T-34 vs Panther

[Commissar]

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

It would seem BTS agrees with your opinion on Valera's site. One of the folks at BTS mentioned they were so impressed by Valera's site, he was added to the beta team for CM2.

[rexford]

Regarding those penetration range figures for Russian guns and ammo against Tiger II, following is side angle associated with hit, just so it doesn't appear that 85mm could only penetrate Tiger II at 500m or less regardless of lateral angle.

All hits are against 80/20° or 80/25° side armor unless noted otherwise.

45 APCR hits at 0° side angle

57 APCR hits at 30° side angle

57 AP hits at 30° side angle

76 APCR hits at 0° side angle

76 AP hits 80mm/0° side armor at 0° side angle

85 AP hits at 30° side angle

It would seem that the firing tests were conducted on a 600m long area.

If 85 gun used APBC, then penetration range is limited by shatter gap since 85mm APBC penetration/armor resistance ratio at 500m and 30° side angle is between 1.20 and 1.25.

[TT]

I agree that Valera's site is a valuable source on Russian stuff, but from reading his postings on various forums during the last couple of years, one thing is quite clear: He outright HATES the Kingtiger! And he ain't too pleased about the Panther, either. I get the impression that he will do almost anything to "hurt" the Kingtiger. So if Valera is heavy into CM2, you don't have to worry about the Tiger 2 if you're playing as the Russians.

[ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: TT ]

[Slapdragon]

As far as I know, neither Valera nor anyone else is campaigning to unreasonably destroy a single tank or unit type in the game. Besides, Charles, Steve, Matt, and Dawg all have brains and the ability to use them. No single person will convince to hobble anything, no matter what, without a pile of data and citations to back them up.

Remember that German tanks, even the King Tiger, were destroyed on the Eastern Front, not just towed for accumlated parking tickets by the NKVD. Germans had good tanks, the Panther is a match for most T34 variants, but the game does not model German tanks by making them indestrucible batmobiles.

[Jeff Duquette]

TT!!! Is this “THE” TT of CC MOD fame? Don’t tell me you come over to the dark side of the force and started playing CM?

[Freak]

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

As far as I know, neither Valera nor anyone else is campaigning to unreasonably destroy a single tank or unit type in the game.Besides, Charles, Steve, Matt, and Dawg all have brains and the ability to use them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would hope not, and I would only assume that the BTS is doing the right thing.

No single person will convince to hobble anything, no matter what, without a pile of data and citations to back them up.

Its true, but lets see where the chips will fall. I especially am interested in weather or not the KingTiger front armor is as weak as Valera reports it as.

Germans had good tanks, the Panther is a match for most T34 variants, but the game does not model German tanks by making them indestrucible batmobiles.

All German Panthers except for the Panther D are more the a match for any T34 varient, at least frontally.

Remember that German tanks, even the King Tiger, were destroyed on the Eastern Front, not just towed for accumlated parking tickets by the NKVD.

Slapdragon,

Its true KingTigers were knocked out by Russian tanks in WWII. Most accounts of KingTigers being knocked out, which I have read have been from flank shots from T34-85's and from ambush postions. Russian Military zone seems to supply accounts that counter this; ex. KingTiger knocked out frontally at 500 meters by T34-85. Which is true I don't know, but it seems that any frontal penetartion by T34-85 is highly unlikely:

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

I am just hopeful that the best research is made into the strength of the KingTiger frontal armor. If KingTiger armor is as weak as is stated on Valera's site then it is more like a 70 ton sherman.

[ 06-29-2001: Message edited by: Freak ]

[Mr. Johnson--]

hehehe, well the JS-II has 44 more MMs on its main gun then the KT.

[PzKpfw 1]

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

I am just hopeful that the best research is made into the strength of the KingTiger frontal armor. If KingTiger armor is as weak as is stated on Valera's site then it is more like a 70 ton sherman.

[ 06-29-2001: Message edited by: Freak ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well the whole business of an 'weak' Tiger II glacis stems originaly from 1 example, the Brits poldi tested that had IIRC 225 BHN, which was lower then previous examples of German armor that was up to 300BHN. Now this was before the stuff on Val'ssite was declassed

Whats interesting is their are numerous photos as well as LF tests vs a KO'd Tiger II glacis in the Ardennes, where glacis was invulnerable to US 57mm - 90mm APCR & Bazooka, fire, & this was after after a

catosraphic explosin had tore the turret off.

