T-34 vs Panther

[Stalin's Organ]

<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>

Oh well, that's OK then - let's compare it to the British A9-13 series' - they're medium tanks after all, and since they only weight 1/2 the Panther's total or less we can make it look even better!!

Actually I was under the impression that hte Panther WAS used as a heavy tank - being preferred for leading assaults, and for tank-tank engagements whenever it was available.

What has commonality of opponent got to do with it?

[The Commissar]

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

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.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes indeed. You will surely agree, however, that no matter how high up the organization tables we go, we see more T-34's then Panthers. This was thanks to the ease with which a single T-34 could be manufactured when compared with a Panther. Other factors, like better Soviet industry factor in, of course.

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

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.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In terms a none-grog like myself could understand, I see this as one would see in CM. If a KO'ed tank burns, it is "destroyed". If it just sits there with a hole in it and a wounded/dead crew member, it simply KO'ed. Ive noticed, and I am sure this has historical basis, that some vehicles are rarely completely destroyed by a shot. Most of the time, they just sit there damaged and abandoned. Perhaps I am misinformed, however, and the T-34 is a super-Ronson when hit. Maybe they go up in fiery fireballs and are incenirated. I dont know. You'll have to tell me, because I dont see a loss of a crew member and a hole in the turret/hole as something that can't be patched up and repaired relatively quickly.

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

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.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh but I am afraid I will have to get you started up, pal. It just doesnt seem reasonable to me that a perfectly good tank, with a slightly damaged interior would be abandoned and thrown away, so to speak. So go ahead, enlighten me.

Official claims, is it? Kind of like those claims in CM where every US gunner ID's a PZIV as a Tiger? Im sure that this occured on the Eastern Front as well. Oh, and I dont think I'll be completely reliant on German sources. People who get the floor wiped with themselves usually tend to be rather less then nice to the people who did the wipeing.

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

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 .

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, but I bet they were expecting their higher ups to read them. I also bet that the more they wrote about their heroic explots, the more shiny metals they got. In wars, especially in a situation where you are slowly losing, extraordinary reports usually are well rewarded, something the German soldiers probably knew.

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

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.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Speaking for myself, I know I'll stomp the Germans. However, this might be simply due to me 133t $ki11z

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

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.

[ 06-23-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, sorry, dont think any big cats are going to be "running amock" at any time in the Eastern front. Handy things like the IS-1, 2, T-34-85, SU's and others will take care of that, much like they did in real life. It all depends on how the player uses them, of course.

[T-34\85]

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

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.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Was this Soviet practice? Cool.

Would it still be practice I wonder ... right now I'm picturing an M1A2 Abrams being melted down after its smoking wreckage was picked off a battlefield in Russia; after its platoon was annihilated by a company of T-90s

The Panther definitely doesn't deserve the title of the 'grandaddy' of modern MBTs ... as it was said the Panther didnt do *anything* the T-34 hadn't already done.

[The Commissar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by T-34\85:

Was this Soviet practice? Cool.

Would it still be practice I wonder ... right now I'm picturing an M1A2 Abrams being melted down after its smoking wreckage was picked off a battlefield in Russia; after its platoon was annihilated by a company of T-90s

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL, don't take anything I say without a grain of salt, pal. Im simply thinking logically here. If I was the Soviets during WW2, I would have the Panthers melted down (after testing them out, of course). However, historical events are not always logical. Maybe the Soviets didn't melt them down. Maybe they put them on their front lawns as decorations

If you want to know what really happened, ask John. He probably knows the actual historical way of things

Oh, and just as a side note about something I do know, even if KO'ed, an M1 would probably not burn. They have an automatic self extinguisher installed and the shell-holding compartments are built to prevent detonation.

[ 06-24-2001: Message edited by: The Commissar ]

[rexford]

There were quite a few combats between Panthers and IS-2's, and IS-2 was designed to combat Panther. 122mm gun was chosen in part because it was more effective against Panther armor in tests. Better HE was the other reason, 122mm packs more wallop than 100mm.

Early combats between Panther and IS-2 showed that 122mm AP would not penetrate Panther glacis, which upset Russian designers. Several combats later, some penetrations were obtained at less than 700m with 122mm AP, which was still was adequate.

