T-34 vs Panther

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

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. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

These numbers look closer to me (courtesy of JasonC):

Elephant - 45

Tiger I - 133

Panther - 200

Pz IV L43+48 - 859

Pz IV L24 - 54

Pz III 75L24 - 153

Pz III 50L60 - 542

Pz III 50L42 - 109

Pz II - 107

[ 06-25-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Stalin's Organ]

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

You insinuated he was a liar, goes down as name-calling in my book.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh bollocks! (and that IS disparaging, and directed personally at you!) I suppose you never tell someone that they are contradicting themselves? Or that they are wrong?

Maybe I didn't understand what he posted, but asking for a clarification (even if couched in challenging terms) is not calling someone a liar!

[Andreas]

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

Oh bollocks! (and that IS disparaging, and directed personally at you!) I suppose you never tell someone that they are contradicting themselves? Or that they are wrong?

Maybe I didn't understand what he posted, but asking for a clarification (even if couched in challenging terms) is not calling someone a liar!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have a lovely evening, Kiddo. Remember to bring the toys in when you finished playing.

[Slapdragon]

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

Oh bollocks! (and that IS disparaging, and directed personally at you!) I suppose you never tell someone that they are contradicting themselves? Or that they are wrong?

Maybe I didn't understand what he posted, but asking for a clarification (even if couched in challenging terms) is not calling someone a liar!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, Germanboy is just trying to stop a potential flame in its tracks, because your writings sounded like they were aimed at John rather than at the facts he presented. Now don't get me wrong, I think John is a fruit loop and wears women's underpants on his head, and sleeps in Rommel undies (editors note: ) . I have also disagreed with John on numerous occasions, as any search will confirm. But what worries Germanboy is that you, who have gained a bit of respect yourself, may be stooping to flames. Better to stop it in its tracks than to let it simmer and sprout.

I believe that you are not the flamer type, so this is all moot, but think about Germanboy's thoughts as just friendly warnings. He meant nothing against you.

[Battlefront.com]

Knock off the slamming, otherwise you can all guess what will happen to this thread...

Steve

[Stalin's Organ]

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

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".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Umm...that doesn't tie in with Russian tests of captured taks - refer HERE for a eral interesting discussion of range testing of 2 Tiger 2's vs Russian and American 76's, Russian 85's, 100's and 122's, and German 88mm KwK43.

This article includes some info on dispersal of shot from a 122mm gun at 1000m that may be of interest to the more technically minded.

Another interesting wartime paper on Russian guns is HERE. This one specifically compares the 100 and 122mm guns, with some notes about German 88's (as mounted on the Tiger 1), 75 L70's (Pantehr) and Russian 85mm.

Note that this is an official report on the guns.

Here's the Russian Military site author's opinions of the IS2 vs the 3 "cats" - IS-2 vs Cats, and, lastly, the article on the development of the IS 2 (IS-2) makes some notes - such as the 122mm gun could only penetrate the panther at 6-700m, but at 2500m a ricochet could leave the Panther's glacis buckled and cracked with huge chunks blown out of it! (you have to go a bit further than half way down the page to see this) - thedifference is explained by the change in alloy of German armour from mid-1944. Indeed this change features on a couple of these document.

[Stalin's Organ]

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

Well, to tell you the truth Vanir, my intention for this thread was to discuss armor, gun, and mobility performance of the two tanks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well that's simple - the Panther had thicker armour, a better gun and about the same c/c performance!

[Commissar]

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

. 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.

QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't fully undersand your logic here. I am no armor expert but my understanding is that it's not just a matter of manufacturing technique that produces "superior" armor. You also need the proper alloys and metals. As Germany was losing the war, they not only were losing gross amount of the metals they needed but also access to those particular metals themselves. Hence, amount of tank production would be affected AS WELL as quality of the materials. On a much simplier scale, the quality of materials for German uniforms in '39 and '40 were made from higher quality materials thand later versions of the uniform like the M43 and M44 simply due to shortages of those materials. It's not a perfect analogy but you can get the picture. The German forces of '44 and '45 were not the forces (and hence quality) of '40 '41. If you know how the specifics of armor production work I'd like to know. I'll probably not understand it all but if there is some logic I can recognize it would help. Thanks

I can understand being skeptical of post-war Soviet claims. One is likely to be doubtful of claims of a potential enemy. However, I don't see how German reports are by nature more objective or accurate. Both sides had good reasons to be truthful but also had good reasons not to be completely truthful. Also both sides can come to wrong conclusions. You see that in military history all the time. Is there something special about these reports that would reasonablly suggest they are more objective or accurate that Soviet tests??

