T-34 vs Panther

[Grisha]

Well, I actually side with John on this, since it's most likely that numbers would determine the frequency of engagements between said AFVs. Though it isn't theoretically valid to compare a PzV to a T-34(76 or 85), when one looks at the numbers of vehicles per given tank, it does become a valid point when considering actual engagement possibilities.

This being the case, I'd want at least 3:1 odds numerically for my T-34s, and a nice jumping off point from good cover at no further than 500m to the Panthers

[PJungnitsch]

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 ]

[PzKpfw 1]

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

Make up your mind please!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Naw you can do it for me . What part arn't you getting ?. I thought I was pretty clear concerning GAU acting on their own on tdesigning a new tank gun, as their was no official order to do so, until after Zitadelle.

Regards, John Waters

[ 06-25-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Andreas]

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

Make up your mind please!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Someone needs to take a chill-pill. How about you stop abusing and name-calling one of the most respected and knowledgeable posters on this forum now and start arguing like an adult for a change. Otherwise I am sure the moderators might get interested in this thread quite soon. It is behaviour like yours that drives off the people who can really contribute to the discussions here.

[Commissar]

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

[QB]

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.

QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From what I understand, there was indeed concern about AP ability of the 122mm gun for the IS-2. The other choice of gun was the 100mm which had superior AP ability but the gun calibre was relatively new and so few of it and the ammo were available. The decision was then to go with the more plentiful 122mm. The problem with penetrating Panther armor apparently suddenly disappeared. German armor quality supposedly went down and now the 122mm was cracking and pitting the armor even if the round didn't penetrate. The AP problem against Panthers was no longer as much of an issue.

I also have a computer game, Talonsoft's East Front, and when I have IS-2s, Panthers and Tigers are not a problem. I routinely destroy them without that much difficulty. I get hit by them but rarely does it destroy more than 1 or 2 of my IS-2s. I have even used T-34/85s and utterly annhilated Tiger companies with little or no loss to myself. It's tricky to do but definitely doable. Are we to assume this happened all the time or a lot because it's possible? Of course not. Using computer game data as proof of performance is not reliable. You assume the model is correct in the first place. But if the modeling is flawed, so will be the game results. Garbage in, garbage out.

You can also find combat reports in which Panthers and Tigers get thrashed by IS-2s. I think Panzerfausts were more of a problem especially near the end of the war. They were more pleniful and a good hit with them could take out the IS-2.

I think the Panther was the "better" tank in terms of pure performance in tank v. tank duels. However, better performance doesn't matter as much if the tank is so complicated to make that you can only produce a few of them or when it breaks down it's a bear to fix. The IS-2's role was for the breakthrough and exploitation phases and it's main targets were infantry and AT-guns, which explains why it carried so many HE rounds in comparision with AP ammo. The HE effect of the 122mm was VERY effective and so was successful for what it was meant to do. When it had to, it could face the Panther and Tiger and win. There are plenty of reports that indicated that (of course you need to be careful with Russian or German reports).

Anyway, no need for another IS-2 debate. Whatever can be said has been said. You'll see the IS-2 in CM2 and Steve had indicated it'll be a real pain to deal with.

[ 06-25-2001: Message edited by: Commissar ]

[ 06-25-2001: Message edited by: Commissar ]

[PzKpfw 1]

Heres some interesting remarks from a Tiger Abt *report that had several encounters with the IS-2s over an short period of time.

1). When a Tiger appears. most Josef Stalin tanks turn away and attempt to avoid a fire fight.

2). In many cases, the Josef Stalin tanks let themselves engage in a firefight only at long range (over 2000 meters) and also only when they themselves are in favorable positions on the edge of woods, village or ridgeline.

3). The enemy crews lean toward evacuating their tank immediately after the first shot is fired at them.

4). In all cases the Russians strived to prevent a Josef Stalin tank from falling into our hands and with all means available attempted to tow the tank away or blow it up.

5). The Josef Stalin can also be knocked out, even if penetration of the frontal armor can't be achieved at long range. (A different Tiger-Abteilung reported that the front of a Josef Stalin can be penetrated by a Tiger only at ranges less then 500 meters)

6). An attempt should be made to gain the flank or the rear of the Josef Stalin tank and destroy him with concentrated fire.