Use of 122mm APBC round resulted in 1500m penetration range against non-flawed Panther glacis, and penetrations beyond 2500m were possible against flawed glacis (please note that Panther glacis quality is not a constant but varies, and about half would have 1.00 multiplier instead of 0.85).

Russian Battlefield notes that IS-2 hits beyond 1200m took an experienced crew, which places things in perspective and gives Panther an advantage.

Panther versus IS-2 combat did take place and is a valid comparison. Even if Russian tanks did carry more HE than AP, and IS-2 tank assaults would initially be against infantry held positions, Panthers could be called upon to close the gap and eliminate the intruders.

Which brings up the final point, IS-2 tanks carried 10 AP type rounds versus how many for Panthers? In a battle where IS tanks could not be readily re-supplied, such as a mobile breakthrough with German counterattack, would slow rate of fire and limited anti-tank ammo be a detriment?

How good are 122mm HE rounds against Panther?

[Skipper]

Speaking of AARs.

+++

At 11:00 defended positions were approached by two german "Type-5" [Tr: soviet designation for Pz-V] tanks, very much resembling our medium tank, but with long gun... Sgt. Golovin's crew (76 mm ATG), defending the crossroad nearby "" grove, opened sudden fire from short distance... new german tanks stopped, one of them caught on fire... crews did not manage to abandon the tanks. After the engagement, 2 to 5 holes from 76-mm rounds were found in sides of damaged "Type-5" tanks."

Another one (this time, from award citation):

"On March 26... conducting reconaissance, Lt.Jr. Pegov spotted a column of enemy "Panther" tanks. Ordering the driver to reverse into a bush, comrade Pegov loaded the gun and waited. When the leading tank was at 200 m distance, the Lt.Jr destroyed the leading tank with a side shot, and then damaged track on the second vehicle, thus blocking the road for the rest of the tanks, thus practically disrupting enemy's counteroffensive..."

The funny thing here is that the tank Lt.Jr. Pegov was commanding was T-70.

Selected AARs dont demonstrate or illustrate much of anything but the fact that the war is not won or lost by machines, but rather by the men who fight in them.

[rexford]

Panther did alot that T34/85 did not do, like survive 75L48 hits on glacis at 1400m.

T34/85 frontal armor is not very effective against 75L48, 75L70, 76.2L51.5, 88L56, 88L71, etc.

Panther glacis held 88L71 to 600m penetration range in Russian test. T34/85 would need over 6000m. Yes, 6000+ meters to stop 88L71 hit.

Panther firing system allowed hits at 2000m to 3000m, due to gun velocity and stability, and opticks. Next to 76mm HVAP, Panther gun probably has lowest scatter of any WW II weapon, even lower than Tiger 88L56 which impressed British during tests of captured kat.

Panther designed for long range stand-off kills, T34/85 for mobile rip throughs.

[rexford]

A Puma armored car could probably have destroyed a T34/85 at 200m with a side shot, and blocked the road by busting a T34/85 track.

Good point and valuable story, tanks are tanks but good crews can find ways to use em to great advantage.

There are stories on The Russian Battlefield site where T34/85's kicked Tiger II butt, due to a combination of smart positions, holding fire till the last minute, initially firing from select positions to get the targets to turn vulnerable armor to the main positions, and T34/85 mobility.

There is also a story on The Russian Battlefield where two 75mm armed Shermans would routinely K-O Tigers in Russia using a neat technique. First Sherman aims at and knocks out left track and when moving Tiger rotates after track breakage, second Sherman is perfectly positioned for a flank shot. They planned beforehand which track they would aim for and positioned the other Sherman accordingly.

Innovative technique defeats superior armor and weaponry.

[Andreas]

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

Oh but I am afraid I will have to get you started up, pal. It just doesnt seem reasonable to me that a perfectly good tank, with a slightly damaged interior would be abandoned and thrown away, so to speak. So go ahead, enlighten me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am afraid it is a bit more complicated than you make it out to be. While I would like to hear something about Soviet tank recovery too, there are some things to be kept in mind:

1. Tank recovery necessitates an established system providing the logistics, e.g. tank transporters, ARVs, workshops, space on the railways to take seriously damaged tanks back to factories etc.pp.

