T-34 vs Panther

[Stalin's Organ]

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

I am not interested in flamming Stalin.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Err...what's yuor point??

the Panther DID have thicker armour, a better gun and about the same c/c performance - isn't that what you asked about? :confused:

[Freak]

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

Err...what's yuor point??

the Panther DID have thicker armour, a better gun and about the same c/c performance - isn't that what you asked about? :confused:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stalin, if you're mature enough and have read the thread through, then you'll know why I said that.

(The information has already been sufficantly covered and you pointing it out to us again is a waste of time)

BTW what is c/c performance?

[PzKpfw 1]

Speaking of live fire tests a Soviet report on live fire testing vs the Tiger II with various guns, listed the ranges, the tested wpns could penetrate the Tiger II side turret armor & side hull:

45mm AT fireing sub-calibre AP - 300ms

57mm AT fireing sub-calibre AP - 600ms

57mm AT fireing AP - 400ms

76mm SiS-3 AT fireing sub-calibre - 400ms

76mm SIS-3 AT fireing AP - 300ms

85mm SU fireing AP - 500ms

122mm Howitzer fireing AP - 400ms

Regards, John Waters

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

[PJungnitsch]

Here's another question on the Panther vs T-34 issue. I just read on another board that the Panther's price was almost the same as the PzIV:

"the cost to produce a Panther was not not much more than a IV - PzIV 103,462RM, Pz V 117,100RM Pawlas, Datenblaetter fuer Heeres-Waffen"

Was the Panther actually significantly more expensive to build than the T-34? I always had the impression that a PzIV, T-34, and Sherman were comparable to manufacture.

[Freak]

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

> 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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Was Germany really on top of streamline production? They may have been perfectionists with quality of materials (metals), but Germany was not the streamline production of America or Russia. Add to that Germany's tank designs were inherently more complex and sophisticated then Russia and America.

Germanys defeat can be attributed (partly) due to the fact that America and Russia had fast producing production line of AFV's. Americas tank design was inherently simpler and easier to (faster) produce as was Russia. This along with Gemanys lack of Full Scale War production until late '43 and '44 gave countries like Russia and America much advantage in mass produced vehicles over Germany during the war. I don't have this offand but I believe that the T-34 alone was produced more then total german army tank production combined. This gives good indication of the simplicity of soviet tank design.

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".

Well, I don't doubt for a second russian workers worked hard to build their war machine I cannot honestly say that it was the main reason that Russia out produced Germany in the war. Maybe at points of desparity did russia perform with extra umph, but to say that russia out produced germany becouse they simply worked harder I think is an overstatement at best. Germany knew that a long war with russia would fall against them. That is why they were so confident or over confident that their blitzkrieg tactic would work. A quick and easy blow was the only way germany was going to win the war. Hitler overconfident, underestimation of Russia, overstretched supply lines and bad weather all contributed to the failure of russias capture.

Hitler knew that without a quick and devestating blow to Russia, Germany would be in for a fight for their lives...(read: manpower and population) If Germany was to defeat Russia in a long war, it would have had to have ubsurd numbers of kills per german soldier. UBSURD. It was either quick and easy for germany or die a long death.

[ 06-26-2001: Message edited by: Freak ]

[Commissar]

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

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

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 ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I guess it must have been common enought for the Soviets to do something about it, now that I think about it. After all, if they were really very rare, no need to come up with the T-35/85, SU-100, or an IS-2.

PzKpfw 1, instead of knocking yourself out by reprinting such a long statistical list, just give the page number in Panzertruppen. Should save you a lot of typing, man. :eek:

[ 06-26-2001: Message edited by: Commissar ]

[Freak]

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

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

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[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Freak gets out his notepad and wonders how much a Panther G will cost in CM2.