7). In addition, a firefight with Josef Stalin tanks should not be undertaken in less then zug strength. Employment of single Tigers means their loss.

8). It has proven to be useful, after the first hits are registered, to blind the Josef Stalin by fireing Sprenggranten (high explosive shells).

*See: Jentz Thomas L. Panzer Truppen Vol 2. pp. 216, 217.

Regards, John Waters

[ 06-25-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[PzKpfw 1]

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

The decision was then to go with the more plentiful 122mm. The problem with penetrating Panther armor apparently suddenly disappeared. German armor quality supposedly went down and now the 122mm was cracking and pitting the armor even if the round didn't penetrate. The AP problem against Panthers was no longer as much of an issue.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Soviet's tested the 122mm vs an Panther Ausf D that had been captured during Zitadelle. Reportedly the AP-T round defeated the Ausf. D glacis @ 1500ms & passed cleanly thru the engine compartment.

The reason given in recent years for the defeat of the Asdf D glacis has been that it was one of the original Panther's that had been FH'd, & was thefore over vulnerable to 122mm round. The problem was apperently rectified as can be seen by the penetration data I posted for the IS-2 & Panther the other day Ie, IS-2 defeats Panther glacis @ 0ms.

Regards, John Waters

[ 06-25-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Commissar]

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

Heres some interesting remarks from a Tiger Abt *report that had several encounters with the IS-2s over an short period of time.

1). When a Tiger appears. most Josef Stalin tanks turn away and attempt to avoid a fire fight.

2). In many cases, the Josef Stalin tanks let themselves engage in a firefight only at long range (over 2000 meters) and also only when they themselves are in favorable positions on the edge of woods, village or ridgeline.

3). The enemy crews lean toward evacuating their tank immediately after the first shot is fired at them.

4). In all cases the Russians strived to prevent a Josef Stalin tank from falling into our hands and with all means available attempted to tow the tank away or blow it up.

5). The Josef Stalin can also be knocked out, even if penetration of the frontal armor can't be achieved at long range. (A different Tiger-Abteilung reported that the front of a Josef Stalin can be penetrated by a Tiger only at ranges less then 500 meters)

6). An attempt should be made to gain the flank or the rear of the Josef Stalin tank and destroy him with concentrated fire.

7). In addition, a firefight with Josef Stalin tanks should not be undertaken in less then zug strength. Employment of single Tigers means their loss.

8). It has proven to be useful, after the first hits are registered, to blind the Josef Stalin by fireing Sprenggranten (high explosive shells).

*See: Jentz Thomas L. Panzer Truppen Vol 2. pp. 216, 217.

Regards, John Waters

[ 06-25-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe, I've read Soviet reports of King Tigers avoiding areas where IS-2 tanks are. If you think about it, it only makes sense. You want to hit the enemy's weak side, not where he's prepared with "heavy" tanks, camo-ed, and waiting for you to come into kill zones. Hell, if I were a Soviet tanker, I'd rather avoid Tigers too if I could avoid it.

#2, That also makes sense. I sure as hell I'm not going to let the enemy dictate the battle and fight in conditions that favor the enemy. Trying to get in close with a Tiger from the front is good way to return to your parents in a pine box.

#5 This looks interesting. At first it seems to state the obvious. OF course, the IS-2 can be taken out. It's a tank, not God's holy chariot. Every tank is vulnerable on it's flank and rear. Perhaps the Germans needed to say this to reassure its tankers that the IS-2 is not invulnerable (which would seem to indicate that the Germans were having some hard times taking the thing out in some engagments)

#6--Again statement of the obvious. If the IS-2's armor was really all that bad, the Germans could simply take it from the front without worry. Obviously, they couldn't do this on a regular basis. Again, the IS-2 is not invincible, but hardly a pushover either.

#7 -You'd never want to be in a situation of allowing the Russians to isolate a single tank. You know they'll be coming in packs like a buch of wolves and all those guns bearing down on one lone German tank will most likely mean one destroyed German tank.