Now again by the same token Soviet armor was 450 - 500BHN which resulted in brittle armor, especialy vs overmatching projectiles, so wait till you see a T-34 take a Glacis hit & the driver's hatch blows off, from the vibration of the impact, or a penetration causes a section 2ft wide to crack, around the initial penetration etc. This stems from hardness of T-34-76 & KV-1 armor by the US & UK.

The problem here is you can't use 1 example of an low BHN as an quantifing standard of series production, each plant had its own line & like all things mass produced will suffer from human error. The real problem lies in how you would quantify any of this as you would need to do poldi tests on all surviving examples of Panther's, Tiger, II's T-34's, KV's etc, & check the BHN as well as the armor compositions etc, no small task.

Regards, John Waters

[ 06-29-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Slapdragon]

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

Well the whole business of an 'weak' Tiger II glacis stems originaly from 1 example, the Brits poldi tested that had IIRC 225 BHN, which was lower then previous examples of German armor that was up to 300BHN. Now this was before the stuff on Val'ssite was declassed

Whats interesting is their are numerous photos as well as LF tests vs a KO'd Tiger II glacis in the Ardennes, where glacis was invulnerable to US 57mm - 90mm APCR & Bazooka, fire, & this was after after a

catosraphic explosin had tore the turret off.

Now again by the same token Soviet armor was 450 - 500BHN which resulted in brittle armor, especialy vs overmatching projectiles, so wait till you see a T-34 take a Glacis hit & the driver's hatch blows off, from the vibration of the impact, or a penetration causes a section 2ft wide to crack, around the initial penetration etc. This stems from hardness of T-34-76 & KV-1 armor by the US & UK.

The problem here is you can't use 1 example of an low BHN as an quantifing standard of series production, each plant had its own line & like all things mass produced will suffer from human error. The real problem lies in how you would quantify any of this as you would need to do poldi tests on all surviving examples of Panther's, Tiger, II's T-34's, KV's etc, & check the BHN as well as the armor compositions etc, no small task.

Regards, John Waters

[ 06-29-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or your would need a random test (possibly quite small) performed on tanks leaving the factor. Alternatively, you could, if the data were available, look at what ended the life of the King Tiger. There is much more evidence that the King Tiger had high quality armor than low quality armor. Unless a lot of new evidence well collated and handled came to light, I would not consider changing the armor value of the KT for CM:B2B.

I do disagree with John on one point, and that is the T-34 armor quality. I think the current understanding of the T-34, especially in light of tanks captured post WW2 when proving ground testing of these units was far better than WW2, shows that while some Soviet tanks had incredibly brittle armor, other had very good armor, sometimes from the same production run and model. I think that the evidence of very high hardness armor is evidence is shirty manufacturing quality control, and that one might find a T-34, or a JS-2 for that matter, with wildly variable armor quality depending on when where and how it was made. Driving a tank off to fight without paint and interior fixtures does not leave one very confident of quality control, and all nations making tanks, the Germans, US, British, etc, had problems with armor forging that would stop lines and hold up production.

Unfortunately, the game cannot likely model highly variable armor quality randomly, and also there is no data on where on the scale from great to piss poor the average tank sat (unless one moves to looking at post war T-34/85s), so this would be tough to do something about other than fudge a lower armor quality for all T-34s, but it is something to think about.

[Commissar]

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

..... Besides, Charles, Steve, Matt, and Dawg all have brains and the ability to use them. No single person will convince to hobble anything, no matter what, without a pile of data and citations to back them up.

.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank god for that. From anyone else, we'd probably get a game with a lot of German uber tanks and mindless Russians. I really want to see how they ultimately handle Red Army and Wehrmacht characteristics throughout the war years. The early Soviet C&C for tanks, as described in the Gamespot interview, sounds like a real pain to deal with but reasonably, historically accurate.