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

[rexford]

At Kubinka, 100mm and 122mm rounds penetrate captured Tiger II turret front at 1000m to 1500m range. Turret front armor has quality of about 0.85.

If 122mm AP hits Tiger 100mm at 10° driver plate at 45° lat angle (oblique hit) and 100m, armor resistance is close enough to round penetration to defeat hit or cause it to shatter fail.

If 122mm AP hits 100mm at 25° nose armor on Tiger at 45° lat angle, armor resistance is greater than penetration at 100m.

The story is possible of Tiger I beating 122mm hit at very close range.

122mm APBC would change story since it has much lower slope effects.

[Mr. Johnson--]

Thanks for digging up those numbers Vanir, I was to lazy but saw that the Panther numbers were meesed up.

[PzKpfw 1]

Ahh the Cats article, I am one of poor ppl he refered to . I disagree that AP performance wasn't important. Here again we see the defineing of 'fair' comparisons, Ie, Panther vs IS-2 because they weigh almost the same & it's not fair to compare the Tiger II to the IS-2 etc.

I also found the comments on Tiger II's interesting, Ie, 'King Tigers were rare because the Germans seldom used them on the Eastern Front'. I wonder where they were used.

Regards, John Waters

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

[rexford]

122mm APBC penetrates Panther glacis at 1500m withn good quality armor, 2500m+ with 0.83 quality.

122mm AP fails to penerate good quality Panther glacis but can sneak in 700m pentrations if quality is poor.

At Kubinka, 122mm APBC easily penetrates Panther glacis at 2500m.

We have U.S. test data for 122mm APBC and good quality Panther glacis with 85mm armor at 55° would be penetrated at 1500m, based on U.S. tests. This supports Russian combat reports posted on Russian Battlefield site.

Following is from info posted by Valera Potapov on his site long ago and not presently available:

--------------------------------------------

76.2mm ZIS-3 gun firing tests against IS tank at 500-600 meters resulted in partial penetrations from all sides, and although there were few complete penetration there was major splintering and fragmentation inside the tank. This explains the losses of IS-85 and IS-122 tanks in winter-spring of 1944.

-----------------------------------------

My data shows 76.2mm penetration for complete defeat is about 73mm at that range, and IS armor is 90mm minimum.

IS-2 with 122mm gun reported to have 1200m penetration range against Tiger I front hull, which may have been with AP rounds. Our book lists 139mm penetration at 1250m for 122mm AP, and 144mm for 122mm APBC.

Seems like range would have been further, although Russian Battlefield has 11% lower penetration for 122mm AP.

[PzKpfw 1]

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

These numbers seems to have been taken straight from the "infamous" German Wapruf documents, which mostly are theoritical work, not based on real tests. ".

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes TT they are, their are no real tests to base results on. I have seen both sides of the 'infamous' debates as well . I look at it as something to start with, others have their own opinions.

Regards, John Waters

[rexford]

Regarding production output, don't forget the armor factories that the U.S. built in Russia prior to the war, which helped produce the first T34's. And the armor plate the U.S. sent over.

Jeff Duquette found an article on the above subject.

[PzKpfw 1]

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

I think John is a fruit loop and wears women's underpants on his head, and sleeps in Rommel undies (editors note: ) . warnings. He meant nothing against you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey you wern't suposed to tell anyone Slap , Of course you know this mean's the engagement is off ..........

Regards, John Waters

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

[rexford]

The 1200m penetration range against Tiger I for 122mm AP and APBC hits correlates well with the mantlet resistance on the main areas. The range may be a maximum at which any area on the Tiger front may be penetrated.

Calculated penetration ranges against German tanks with Russian data have to be examined very carefully, because the penetration data may be "tabular" results (calculations). This sort of data is listed on the Russian Battlefield site.

122mm APBC is given about 168mm penetration at point blank using "tabular" results, U.S. tests show 207mm at point blank for 122mm APBC and Russian curves on Russian Battlefield show 215mm at point blank.

Our research showed that Germans had "tabular" results for Russian penetration, which tend to be DeMarre estimates from 76.2mm against zemented armor and are too low.