#8 What do they mean by blind? Does the HE round damage the optics or maybe the flash of the explosion physically blinds the gunner for awhile??? Actually I should just look this up. I own both volumes of Panzertruppen. Expensive as hell but very interesting to read.

Anyway, it's going to fun with all these vechicles: IS-2, T-34, various SU/ISU, Panthers, Tigers, SturmTigers, Elephants, etc all running around blowing each other up.

[Roksovkiy]

The IS-2 sufered the same crude armour mixture as all previous soviet tanks. The poor metalurgy processes created brittle armour rated at 30% less effective than german,US and UK armour. The IS-2 120mm 'cast armour' glacis was considerably weaker than the 100mm front Tiger I armour.

If CM2 is realistic all mass produced soviet armour should be rated as 70% effective.

Germany was the world leader in metalurgy during the 1930's. German quality control increased as the war progressed. Less resources resulted in less tanks produced, not weaker armour. German tests of the IS-2 v Panther G glacis in 10/44 state it as impervious to the 122mm gun at all ranges. I trust these more than post war soviet claims.

The Panther 75L70 is recored in many reports as knocking out IS-2 from the front over 1km ranges.

And the IS-2 would be extremely lucky to hit a house at a range beyond 1.2km in combat conditions. It had extremely poor accuracy at any range over 1.2km, according to soviet reports.

[PzKpfw 1]

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

[

#5 This looks interesting. At first it seems to state the obvious. OF course, the IS-2 can be taken out. It's a tank, not God's holy chariot. Every tank is vulnerable on it's flank and rear. Perhaps the Germans needed to say this to reassure its tankers that the IS-2 is not invulnerable (which would seem to indicate that the Germans were having some hard times taking the thing out in some engagments)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it was more an rebuttal concerning other reports or rumors the author was privy to concerning the new Soviet tank as well as to reasure.

I'm sure the Germans did have a hard time killing the IS-2, it was built to be immune on the frontal arc to the standard German 7.5 cm PAK 40 & 7.5 cm L/48 on the PzKpfw IV, Stug etc. The Tiger's 8.8 cm L/56 was also inferior in penetration to the Panther's 7.5 cm L/70 which meant Tiger's had to get closer Ie:

Tiger E fireing Pzgr. 39 APCBC Penetrates IS-2 @ 30^:

Front turret - 100ms

Gun mantlet - 100ms

Superstructure - 100ms

Hull - 300ms

IS-2 fireing BR-471B AP-T Penetrates Tiger E @ 30^:

Front turret - 1500ms

Mantlet - 500m

Superstructure - 1300ms

Hull - 300ms

Both could kill each other from the side & rear at over 1000ms.

The Tiger II vs IS-2:

Tiger II fireing Pzgr. 39 APCBC penetrates the IS-2 @ 30 ^:

Front turret - 2300ms

Mantlet - 1800ms

Superstructure - 2100ms

Hull - 2600ms

IS-2 fireing BR-471B AP-T Penetrates Tiger II 30^:

Front turret - 0ms

Mantlet - 0ms

Superstructure - 0ms

Hull - 0ms

The Tiger II could destroy the IS-2 from the side & rear in ranges over 3400ms while the IS-2 could destroy the Tiger II depending on hit location on the side or rear from 1800 - 2900ms.

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

#6--Again statement of the obvious. If the IS-2's armor was really all that bad, the Germans could simply take it from the front without worry. Obviously, they couldn't do this on a regular basis. Again, the IS-2 is not invincible, but hardly a pushover either.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't believe anyone here thinks the IS-2 was a pushover by any means. At the same time we also must bring up the fact that Soviet armor due to its high BHN Ie, 400 - 500 BHN & construction methods, was very brittle.

The Watertown arsenal report on the T-34-76 Model 1942 basicly reports that the T-34 armor was designed to defeat undermatching projectiles Ie, 5.cm L/42 etc.

Overmatching impacts such as those from the long German guns ammunition caused whole sections of the armor to crack open.

The armor offered no further protection after the initial penetration. The Shermans armor on the other hand, with its lower BHN & better construction methods still offered resistance against further penetrations & repeated impacts.

The IS-2 was an attempt to adress this & to an extent it did as Soviet IS-2 crews had a 20% higher survival rate after tank destruction then T-34 crews.