2. Distance is a major problem. I have a picture of a park of disabled Shermans in Normandy (in 'The South Albertas'), where the caption says these tanks were used for cannibalising, and were to remain a feature of the landscape of Normandy for years after the war - i.e. they were NOT melted down, which does not make sense if you think about it anyway, since the amount of work and money in getting the scrap metal from the battlefield to the foundry is making this uneconomical. This condemning of the tanks may have depended on the extent of damage though, since I have heard of a lady whose job it was to clean out disabled tanks (get rid of the human remains in them) for rebuilding, and she lived in the Northeast of the UK, IIRC.

3. Distance and location. A seriously damaged T-34 on the outskirts of Leningrad was most likely recovered and rebuilt. A T-34 with a missing sprocket wheel in the middle of 'Nowhere, Belorussia (Population 0)' is likely to just stay there, since it may not be possible to get an ARV to it etc. pp. It is just not worth the bother.

So, while it does not seem reasonable on the face of it to leave the tanks, thinking about the logistics of recovery for about 1.5mins should make it clear that tank recovery it is not a straighforward proposition. It is a complex business, and you could start by asking whether there were dedicated ARVs on the establishment of Soviet tank units and at which level they were. E.g. every Commonwealth tank squadron had an ARV, and every battalion had a workshop. How many tank transporters were there? How far from the front to the factories for rebuilding (this problem would get worse post 1943 for the Red Army)? What about the state of the transport system (most likely totally destroyed in the areas of heavy operations, where most tank losses would occur)?

Also, once you have the damaged tank recovered, it may still be faster and more economical to just build a new one on the assembly line, instead of putting a lot of handicraft type work into rebuilding the damaged one. Depends on the extent of damage too, of course. So the key question is, given all the other variables, how many Soviet tanks were damaged to a degree that they constituted a 'kill' but could still be rebuilt within the parameters of the recovery system. My guess is that this is a really difficult question to answer, but I would not be surprised to see John or Kip coming back and telling me the number.

Anyway, most of this could be alleviated to some degree if you have a dedicated organisation and really good procedures for tank recovery. This is an investment worth making if you produce relatively few tanks. It may well not make sense if you produce lots of them.

[Skipper]

I dont remember where, but somewhere I saw a big article about soviet tank recovery practices, and it was apparently just as big a deal for soviet tankers as for german. Statistics of KO'd tanks returned to service looked quite impressively.

As for captured Panthers, if they could be restored, it was a common practice to put "dismounted" crews in them. Sometimes, these were put together to form tank killer platoons.

While looking for the info on repair units, I came across an article which described how in April 1942 the whole dismounted tank batallion (107th separate, Leningrad front) that had no opportunity to get new tanks anytime soon went on the mission to find and restore KO'd tanks. They ended up with the following OOB (as of 5 July): 1 KV, 2 T-34, 1 BT-7, 2 Pz-III, 1 Pz-IV, 3 StuG III and 1 Pz-I. Here is a photo from that article:

[Skipper]

> Handy things like the IS-1, 2, T-34-85,

> SU's and others will take care of that,

> much like they did in real life.

To quote Lt.Col.Matveev, brochure "Combat methods of tankers", Voenizdat 1942: "Besides, it is necessary that our tankers, avoiding direct engagements with enemy tanks and artillery, try to destroy them by the weapons of own infantry and artillery."

Repeat after me: THE MAIN KILLER OF TANKS IS AN ANTI-TANK GUN. When I say "the main", I am talking about something like 60%. The rest are distributed between tanks, mines, infantry and aviation. It is not so in your CM fights? Well, you have to learn proper tactics then

[Freak]

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

A pointless comparison - the panther is 50% heavier than the T34 or either persuasion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is not a pointless comparison as T-34's were the main battle tank for the soviets ( the backbone of the soviet army) Panthers met T-34 numerous times. Add to that, the Panther was in retaliation to the T-34. Though the Soviet medium tank was lighter (not by much BTW) they both were designed with medium tank design in mind. One must take into account that one nations tank designation will differ to the other.