[ 06-26-2001: Message edited by: Freak ]

[Desantnik]

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

Speaking of live fire tests a Soviet report on live fire testing vs the Tiger II with various guns, listed the ranges, the tested wpns could penetrate the Tiger II side turret armor & side hull:

45mm AT fireing sub-calibre AP - 300ms

57mm AT fireing sub-calibre AP - 600ms

57mm AT fireing AP - 400ms

76mm SiS-3 AT fireing sub-calibre - 400ms

76mm SIS-3 AT fireing AP - 300ms

85mm SU fireing AP - 500ms

122mm Howitzer fireing AP - 400ms

Regards, John Waters

[ 06-26-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good that you mention King Tigers. Here are two very interesting articles on T-34 vs. KT (especially the first one since it gives you impressions of two machines on the real field with real crews instead of firing range):

1)http://history.vif2.ru/library/battles/battle16.html

2)http://history.vif2.ru/library/archives/weapons/weapons7.html

and here is interesing quote from one of the articles: "The intensity of the battle can be judged by the fact that the Soviet tanks used almost all of their shells. Komarichev and Dzhaparidze together scored eight Tigers (King Tigers i assume) and Panthers. Krainev had six "kills"

Now my point arises: some people said that T-34/85 would struggle to kill and panther up front. if T34/85 easily despatched a mighty and supposetly impregnable KT upfront at 500m why would it have ANY problems with a significantly less protected Panther?

Now i agree, Panther DID hold a slight edge over T34 but that edge was not justified by 1) the cost 2) the speed of production 3) the fact that it took them quite some time to work all the "bugs" out. you could build one Panther or whole platoon of T34/85, and quite frankly in WW2 quantity overpowered quality.

T-34 was a significantly better tank from strategic point of view as well. Its reliability and numbers allowed commander to plot tank maneuvre from point A to point B and expect 90% of the tanks to get there without technical difficulties. German commander was lucky if 60% of tanks got to the destination without malfunctions. And again, numbers allowed more massive strategic operations.

[PJungnitsch]

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

Now i agree, Panther DID hold a slight edge over T34 but that edge was not justified by 1) the cost 2) the speed of production 3) the fact that it took them quite some time to work all the "bugs" out. you could build one Panther or whole platoon of T34/85, and quite frankly in WW2 quantity overpowered quality<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1) and 2) I guess that is what I was driving at. WAS the Panther much tougher to build than the T-34 or is this just another myth? Maybe the Panther was actually not much more expensive or slower to build than the T-34. Ramp up of T-34 production was also a bit of a nightmare with a huge number of initial problems. And once Germany declared 'total war' and Speer had rationalized the industry Panther production soared despite Germany fighting on two fronts, being pounded to pieces from the air, and being starved of raw materials and fuel, all drawbacks the Soviets did not have to face.

3)T-34's were also very buggy initially and the program was in the beginning in constant danger of being scrapped. It also be argued that many of the bugs were never worked out but did not become a real issue because the destruction rate was so high.

[Stalin's Organ]

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

1) and 2) I guess that is what I was driving at. WAS the Panther much tougher to build than the T-34 or is this just another myth? Maybe the Panther was actually not much more expensive or slower to build than the T-34.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Costs of T34's in contemporary Roubles can be found

here.

The table also includes costs of IS-2's and -3's and KV-1s's.

If there's a comparable table for hte Panther anywhere, and if anyone can figure out hte exchange rate from Reichmarks to Roubles, then the answer should be fairly obvious!

BTW I don't agree that the T34's shortcomings were not a problem because they were destroyed so quickly - rather they were fully appreciated but they couldn't afford to take the time to fix them because it would have interrupted production.

In 1943 for example they were looking at producing the T43 - similar to the T34, but with a 5 man crew, considerably up-armoured and torsion bar suspensoin. But it retained the 76mm gun so was abandoned for the T34/85.

[Roksovkiy]

The report on the t-34/85 destroying King tigers from the front in the Russian military zone is classic soviet propaganda. It completely disagrees with the strength returns filed by the 501st sPzAbt after the battle.

Soviet narratives were written to show the glory of Soviet arms. They not only leave out the embarrasing and put a spin on the truth, but they even just invent their "truths". They are a very dangerous source to use.

Unlike the German writings, they cannot be checked back to the archives. The Soviet WWII military archives are still under control of the Chief of the Army General Staff, and getting access is both difficult, and laborious. I would like to check these soviet sources from a non biases source, not from the propaganda displayed on Valera's russian military zone.

[Jeff Heidman]

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

and here is interesing quote from one of the articles: "The intensity of the battle can be judged by the fact that the Soviet tanks used almost all of their shells. Komarichev and Dzhaparidze together scored eight Tigers (King Tigers i assume) and Panthers. Krainev had six "kills"

.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And according to US bomber pilots, they shot down the entire Luftwaffe about 6 times over.