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

#7 -You'd never want to be in a situation of allowing the Russians to isolate a single tank. You know they'll be coming in packs like a buch of wolves and all those guns bearing down on one lone German tank will most likely mean one destroyed German tank.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This stems from before the appearence of the IS-2 it was common to employ Tiger's singly or in pairs along the front & they continualy achieved great success vs superior numbers of Soviet AFVs.

Guderian adresses points 5 & 6 as:

At a time when there are 12.2 cm tank guns and 5.7 cm anti-tank guns on the Eastren Front just like the 9.2 cm ant-tank/aircraft guns on the Westren Front and in Italy, the Tiger can no longer disregard the tactical principles that apply to other type of Panzers.

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

#8 What do they mean by blind? Does the HE round damage the optics or maybe the flash of the explosion physically blinds the gunner for awhile.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No clue I assumed it was similar to the US practice of Sherman's fireing WP to 'blind' German tanks after registering hits.

Regards, John Waters

[ 06-25-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Enoch]

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

This caught my eye. I don't dispute the accuracy of this statement, rather I am interested to know some more about how the Soviets knew the Tiger would not be deployed in large numbers. Was this based on intelligence or was it an assumption that they made?

I would guess that the Soviets could have figured out that since the Tiger lacked sloped armor and was limited in its mobility the Panther was a superior tank and the Germans would focus their attention on it rather than the Tiger.

I'd be interested in a bit more detail on this tidbit.

[PzKpfw 1]

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

This caught my eye. I don't dispute the accuracy of this statement, rather I am interested to know some more about how the Soviets knew the Tiger would not be deployed in large numbers. Was this based on intelligence or was it an assumption that they made?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From what I have gathered it was based on inteligence reports, as well as examination of captured Tiger E's & estimates on German war time production capabilities. .

Regards, John Waters

[Grisha]

John, have you found any numbers for StuG deployments in the Russian Front? I'm not trying to make a point really. It's just that now you've got me going with this numbers thing, and I'm truly interested to see what StuG numbers were - for scenario purposes. I read somewhere that StuGs were used more and more frequently as the war progressed, since it was much easier to produce. Was it used mainly for infantry support, or did it also have an AT task as well?

[PzKpfw 1]

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

John, have you found any numbers for StuG deployments in the Russian Front? I'm not trying to make a point really. It's just that now you've got me going with this numbers thing, and I'm truly interested to see what StuG numbers were - for scenario purposes. I read somewhere that StuGs were used more and more frequently as the war progressed, since it was much easier to produce. Was it used mainly for infantry support, or did it also have an AT task as well?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Grisha I deal in mostly in Panzer Div Tank numbers. Stugs were independant of Panzer control & employed in independant briagades as well as inherent in some Pz Divs, Pz.Gren Divs etc. My data mainly deals with Pz formations.

I have found some Stug numbers Ie, as of 31.05.44 their were 176 Stugs operateing with Panzer, Pz Gren, divs etc. AS of 15.03.45 their were 545 Stugs operating with Panzer, Pz.Gr Divs.

The original role had been Inf support, but after the appearence of the T-34 & KV1 the role gradualy shifted to more an AT emphisis Ie, the 7.5 cm L/24 was dropped in favor of the 7.5 cm L/43, then later the 7.5 cm L/48. As the war progressed the Stug became the back bone of Inf AT support, generaly Stugs were the only mobile defence the Infantry formations had against the increasing number of Soviet tanks.

Will keep looking & add to the post as can.

Regards, John Waters

[ 06-25-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Commissar]

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

No clue I assumed it was similar to the US practice of Sherman's fireing WP to 'blind' German tanks after registering hits.

Regards, John Waters

[ 06-25-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Out of curiosity, where are you getting your stats? From a book or website??

One common characteristic of all Soviet equipment seems to be how basic it is. No "frills" you can say. Soviets have a nice design philosophy: Make it simple, make it work, and make a whole lot of them.

I can see WP working. Ouch. Not so sure if HE can also be as effective, but I'm no tanker. I guess the IS-2 didn't fully resolve the armor problem since the IS-3 tried to address those outstanding issues.

The German's would actually deploy Tigers by themselves? Oi, that doesn't sound good.