[ 06-29-2001: Message edited by: Commissar ]

[PzKpfw 1]

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

I do disagree with John on one point, and that is the T-34 armor quality. I think the current understanding of the T-34, especially in light of tanks captured post WW2 when proving ground testing of these units was far better than WW2, shows that while some Soviet tanks had incredibly brittle armor, other had very good armor, sometimes from the same production run and model. I think that the evidence of very high hardness armor is evidence is shirty manufacturing quality control, and that one might find a T-34, or a JS-2 for that matter, with wildly variable armor quality depending on when where and how it was made. Driving a tank off to fight without paint and interior fixtures does not leave one very confident of quality control, and all nations making tanks, the Germans, US, British, etc, had problems with armor forging that would stop lines and hold up production.

.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure on what your disagreeing with me on as I said basicly the same thing in my closeing paragraph. The data concerning the model 1942 T-34-76 & KV-1 armor comes from the Watertown Arsenal report on the armor quality, composition etc. The British also did similar tests in their own report with similar findings except poldi result were 10% higher IIRC then the US reports findings.

But one thing both reports were was thourogh, in the testing of the AFVs armor quality, quality control methods or lack of, Ie, the Watertown Arsenal report on the Tiger E points ouit that the sample shows the 1st sighn of German armor production's quality standards falling by the anylss of the plate composition, weld seals etc. Basicly the reports are more thourough then any report I have read after WW2 on an AFV.

As I said we can not discern the BHN standard or armor quality, or make generlisations on the the whole series of tanks based on study's of individual tanks from the series, to empiricly state all armor was this specific BHN on a mass produced AFV by 1 or 2 examples with varying poldi results is not possible.

Regards, John Waters

[ 06-29-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Slapdragon]

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

I'm not sure on what your disagreeing with me on as I said basicly the same thing in my closeing paragraph. The data concerning the model 1942 T-34-76 & KV-1 armor comes from the Watertown Arsenal report on the armor quality, composition etc. The British also did similar tests in their own report with similar findings except poldi result were 10% higher IIRC then the US reports findings.

But one thing both reports were was thourogh, in the testing of the AFVs armor quality, quality control methods or lack of, Ie, the Watertown Arsenal report on the Tiger E points ouit that the sample shows the 1st sighn of German armor production's quality standards falling by the anylss of the plate composition, weld seals etc. Basicly the reports are more thourough then any report I have read after WW2 on an AFV.

As I said we can not discern the BHN standard or armor quality, or make generlisations on the the whole series of tanks based on study's of individual tanks from the series, to empiricly state all armor was this specific BHN on a mass produced AFV by 1 or 2 examples with varying poldi results is not possible.

Regards, John Waters

[ 06-29-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually I am agreeing with you that a small sample is hard to generalize, but I am also pointing out the wildly varying Soviet tank armor quality may cause us further problems. Hard to set a useful mean when it is 200 and the standard deviation is one hundred, so to speak.

[Skipper]

> 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.

I once read a 300+ posts thread on this issue. The question of comparing production costs is rather complicated, because in times of war measuring these things with money is quite irrelevant, because you need to build them here and now.

Man-hours, machining hours, number and complexity of manufacturing operations and scarce commodities required for production all count.

T-34s were produced on an assembly line, the design (wartime version of it) provided for all sorts of technological shortcuts (things such as slip bearings instead of ball bearings), and demanded much less deficit things than either Pz-IV or Pz-V.

The conclusion of that thread was that whichever way you count, T-34 was a lot easier to build in wholesale numbers during the war.

Funny fact from that thread: assembly line method was SOP for the soviet tank industry... but not for german.

> 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.

Guess what? I agree, it was an overstatement. But it does carry an important point. To rephrase it more accurately, the main factor (among many others) that allowed USSR to outproduce Germany during the war was the fact that Soviet industry and general population were fully mobilised for total war effort from the start. Germany did it only in 1943, and even then my impression is that they did not go quite as far.

[PJungnitsch]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Man-hours, machining hours, number and complexity of manufacturing operations and scarce commodities required for production all count.