Jeff Heidman

[Commissar]

Eh, forget it.

[ 06-26-2001: Message edited by: Commissar ]

[Desantnik]

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

The report on the t-34/85 destroying King tigers from the front in the Russian military zone is classic soviet propaganda. It completely disagrees with the strength returns filed by the 501st sPzAbt after the battle.

Soviet narratives were written to show the glory of Soviet arms. They not only leave out the embarrasing and put a spin on the truth, but they even just invent their "truths". They are a very dangerous source to use.

Unlike the German writings, they cannot be checked back to the archives. The Soviet WWII military archives are still under control of the Chief of the Army General Staff, and getting access is both difficult, and laborious. I would like to check these soviet sources from a non biases source, not from the propaganda displayed on Valera's russian military zone.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well it is easy to too just say that it is propaganda and shrug it off. Article specifically states that the number of KT tanks destroyed in those several days had been confirmed with both soviet and german archives.

Care to explain all the images of burning KT hulks as well? As well as several captured machines...

[Freak]

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

Article specifically states that the number of KT tanks destroyed in those several days had been confirmed with both soviet and german archives.

Care to explain all the images of burning KT hulks as well? As well as several captured machines...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, while its entirely true that KingTigers were certainly knocked out by Russian tanks, that is not in dispute, what is in dispute is how the KingTigers were knocked out.

"The intensity of the battle can be judged by the fact that the Soviet tanks used almost all of their shells. Komarichev and Dzhaparidze together scored eight Tigers (King Tigers i assume) and Panthers. Krainev had six "kills"

The only problem I have with this writing is the "(King Tigers I assume)" part. This could mean the tanks were tigers or possibly even Pz-IV. Also it sounds like the russian tankers were in for a fight for their lives.

[ 06-26-2001: Message edited by: Freak ]

[Desantnik]

"(King Tigers i assume)" part was added by me (sorry for confusion). I added it since it wasnt mentioned anywhere that 501st had Tiger I tanks present (and article obviously described Tiger II attack). and from my understanding it Soviet tanks were in ambush positions and could retreat before firing (that is some nerve to stand against 10 attacking KTs even thought they thought they were panthers back then with only 2 T34/85)

[Roksovkiy]

Article specifically states that the number of KT tanks destroyed in those several days had been confirmed with both soviet and german archives.

This is nonsense the same article even says:

"Unfortunately, in their memoirs, neither commander mentioned the exact number of German tanks destroyed."

And One week after the battle the 501st sPzAbt had 38 King tigers in total.

These soviet claims are best shown with the ferdinand, similar reports as above claims of 9152 destroyed ferdinands throughout the war. Yet only 90 were ever build.

[Freak]

To give a general idea of the commonality of the Panther, total production numbers are:

PzKpfw IV 8544

PzKpfw V 5976

note: Panther tank was in production from 1942-1945; PzKpfw IV was in production from 1936 -1945.

This shows Panther was produced with much higher rate then PzKpfw IV if accurate.

[ 06-26-2001: Message edited by: Freak ]

Edit - does anyone have numbers month by month per panzer produced through the war?

[ 06-26-2001: Message edited by: Freak ]

[Freak]

Mmmm Freak gets ready to spend small points on hefty panther in CM2

[ 06-26-2001: Message edited by: Freak ]

[Commissar]

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

Mmmm Freak gets ready to spend small points on hefty panther in CM2

[ 06-26-2001: Message edited by: Freak ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would make sense if German war production switched more to Panther production rather than Panzer IV production.

However, it's not just a matter of how many of these beasties were built all together as the numbers present in the inventory, ready for service. According to Panzertruppen vol.2, total Panthers in the inventory for the various months from Jan43 fluctuated to a all time high of 2304 in Sep44. From this point on, the numbers go up and down between 1898 to 2133 in Feb45. Figures for Mar45 and Apr45 are not available. I wouldn't necessarily be counting on significantly cheaper Panthers in CM2. In addition, total number of Panthers in service on the Eastern Front would also be calculated into any rarity/purchase factor. They maybe cheaper than in CM1 if greater numbers of them were in the East rather than the West (assuming BTS did these calculations fairly accurately the first time around).