[PzKpfw 1]

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

Out of curiosity, where are you getting your stats? From a book or website??

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Books, reports, translated data etc I dont use websites.

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

One common characteristic of all Soviet equipment seems to be how basic it is. No "frills" you can say. Soviets have a nice design philosophy: Make it simple, make it work, and make a whole lot of them.

I can see WP working. Ouch. Not so sure if HE can also be as effective, but I'm no tanker. I guess the IS-2 didn't fully resolve the armor problem since the IS-3 tried to address those outstanding issues.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed the Russians are a very practical ppl.

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

The German's would actually deploy Tigers by themselves? Oi, that doesn't sound good.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well yes & no generaly it was in pairs or three's, over a large frontage. I dont think most ppl grasp just how effective the Tiger realy was, a few Tiger's literaly shot up much larger forces of Soviet tanks.

These sucesses led to the impractical tactics Guderian chastises, after the appearence of Soviet wpns that could deal with the Tiger E, forceing it to revert to standard tank employments & tactics.

A good book on the use of the Tiger E in Russia in pairs etc successes & defeats is Otto Carius's Tiger's in the Mud.

Regards, John Waters

[ 06-25-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Freak]

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

This whole business of comparing the Panther to the T-34 is rather silly IMO for several reasons.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, to tell you the truth Vanir, my intention for this thread was to discuss armor, gun, and mobility performance of the two tanks. Not a flammatory ingestion of the matter.

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.

Yes excellent point.

In fact, Germany's Daimler-Benz created a mock up of a new tank which looked 99% like the T-34.

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.

Yep.

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

Well, its a little bit different then that.

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.

Well, they almost did by going with Daimler's version. Daimlers version was unreliable, and would have caused hurrendus identity problems.

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.

Again, everybody is claiming this fair thing to be some sort of standard on how to base (compare) tanks. It might be good to use the fair technique if one is interested in two more comparable tanks. Thats fine. I was not interested in fair, I was interested in the differences between the Panther and T-34. The straight facts. I guess its not easy with so much patriotism on the board.

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

Well, I think that what he was meaning was an apologist is terms of making up for its weakness's in comparison of the Panther. In this case I believe it was mobility factor.

[ 06-25-2001: Message edited by: Freak ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

Hey, no problem Freak

Patriotism has nothing to do with it for me, as I'm neither Russian or German.

I think the most interesting matchups in CM2 will be between the T-34/76s and the Pz III and IV. You have a tank with superior gun, armor and speed vs. tanks with a 3 man turret and radio. If BTS gets it modeled right it should be a tactical challenge for either side.

[Freak]

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

Hey, no problem Freak

Patriotism has nothing to do with it for me, as I'm neither Russian or German.

I think the most interesting matchups in CM2 will be between the T-34/76s and the Pz III and IV. You have a tank with superior gun, armor and speed vs. tanks with a 3 man turret and radio. If BTS gets it modeled right it should be a tactical challenge for either side.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excellent point Vanir Ausf B! Its going to be great fun.

[Jarmo]

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

John, have you found any numbers for StuG deployments in the Russian Front?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The total production was somewhere in the same area as that of PzIV. As of east front deployment, I have not much data. But here's the tank forces present at Kursk:

PzIII, 461

PzIV, 830

Tiger, 191

Panther, 80

Ferdinand, 90

Stu40, 466

old tanks, 296

others?, 50

Don't know if the figures are accurate. They're from Pekka Kantakoski's "Punaiset Panssarit".

[PzKpfw 1]

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

Don't know if the figures are accurate. They're from Pekka Kantakoski's "Punaiset Panssarit".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The figures are incorrect concerning the Panther & Tiger off the top of my head, as Pz.Abt.51 & Pz.Abt.52 each had 96 Panthers as of 01.07.43.

Their were 133 Tiger E available as of 05.07.43. & 19 replacement Tiger's were recieved during Zitadelle.