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

Yes, I think Rexford covered this to some degree. I think it would be a good comparison. Is IS-2 tank designated as heavy? Or medium heavy?

Maybe a KingTiger and IS-2 would be an even better comparison

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).

I am not a afficianado on the Panther but I tend to think that, by just looking at the Panther in comparsion to the T-34, the Panther added much more then just thicker armor and a longer gun.

[Freak]

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

I dont remember where, but somewhere I saw a big article about soviet tank recovery practices, and it was apparently just as big a deal for soviet tankers as for german. Statistics of KO'd tanks returned to service looked quite impressively.

As for captured Panthers, if they could be restored, it was a common practice to put "dismounted" crews in them. Sometimes, these were put together to form tank killer platoons. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep same thing for the German army.

T-34's were quite popular with german tank crews early on in the war. However, I believe this practice was common up until the germans heavies came into use.

I don't have the info in front of me though.

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

[WWB]

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

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>

Uh, I would be that guy. And I would say the Panther used a much different concept for armor than the T-34s, especially the early models (i.e., the models which influenced the design of the Panther). While the T-34 armor was thicker in front, it was pretty thick all around (a ratio of 8(f)-6(s)-6(s), IIRC. Panthers, on the other hand, had a ratio something like 13-5-5. Which is a major difference. While the T-34 is a classic 'breakthru' tank, the Panther is designed never to show its side armor to the enemy.

Moreover, the earlier T-34s had a medium velocity gun much like the gun on Sherman 75s, which as we have seen in CMBO is far from a great anti-tank weapon. On the other hand, as Rexford has shown, the super-high velocty 75 on the Panther actually gave up significant HE hitting power in exchange for anti-tank strength.

This makes the Panther much more like modern tanks than its Russian opponents. It is a very heavy vehicle mainly designed to destroy other AFVs, not to run amok behind lines and such.

Go take a look at say, a T-55, and while you see many bits of a T-34 incorporated, it still ends up feeling much more like a Panther than its Soviet predecessors.

WWB

[PzKpfw 1]

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

Hmm, sorry, dont think any big cats are going to be "running amock" at any time in the Eastern front. Handy things like the IS-1, 2, T-34-85, SU's and others will take care of that, much like they did in real life. It all depends on how the player uses them, of course.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well maybe not in your CM2 game but historicly unless the Soviet AFVs can get

flank or rear shots, at close range, other then then that, we have Russian scrap heaps littering the battlefeild, which on the other hand would be historicly accurate.

As to Soviet recovery practices they depened on where the battle took place, Ie, crews would abandon T-34-85s on the side of a road go back to a depot & grab a new T-34-85 & drive away. Basicly the farther from an Brigade depot the less chance of timely recoverty as it was easier to get a new tank etc.

Soviet recovery was quite good in localized recovery efforts where rail permitted movement to Front repair depots.

I have no clue I never read a German report that identified an Soviet tank as an Tiger, well I did see one after they knocked out a Tiger E the Soviet's were employing as an trophy vehichle . As I said if you wish to challenge the claims provide your evidence here, I'm sure alot here will want to read it, but you will need to do better then use AFV misidentification as an premise. As to loss I covered that last post, no need to repeat it here.

Lorrin Here you & I will disagree, combat between IS-2 & German tanks was not common by any stretch. Yes the Soviet's claimed the IS-2's 122mm could defeat the Panther's glacis @ 1500ms etc.

My problem is after the issue of the IS-2 to the Heavy Tank Brigades we see them employed vs German built up defensive positions as well as orders fromn Front commanders IS-2's are not to be used in T vs T combat as they were to be used vs German defensive positions. The T-34-85 was to deal with German armor.

Now that said yes IS-2's did engage Panther's & Tigers but not in any great regularity. One could get the impression by reading the few AAR's or concentrating on the few actions, can make it appear as if combatting the IS-2 was a lot more common then it realy was.

Regards, John Waters

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

[Commissar]

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

>

To quote Lt.Col.Matveev, brochure "Combat methods of tankers", Voenizdat 1942: "Besides, it is necessary that our tankers, avoiding direct engagements with enemy tanks and artillery, try to destroy them by the weapons of own infantry and artillery."