For the PzIV's from 1943 onwards, peak PzIv inventory was 2336 in Jul44 and go down from there to 1571 in Feb45. Again, numbers for Mar45 and Apr45 are not available. This could indeed be indicative that the Germans shifted their production more to the Panther and other vehicles. For you guys with Panzertruppen vol2 check out pages 282,284.

[ 06-26-2001: Message edited by: Commissar ]

[PzKpfw 1]

Interesting article especialy the attempt to discredit Jentz who merely reprinted the officail Abt returns. As to 501 the war diary records:

05.08.44- The battalion minus 1st company is transferred to the Baranow bridgehead. During the 50km road march, following detrainment in Jedreczewo, most of the Tiger II tanks break down due to final drive failure.

11.08.44 - Assignment to the 16th Panzer division. Attack from Chmielnik via Szydlow to the east.

12.08.44- The attack is stopped in face of strong resistance. Only 8 tanks are available for action. A hidden T-34-85 ambushes them near Ogledo and knocks out several Tiger II's, 3 tanks are totaly destroyed. The ammunition stowed inside the turrets causes fatal explosions, killing many crew members.

13.08.44 - Heavy battles & further losses. 1 Tiger 002, is captured intact by the enemy.

1.09.44 - 26 Tigers operational. Assigned to 48th Panzer Korps

The article disputes the numbers but neglects to add that 1st Company was entrained at Ohrdruf on 12.08.44 & arrived after the 14th.

As to The T-34-85 penetration frontaly judge for yourselves:

Oskin by his own account, took up position in a corn feild & heavily camouflaged his tank on the side of the village road.

Oskin engaged what he thought was Panthers initialy, as the Tiger II's passed his position moving down the road.

At 200ms Oskin engaged the 2nd Tiger II with an BR-365P sub-calibre round penetrating the side turret, and it appeared to have no effect (it had penetrated causing crew casualties) Oskin then ordered the loader to switch to BR-365 AP & hit the side turret 2 more times, again no effect, Oskin then called for another BR-365P sub-calibre & ordered the gunner to shoot the rear of the Tiger II, this at last caused an explosion & the Tiger II began to burn.

During this time the lead Tiger II had swung its turret around & was trying to aquire a target Oskin ordered his gunner to fire at under 150ms Oskin watched 3 BR-365 AP roundce bounce harmlessly of the Tiger II's front turret, the 4th round penetrated the turret ring and detonating the Tiger II's turret ammunition.

Oskin then fired his smoke pods and began to change position, when he aquired the 3rd Tiger II which had reversed & was retreating Oskin gave chase & caught the Tiger II from behind killing it with an rear hull penetration. The 3rd Tiger II was later shipped to Kubinka.

Oskin never attempted a frontal engagement nor would he had they been Panthers, he used sound judgment, tactics, & cunning & terrain to his advantage.

Regards, John Waters

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

[Stalin's Organ]

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

The report on the t-34/85 destroying King tigers from the front in the Russian military zone is classic soviet propaganda. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't find this report at the Russian military zone at all, however I do have it in the Vanguard book on the T34 at home, and IIRC Pz1 has quoted what I remember about it.

Where did you read it - can you quote the URL?

Pz 1's response also raises a point that I hope will be included in CMBB - the need to set a tank on fire to ensure it's destroyed. Hopefully there'll be an advanced FOW feature tht completely disables damage reports for vehicles. It will be setable for an entire game, so neither side will receive reports, and will encourage gamers to keep shooting until the target is in flames!

[ 06-26-2001: Message edited by: Stalin's Organ ]

[Commissar]

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

Interesting article especialy the attempt to discredit Jentz who merely reprinted the officail Abt returns. As to 501 the war diary records:

05.08.44- The battalion minus 1st company is transferred to the Baranow bridgehead. During the 50km road march, following detrainment in Jedreczewo, most of the Tiger II tanks break down due to final drive failure.

11.08.44 - Assignment to the 16th Panzer division. Attack from Chmielnik via Szydlow to the east.

12.08.44- The attack is stopped in face of strong resistance. Only 8 tanks are available for action. A hidden T-34-85 ambushes them near Ogledo and knocks out several Tiger II's, 3 tanks are totaly destroyed. The ammunition stowed inside the turrets causes fatal explosions, killing many crew members.

13.08.44 - Heavy battles & further losses. 1 Tiger 002, is captured intact by the enemy.