Regards, John Waters

[ 06-25-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Stalin's Organ]

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

Someone needs to take a chill-pill. How about you stop abusing and name-calling one of the most respected and knowledgeable posters on this forum now and start arguing like an adult for a change. Otherwise I am sure the moderators might get interested in this thread quite soon. It is behaviour like yours that drives off the people who can really contribute to the discussions here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh go pull your head in! sheesh - the guy posted in one mesage that the Russians did not develop the 85mm tank gun in response to the Tiger, adn in anothe that they did - what is wrong with pointing out the contradictino and asking for a clarification?

I said nothing insulting, called no-one names and did not swear or use any disparaging language.

It is people like you with overly sensitive skins and imaginations who but in to a discussion not directed at r concerning them are the problem, not people who ask relevant question!

[Andreas]

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

I said nothing insulting, called no-one names and did not swear or use any disparaging language.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You insinuated he was a liar, goes down as name-calling in my book.

[PzKpfw 1]

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

- the guy posted in one mesage that the Russians did not develop the 85mm tank gun in response to the Tiger, adn in anothe that they did - what is wrong with pointing out the contradictino and asking for a clarification?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No you interpreted what I wrote as such, hence I obviously failed to provide you with eneogh information to see my point. As well as the imformation concering the cause of development of the 85mm could be considered contradictory it'self because the GAU was an official body.

The confusion arises concerning the design of the 85mm gun because it was not an 'official' response to the Tiger, GAU took it on themselves to look into a better tank gun.

Their was no 'official' order to even look into designing a new tank gun till after the Panther's appearence during Zitadelle. That was what I have attempted to explain obviously rather poorly as evident by your posts.

Regards, John Waters

[ 06-25-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[TT]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Tiger E fireing Pzgr. 39 APCBC Penetrates IS-2 @ 30^:

Front turret - 100ms

Gun mantlet - 100ms

Superstructure - 100ms

Hull - 300ms

IS-2 fireing BR-471B AP-T Penetrates Tiger E @ 30^:

Front turret - 1500ms

Mantlet - 500m

Superstructure - 1300ms

Hull - 300ms

Both could kill each other from the side & rear at over 1000ms.

The Tiger II vs IS-2:

Tiger II fireing Pzgr. 39 APCBC penetrates the IS-2 @ 30 ^:

Front turret - 2300ms

Mantlet - 1800ms

Superstructure - 2100ms

Hull - 2600ms

IS-2 fireing BR-471B AP-T Penetrates Tiger II 30^:

Front turret - 0ms

Mantlet - 0ms

Superstructure - 0ms

Hull - 0ms

The Tiger II could destroy the IS-2 from the side & rear in ranges over 3400ms while the IS-2 could destroy the Tiger II depending on hit location on the side or rear from 1800 - 2900ms.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

These numbers seems to have been taken straight from the "infamous" German Wapruf documents, which mostly are theoritical work, not based on real tests. The problem with these numbers are that they show that the Germans more or less thought their opponents had guns and armor of about the same quality as themselves. Reality could be a bit different:

The 88 mm L/56 could penetrate the 100 mm turret front/mantle of the IS-2 at 1000+ meters. The turret front of the IS-2 was NOT 160 mm. It was a small target, but the 88 mm L/56 was a very accurate weapon, according to Robert Livingstone even more so than the 88 L/71 and 75 mm L/70.

The IS-2 could penetrate the Tiger 1's frontal armor at long range, but there are also a story of a Tiger 1 taking a 122 mm shell against the 100 mm from an IS-2 at a distance of only 30 meters and still surviving and fighting back. Good Tiger armor/poor Russian ammo?

I also heard a story of a few Panthers taking on a IS-2 in Poland. They immobilised the beast, but couldn't finish it off. The commander at the place calls for help. A Tiger 1 drives up, takes aim, fire, penetrates the IS and forcing the crew to bail out. Now this story don't tell if the Tiger had APCR or anything else. I have also not been able to find a reliable source for this story, so it could be just fantasy. But could it be that the heavy "88" in some situations were a better penetrator than the lighter, but "faster" 75 mm?

According to the Wapruf documents the Tiger 2 should have been immune to the 122 mm of the IS, but was it? Even a non-penetrating hit from a heavy AP shell can make much damage, something which is mentioned in Green's "Tiger Tanks":"A glancing blow from a "122" shell could produce concussion enough to disable a Tiger's turret mechanism".