T-34s were produced on an assembly line, the design (wartime version of it) provided for all sorts of technological shortcuts (things such as slip bearings instead of ball bearings), and demanded much less deficit things than either Pz-IV or Pz-V.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, although crude and simple construction does not necessarily translate into quick and cheap production, in the same way it does not always translate into reliability. I have read stories that Westerners who toured Soviet factories at the time were amazed at how inefficiently they were run and my experience in Communist countries and with Communist built equipment would tend to agree with that.

The greater amount of T-34's built compared to Panthersmay (and I of course could be wrong) have more to do with 1)like you say, Germany's slowness to gear up to total war 2)the fact the Soviets could concentrate on tank production while ignoring such things as producing subs and leaving truck production to the Americans 3) Not having to deal with the shortages of raw materials that the Germans had to constantly work around 4) Not getting their factories and transportation system pounded to mush on a regular basis.

[Freak]

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

> 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.

I once read a 300+ posts thread on this issue. The question of comparing production costs is rather complicated, because in times of war measuring these things with money is quite irrelevant, because you need to build them here and now.

Man-hours, machining hours, number and complexity of manufacturing operations and scarce commodities required for production all count.

T-34s were produced on an assembly line, the design (wartime version of it) provided for all sorts of technological shortcuts (things such as slip bearings instead of ball bearings), and demanded much less deficit things than either Pz-IV or Pz-V.

The conclusion of that thread was that whichever way you count, T-34 was a lot easier to build in wholesale numbers during the war.

Funny fact from that thread: assembly line method was SOP for the soviet tank industry... but not for german.

> 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.

Guess what? I agree, it was an overstatement. But it does carry an important point. To rephrase it more accurately, the main factor (among many others) that allowed USSR to outproduce Germany during the war was the fact that Soviet industry and general population were fully mobilised for total war effort from the start. Germany did it only in 1943, and even then my impression is that they did not go quite as far.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Skipper, I am glad we agree.

Funny fact from that thread: assembly line method was SOP for the soviet tank industry... but not for german.

What does SOP mean?

[rexford]

Regarding Russian high hardness armor, Robert Livingston did a very extensive study of all available BHN data and came up with a table that cross indexes armor thickness with year. The result is a BHN figure.

If T34 glacis is 250-300 BHN and good quality, resistance equals 122mm at 0° against 75mm hits. This limits 75L43 penetrations to 500m.

There are no reports anywhere that limit 75L43 penetration of T34 glacis to less than 500m. Some say 1000m, some say any angle at 1200m and out to 1600m max, but none say less than 500m.

Every T34 and T34/85 that was analyzed by Brits or Americans was high hardness. SU 85 glacis was high hardness. All of 'em.

Every IS-2 was high hardness except for 90mm vertical side hull armor. Thin plates on KV-1 were high hardness but thicker plates were machine quality.

Take a few tanks that were analyzed and ALL are high hardness, look for evidence of 75mm L43 penetration defeats just beyond 500m and find none, find penetration ranges that support high hardness, and it is more than reasonable to assume all T34 and T34/85 are high hardness.

Some of the high hardness T34 are poor quality.

Spanish Civil War reports have Russian tanks using softish armor which reduced crew casualties, but then Russians revert back to high hardness.

We looked at this issue long and hard over a 15 year period and came to the conclusions noted above. Our book assumes that T34 is high hardness, and uses Livingston's table.

At this point we say if someone feels that some T34 were hardened to 250-300 BHN, show us the defeated hits at 500m.

When we deal with WW II we are dealing with limited and incomplete data, and one must draw conclusions using many different approaches. We did this.

Regarding Poldi portable BHN machine, the fact that it is portable may lead to low estimates of armor hardness.

[ 07-01-2001: Message edited by: rexford ]

[rexford]

If some T34 had machine quality armor hardness, they must have been poor quality to allow 1000m penetrations.

Factories vary? T34 armor was about 45mm thick in all cases. Lowering the hardness to 250-300 BHN requires additional steps, in many cases.

Based on penetration range threads that have taken place in the past, there is no evidence that T34 had good quality machine quality armor. And if they did have machine quality the resistance was bad.

With good quality machine quality armor, T34 glacis has 122mm at 0° resistance vs 75mm hits. That's more resistance than Tiger driver plate!