Repeat after me: THE MAIN KILLER OF TANKS IS AN ANTI-TANK GUN. When I say "the main", I am talking about something like 60%. The rest are distributed between tanks, mines, infantry and aviation. It is not so in your CM fights? Well, you have to learn proper tactics then <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course. While a tank-to-tank engagment is all impressive it's not optimal. You want your tanks to be at the enemy's weakspot, a place with little to no armor and filled with mainly soft targets or lightly armored threats. If you can, you want your AT guns or maybe Tank Hunters/destroyers to handle enemy tanks. They're cheap, can remain hidden, and before a tank even realizes where the AT gun is it may aleady be too late. Before CM, I really didn't think much of AT guns. "Too exposed," I thought. After seeing them work in CM, I never have a game without them. I don't see how anyone couldn't have them.

[PzKpfw 1]

IS-2 vs Panther comparison:

IS-2:

Combat weight - 46 m/tons

Maimum Speed - 23km/hr

Maximum cross country speed - 18km/hr

Radius of action road - 240km

Radius of action, cross country - 210km

Fording - 1.3m

Ground clearence - 0.42m

Ground pressure - 0.82 kg/cm2

Power to weight ratio - 11.3 HP/ton

Panther Ausf.G

Combat weight - 45.5 m/tons

Maimum Speed - 45.7 km/hr

Average Cross country speed - 20km/hr

Radius of action road - 200km

Radius of action, cross country - 100km

Fording - 1.90m

Ground clearence - 0.56m

Ground pressure - 0.75 kg/cm2

Power to weight ratio 15.5 HP/ton

Both the Panther & IS-2 had very similar AT perfomance Ie, the Panther's 7.5 cm KwK.42 firing Pzgr.39/43 penetration @ 500m @ 30^ IS-2 122mm D-25T fireing BR-471B AP.T penetration at 500m @ 30^ in ( )'s:

500ms - 124mm (137mm)

The IS-2 had an advantage in armor protection, Ie, the IS-2's turret front mantlet armor was 160mm compared to the Panther mantlet's 110mm, The IS-2's glacis was 120mm compared to the Panther's 80mm. While the Panther had an advantage in optics, & ammunition stowage due to the size of the D-25T only a small ammunition stowage was possible.

The IS-2 standard combat load was, 28 rounds, with 20 - 22 being OF-462 or OF-471 HE & 5 - 8 BR-471B AP-T rounds, compared to the Panther Ausf G's stowage of 82 rounds with half Pzgr.39 APCBC & half SprGr. The Panther also had a chance of carrying 3 - 5 Pzgr.40/43 APCR rounds which would increase the Panther's ability to penetrate the IS-2 marginal.

While the IS-2 occasionaly carried BP-460A SC rounds in place of the BR-471B rounds. The IS-2's lower ammo stowage was an determint to any long duration Tank vs Tank combat.

IS-2 Ranges to penetrate an Panther Ausf.G

Front turret - 1500m

Mantlet - 500m

Glacis - 0m

Nose - 100m

Panther Ranges to penetrate an IS-2

Front turret - 800m

Mantlet - 400m

Glacis - 600m

Nose - 1000m

Both tanks could kill each other's tanks from the side at ranges over 1600ms, with the IS-2 holding an edge on range of penetration, & the Panther holding an edge in mobility. Many feel crew quality was the decideing factor in the few engagements between IS-2's & Panther's .

Regards, John Waters

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

[Mr. Johnson--]

PzKpfw 1, The T-34 series of tank will give the Germans lots of headaches for one major reason, It is the SMG squad in CM for the Russians. If a good commander can get them to close range, they will give as good as the get. And they will do it for cheap.

[PzKpfw 1]

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

PzKpfw 1, The T-34 series of tank will give the Germans lots of headaches for one major reason, It is the SMG squad in CM for the Russians. If a good commander can get them to close range, they will give as good as the get. And they will do it for cheap.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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, the one advantage they had you have given them already, Ie, cheap & the fact they had to close to pb ranges.