1.09.44 - 26 Tigers operational. Assigned to 48th Panzer Korps

The article disputes the numbers but neglects to add that 1st Company was entrained at Ohrdruf on 12.08.44 & arrived after the 14th.

As to The T-34-85 penetration frontaly judge for yourselves:

Oskin by his own account, took up position in a corn feild & heavily camouflaged his tank on the side of the village road.

Oskin engaged what he thought was Panthers initialy, as the Tiger II's passed his position moving down the road.

At 200ms Oskin engaged the 2nd Tiger II with an BR-365P sub-calibre round penetrating the side turret, and it appeared to have no effect (it had penetrated causing crew casualties) Oskin then ordered the loader to switch to BR-365 AP & hit the side turret 2 more times, again no effect, Oskin then called for another BR-365P sub-calibre & ordered the gunner to shoot the rear of the Tiger II, this at last caused an explosion & the Tiger II began to burn.

During this time the lead Tiger II had swung its turret around & was trying to aquire a target Oskin ordered his gunner to fire at under 150ms Oskin watched 3 BR-365 AP roundce bounce harmlessly of the Tiger II's front turret, the 4th round penetrated the turret ring and detonating the Tiger II's turret ammunition.

Oskin then fired his smoke pods and began to change position, when he aquired the 3rd Tiger II which had reversed & was retreating Oskin gave chase & caught the Tiger II from behind killing it with an rear hull penetration. The 3rd Tiger II was later shipped to Kubinka.

Oskin never attempted a frontal engagement nor would he had they been Panthers, he used sound judgment, tactics, & cunning & terrain to his advantage.

Regards, John Waters

[ 06-26-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, that makes more sense. I can't see a T-34/85 hitting and penetrating the frontal armor of a KT. Unless it was one hell of a lucky shot, highly unlikely. Hitting the behemoths from the rear is definitely the way to go. Considering how bloody slow they were, it's not like the KT can react all that swiftly to a sudden threat behind him.

I wouldn't be too harsh on Jentz even if the figures he prints are inaccurate. He states right from the beginning of Panzertruppen that he is not going to engage in analysis. He's letting the reader make up his own mind. He's just basically collecting more interesting and relevent offical German reports for the reader to examine. That he does quite well from my viewpoint.

[rexford]

The Russian Battlefield and Valera's entries therein have not been uniformly pro-Soviet and are objective:.

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

IS-2 armor so brittle and flaky 76.2 APBC was able to partially penetrate all sides from 500 to 600 meters, with bad fragmentation on inside even though no complete penetrations. This is why so many IS-85 and IS-122 tanks lost.

45mm APBC ammo very poor during several month period during '41-'42. 100mm APBC so poor gun could not be released for use until after a lengthy delay improving ammo. 57mm HE ammo poor quality. Low rate of fire for IS-2, 1 to 1.5 rounds per minute for first models (why would pro-Russian sources want this rate of fire pointed out?).

122mm initially fires AP rounds (BR-471) at Panther and they bounce off glacis.

SU-76 has many problems and is not well liked.

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

We analyzed all of the firing test data and combat claims on the Russian Battlefield site and, for the most part, they make sense. We have U.S. tests of 122mm APBC at angles up to 70°, and have estimated other APBC rounds from 122mm data. This data was used to test validity of Russian reports and they are consistent with our estimates.

Much of this is in our book. Our view is that Russian Battlefield provides a realistic and worthwhile source of data that would otherwise not be available. It is an extremely valuable resource and one which helped improve our book. One has to examine the data closely before using it, which is also the case with Allied information.

T34/85's sock it to King Tigers, Wittmann socks it to a column of British vehicles. Doesn't every nation make a big deal out of their aces exploits.

If one wants to know how vulnerable T34 and T34/85 were against German panzers, one should look in Jentz.

If one takes Russian claims and stories as a source and analyzes them, they are about as accurate and valid as U.S. and British stuff.

[PzKpfw 1]

Valera's site is an AWSOME resource to ppl interested in the Soviet aspect of WW2, IMHO what he has provided is priceless where else can we discuss things with David Glantz, Charles Sharp etc, as well as read Soviet archival material.

I also agree with Lorrin, we can not outright dismiss Soviet WW2 data as tainted, w/o asking the same questions about German, US, UK, data as well. If anything we can compare the data as I did with the articles & draw our own conclusions from 2 sources on the same battle.

Regards, John Waters