German estimates of penetration ranges by Russian ammo are also flawed due to special slope effects for Russian APBC ammo, and flaws in Panther glacis armor. Russian APBC would have 1.50 slope effect against Hetzer 60mm at 60° glacis, Germans might use APCBC slope effect of 2.60 in their estimates.

WW II calculated penetration ranges are estimates that may really be off the mark.

No one was aware during WW II of special ability of Russian APBC to penetrate sloped armor, Germans don't seem to have recognized the difference. And Russians published "tabular" results which seem to have deceived Germans into missing the significance of flat nose projectiles.

[Commissar]

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

Ahh the Cats article, I am one of poor ppl he refered to . I disagree that AP performance wasn't important. Here again we see the defineing of 'fair' comparisons, Ie, Panther vs IS-2 because they weigh almost the same & it's not fair to compare the Tiger II to the IS-2 etc.

I also found the comments on Tiger II's interesting, Ie, 'King Tigers were rare because the Germans seldom used them on the Eastern Front'. I wonder where they were used.

Regards, John Waters

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

Well, it's not surprising that KT were rarely seen. During the war, there were rarely ever more than 500 Panthers on the Eastern Front at any give time. That's for a tank the Germans made about 6000 of. KT were made in a lot less numbers. Most of them were probably stationed in the repair shop

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

KT were made in a lot less numbers. Most of them were probably stationed in the repair shop <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The largest number of KTs in the "operational inventory" at any given time was 226 in Feb '45. I don't have a break down on how many were assigned to each front.

[PzKpfw 1]

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

Well, it's not surprising that KT were rarely seen. During the war, there were rarely ever more than 500 Panthers on the Eastern Front at any give time. That's for a tank the Germans made about 6000 of. KT were made in a lot less numbers. Most of them were probably stationed in the repair shop <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Concerning the Panther, As of Sept 1944 the Panther totals on the Eastren Front per month remained 600 - 700 till the end of the war. The rarely more then 500 applies to the months before Sept.

I agree to a point on the small numbers of Tiger II, but would add that Tiger Abt's 501, 503, & 505 all operated with Tiger II's (135 in the 3 Abts) on the Eastren Front from October 1944.

Looking at the Abts AOE their was actualy as good of achance of encountering a Tiger II as their had of been encountering a Tiger E.

Regards, John Waters

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

[Commissar]

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

Concerning the Panther, As of Sept 1944 the Panther totals on the Eastren Front per month remained 600 - 700 till the end of the war. The rarely more then 500 applies to the months before Sept.

I agree to a point on the small numbers of Tiger II, but would add that Tiger Abt's 501, 503, & 505 all operated with Tiger II's (135 in the 3 Abts) on the Eastren Front from October 1944.

Looking at the Abts AOE their was actualy as good of achance of encountering a Tiger II as their had of been encountering a Tiger E.

Regards, John Waters

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

If so, still seems pretty small considering the numbers made. 135 KT on a 2000+ mile front would make encountering one still pretty rare, more so than the Panther. But then again, if we are talking about the front being more towards Germany, then I can see how encounters would definitely be more common. Irrelevent in terms of turning the tide, but certainly more likely. Do you happen to recall total numeber of KTs produce for the entire war?? I'm not saying this is typical, but I recall one old Soviet tanker saying that he went through the war without encountering KTs. He went through several major battles too. Of course, that's just one guy and the fact he survived for longer than six months as a Soviet tanker speaks of his rare condition. Perhaps he got damn lucky.

The 500 number from what I can remember was asserted to be throughout the war. I got it from the "The Red Army Handbook." Zaloga would be wrong. Are the 600+ you cite actually active, ready to fight or is your source also counting the ones disabled in the repair shop as well? Does anyone know what the average number of tanks in a tank division were in the shop?

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

[rexford]

Russian Battlefield has several reports where Tiger II's were used on Eastern Front, and they give the number of KT's used by the Germans.

All told, it amounts to a substantial percentage of the total when breakdowns on the way to the front are considered.

Russian Battlefield penetration ranges during tests at Kubinka and combat reports are also consistent with U.S. tests of 122mm APBC and estimated performance of other Russian ammunition.

Considerable support exists to confirm general validity of many, if not all, published Russian penetration ranges. Much of this is covered in our book.

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

[rexford]

Just as the Allies fired all sorts of weapons against the Panther glacis and wrote reports on results, so did the Russians. Funny that no one questions the validity of U.S. and British test reports.