Also Did I , miss a post from Steve or someone concerning price of vehichles in CM2? I keep seeing refrences to unit cost yet have seen no data from BTS concerning CM2.

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

[Mr. Johnson--]

agreed,

[Roksovkiy]

The issue of the Panthers armour quality only affected the early Panther ausf D. This model had a higher incidence of flaw's in the 80mm front galcis armour due the Face Hardening process and new techniques being used.

These flaw's resulted in the Russians

believing that the 122mm gun could penetrate the Panther's glacis armour at ranges in excess of 1500m.

The imperfections in the glacis armour were corrected from the G models which resulted in the glacis armour being impevious to the IS2's 122mm gun from point blank range.

Soviet quality controll methods on tank production in WW2 were almost non-existant. This led to many flaws and 'weak spots' in soviet armour.

UK and US used average quality control during mass production and the germans was stupidly high.

US and UK test reports on the IS-2m tank captured afer Berlin consistently rate the crude mixture of RHA and cast armour used on this tank as 30% less effective than german, UK and US armour.

[offtaskagain]

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

Also Did I , miss a post from Steve or someone concerning price of vehichles in CM2? I keep seeing refrences to unit cost yet have seen no data from BTS concerning CM2.

[ 06-24-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He has said a fair bit about pricing. If you haven't noticed the prices will have a rarity factor attached. So that will mostly likely make the T-34 expensive, early but dirt cheap later in the war. He has said there will be 3 options, fixed, variable and none. Fixed will represent the vehicles general rarity across the entire front, variable will have an occasional cheap price to represent the few sectors that had rare vehicles serving there. He hasn't said any numbers yet though.

[Amedeo]

Again, the tests showing that the D-25 122mm gun on the IS-2 will fail above 700m or so against good quality Panther glacis refers to the pointed nose AP round, the flat nose APBC round WAS able to defeat the Panther's glacis at 1500+m.

As for the main role of the T-34, the following passage is an excerpt from the People's Commissar for Defense order No. 325:

"... Tank Corps must not get involved in tank battles with enemy tanks if there's not a clear superiority over the enemy. In case of a meeting with large enemy tank formations, the Corps uses AT gun fire against the enemy tanks [...] The main mission of the Tank Corps is to destroy enemy infantry."

So in this respect the T-34 was not very dissimilar to the Sherman.

Amedeo

[PzKpfw 1]

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

Again, the tests showing that the D-25 122mm gun on the IS-2 will fail above 700m or so against good quality Panther glacis refers to the pointed nose AP round, the flat nose APBC round WAS able to defeat the Panther's glacis at 1500+m.

Amedeo<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Flat nose APBC performance according to what Lorrin discussed, depended on its AOI + impact velocity. It was less effective vs thick armor Ie, the Panther, or Tiger II glacis; at low angle impacts with impact velocities of 670m/s or below. Russian flat nose APBC ammo was also of a much lesser nose hardness then US,UK,& German ammunition.

Regards, John Waters

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

[Freak]

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

The issue of the Panthers armour quality only affected the early Panther ausf D. This model had a higher incidence of flaw's in the 80mm front galcis armour due the Face Hardening process and new techniques being used.

These flaw's resulted in the Russians

believing that the 122mm gun could penetrate the Panther's glacis armour at ranges in excess of 1500m.

The imperfections in the glacis armour were corrected from the G models which resulted in the glacis armour being impevious to the IS2's 122mm gun from point blank range.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi, does anybody know if BTS will model Panther's front glacis armor deficiancy with more accuracy? The lack of deficiancy in the G model and report of only roughly 50% of Panthers had armor deficiancy. Panther armor deficiancy modifier of 0.85 across the board does not seem consitent with reality.

Soviet quality controll methods on tank production in WW2 were almost non-existant. This led to many flaws and 'weak spots' in soviet armour.

UK and US used average quality control during mass production and the germans was stupidly high.

US and UK test reports on the IS-2m tank captured afer Berlin consistently rate the crude mixture of RHA and cast armour used on this tank as 30% less effective than german, UK and US armour.

(I suppose I should assume this) will the Russian tanks have inordinate amount of weak spot or low armor modifier?

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

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