Could T34 armor resistance have been variable? Yes.

Good quality high hardness, penetrated to 1200m to 1600m.

Poor quality high hardness, penetrated to 1600m.

Good quality but hardness between 350 and 400 BHN, penetrated to 1000m max.

Poor quality but 350-400 BHN hardness, penetrated to 1200m to 1600m max.

Russians were trying to pump out as many T34 as possible, would someone take time to lower hardness? Maybe not but plant could use tempering procedures and produce hardness in 350-400 BHN range. This armor would have more resistance than 450 BHN, especially at 375 BHN.

There is no evidence that T34 armor was ever good quality machine quality in 250-300 BHN range.

[Grisha]

Regarding production disparities between the Soviet Union & Germany, it is difficult to compare. The Soviet Union was built on a concept of intense centralization, whereas German industry was very heavily privatized.

In fact, German industry had a fair amount of power in Nazi Germany, and used it at times to their advantage. German industry was loath to change its system of production, relying on the tried and true craftsman system. This system produced excellent equipment, but such equipment could be quite complex and could not be produced in great quantity. Basically, German industry was a big headache for the Third Reich, since it was like pulling teeth to get these entrenched businessmen to think differently.

In the Soviet Union, the only goal of industry was to produce competent equipment that could be maintained with ease, and produced in great quantity. After the design bureaus had developed equipment that met the requirements of the government, the best were chosen for production. Due to the transfer of much of the Soviet Union's heavy industry the quality of that production fluctuated for many months. Part of the government's function was not only to choose the best designs, but also to monitor the production of those designs to make sure that the equipment was meeting their design specifications. This became especially important during the shift of industry to the Urals. This entire process of serial production evaluation never ended in the Soviet Union, and defects or poor performance in equipment was investigated immediately to discern the problem and find a solution.

Also, I can state quite confidently that until late in the war, the amount of resources available for production to Germany was greater than that available to the Soviet Union, lend lease or otherwise.

[Stalin's Organ]

Does anyone know how much it cost to actually produce a Panther??

[rexford]

I have a German report from mid-1942 where they analyzed T34 armor based on their extensive captures, and they reproduced the armor for firing tests using 37mm and 50mm guns.

The hardness they used as representative of T34 tanks was 430 BHN.

So now we have EVERY American and British analysis that can be found, and EVERY German analysis that can be found, showing high hardness.

High hardness sounds right, and brittle behavior against 75mm hits.

[Dan Robertson]

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

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

Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which is not surprising since each plane had 13 machine guns, a bit harder to over kill in a tank. However the actual type of vehicle killed is another matter all together

[rexford]

High hardness armor in 45mm thickness is going to react in a brittle manner when it is hit by 75mm rounds regardless of whether it is good or bad quality high hardness.

And high hardness armor in 45mm thickness will lose much of its resistance when it is hit by 75mm rounds, regardless of relative quality.

High hardness armor has low impact resistance, and loses resistance against overmatching round (diameter greater than thickness).

The quality of high hardness armor that is overmatched by projectile hit is a non-issue most of the time.

[PzKpfw 1]

Lorrin who implied Soviet plate was 250 - 300 BHN?.

N o one can empericly state this or that, even off reports on a few examples of AFVs, that were mass produced in the thousands. By factories that often used difrent production methods etc, Ie, some T-34 factories added xtra plate to the glacis, some used 2 piece turrets instead of the 1 piece cast etc, who says they didn't vary in plate production quality as well?. How would CM reflect that?. The US, & UK, reports represent tests on the 2 tanks out of thousands produced.

I only commented that UK poldi results were around 10% higher then US results off the same examples, which was most likely because the tests were done with a portable Poldi.

Regards, John Waters

[ 07-01-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[PzKpfw 1]

Was just perusing an old book when I found an 1942 German card reprint of 469/3a for German AT gunners, concerning the 7.62 cm AT gun,& it's penetration ranges vs the T-34-76 as 1000m vs turret front & 100m vs glacis, & 1800m vs the side turret & hull using Pzgr.

Regards, John Waters

[SenorBeef]

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

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

Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those are some tough pilots. Were THEY the ones using those extra million SMGs?