What about the U.S. firing tests where 17 pounder and 57mm ATG APDS failed to penetrate or even hit anything, is this American propaganda to dismiss British ammunition?

If one trusts one set of penetration tests reports it would be appropriate to give the same treatment to the other until such time as one could disprove the Russian data. Based on the research in our book, Russian tests are as valid as American and British.

[Commissar]

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

Just as the Allies fired all sorts of weapons against the Panther glacis and wrote reports on results, so did the Russians. Funny that no one questions the validity of U.S. and British test reports.

What about the U.S. firing tests where 17 pounder and 57mm ATG APDS failed to penetrate or even hit anything, is this American propaganda to dismiss British ammunition?

If one trusts one set of penetration tests reports it would be appropriate to give the same treatment to the other until such time as one could disprove the Russian data. Based on the research in our book, Russian tests are as valid as American and British.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My point exactly. It seems that a whole lot of people take the Western and German tests as gospel, as if they are inherently always correct and objective, but they just automatically assume that if the report is Russian, it must be faulty or the Russians are lying. It's just bad research to just look at any situation from only one side's perspective and just automatically dismiss the other side's. Erickson and Glantz have helped show this point most vividly. We shouldn't just accept all Russian reports as correct or objective, but simply dismiss them because they are Russian is equally faulty.

[PzKpfw 1]

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

If so, still seems pretty small considering the numbers made. 135 KT on a 2000+ mile front would make encountering one still pretty rare, more so than the Panther. But then again, if we are talking about the front being more towards Germany, then I can see how encounters would definitely be more common. Irrelevent in terms of turning the tide, but certainly more likely. Do you happen to recall total numeber of KTs produce for the entire war?? I'm not saying this is typical, but I recall one old Soviet tanker saying that he went through the war without encountering KTs. He went through several major battles too. Of course, that's just one guy and the fact he survived for longer than six months as a Soviet tanker speaks of his rare condition. Perhaps he got damn lucky.

The 500 number from what I can remember was asserted to be throughout the war. I got it from the "The Red Army Handbook." Zaloga would be wrong. Are the 600+ you cite actually active, ready to fight or is your source also counting the ones disabled in the repair shop as well? Does anyone know what the average number of tanks in a tank division were in the shop?

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

The chance of encountering a Tiger was actualy not that rare, due to the fact the Tiger Abt were used as fire brigades, the Tiger Abt's were literly shipped all over the front, wherever Soviet activity was the strongest.

My point was that the Tiger E were replaced by the same number of Tiger II so whatever frequency you had of encountering a Tiger E you would then see a Tiger II instead.

Well lets look at a few examples of German strength return's listing total tanks by type with AFVs operational in { )'s

31.05.44

PzKpfw IV - 603 (484)

PzKpfw V - 313 ( 238)

PzKpfw VI - 298 ( 233)

Stug - 176 (148)

15.03.45

PzKpfw IV - 603 (345)

PzKpfw V - 776 (387)

PzKpfw VI - 212 (125)

Stug - 545 (314)

PzIV/70 357 (189)

German tankStrengh returns Eastren Front Sept 1944 - Jan 1945:

15.09.44:

PzKpfw IV - 610

PzKpfw V - 728

PzKpfw VI - 267

30.09.44:

PzKpfw IV - 579

PzKpfw V - 721

PzKpfw VI - 249

31.10.44:

PzKpfw IV - 707

PzKpfw V - 672

PzKpfw VI - 278

15.11.44:

PzKpfw IV - 687

PzKpfw V - 658

PzKpfw VI - 276

30.11.44:

PzKpfw IV - 697

PzKpfw V - 625

PzKpfw VI - 246

15.12.44:

PzKpfw IV - 704

PzKpfw V - 737

PzKpfw VI - 268

30.12.44:

PzKpfw IV - 768

PzKpfw V - 726

PzKpfw VI - 251

15.01.45:

PzKpfw IV - 736

PzKpfw V - 707

PzKpfw VI - 199

I have not broken it down to operational, but this clearly shows the Panther had achieved numerical parity with the PzKpfw IV from Sept 44 on. Panzer Truppen Vol 2 provides graphs with operational AFV numbers, I'm just to lazy to break it down .

Regards, John Waters

[ 06-26-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Freak]

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

well that's simple - the Panther had thicker armour, a better gun and about the same c/c performance!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not interested in flamming Stalin.

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