true about mass production, as you'll see in my other post Germany was really behind with that on the whole. Even obviously compared to the U.S. Not sure if that had something to do with Hitler'sidiotic desicion to hold back Germany from full war production or not. But I can't imagine it helped.

Yup. And in a war like the Great Patriotic one - it is all that really counts.

Well not really Skipp, life does go on ya know! 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.

Well. I dont want this to turn into a flame war but so far it has been interesting.

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

[WWB]

The big, long term effect is that the Panther really is the great-granddaddy of all modern tanks. It, and its successors very heavy frontal armor, not so much on the sides and rear, great cross country mobility, and a gun that designed to penetrate any of its peers.

WWB

[Skipper]

> I disagree, I believe how the vehichle is

> designed & it is employed defines the

> class & why should I compare a Soviet

> Heavy Tank to a German Medium? it's realy

> apples to ornges & an old T-34 affindo

> argument.

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.

> Germany was way outnumbered in population

> to be a treal factor in competing with

> Russia

Germany + France + Czechoslovakia + Austria + all those other places under German control weren't. They didn't have to relocate half of their heavy industry, too. And they were not devastated nearly as badly in the WWI aftermath top start with. And Germany was a top industrial power for a hundred years, while 1920-s Russia was an illiteral agricultural country with NO heavy industry to speak of.

The main reason why USSR outproduced Germany during the war was not the headcounts - it was the hard work in pre-war years and even harder work throughout the war. 12 year old turners, 72 hours working weeks and such. As the slogan put it "Everything for the front, everything for the victory". Or another one: "Medals for combat and for labour are made from the same metal".