T-34 vs Panther

[rexford]

The 250-300 BHN possibility for T34 glacis was not suggested by anyone else, I brought it up to show that it is not logical to assume some factories varied tremendously from design directives.

T34 armor quality is kind of a non-issue for high hardness armor, cause the armor loses tremendous amounts of resistance when 45mm plate or cast is hit by 75mm ammo. High quality armor at 400 Brinell Hardness loses over 20% of its resistance on 75mm hits against 45mm armor, based on American and German tests.

Germans tested ALOT of T34's and found armor hardness to be above 400 BHN.

German penetration cards against T34 do not take high hardness armor into consideration, they are based on straight calculations assuming T34 armor resistance equals German penetration data basis.

T34 glacis hit at 30° side angle has compound angle of 64.34°. T/D =45/76.2, or 0.59. Slope effect is 3.30, hardness multiplier is 0.76. Armor resistance is 45 x 3.30 x 0.76, or 113mm at 0°.

76.2L51.5 APCBC penetrates T34 glacis on hit with 30° side angle at 800m when high hardness armor is considered.

If T34 armor is treated as machine quality armor at 250-300 Brinell, penetration range on 30° side angle hit is "none" (148mm armor resistance, 136mm penetration at 0m).

German gunner card tells crews 100m on 30° hit, actual battlefield experience would result in well over 500m. Americans prepared penetration range data prior to Normandy that said 76mm could handle Tiger out to 1000 yards or more, Baily's Faint Praise indicates 50 yards was about it.

Penetration range estimates prepared in the safety of an office far from the front can sometimes be off by quite a bit. German penetration cards for Sherman are also rather pessimistic, don't consider armor flaws and cast armor deficiency.

[rexford]

U.S. also tested T34/85's found in Berlin ruins, and an SU 85.

Russian armor made out of same stuff, designed for 400+ Brinell Hardness, and can only get worse than standard high hardness armor.

High hardness armor is like glass made out of standard window stuff, no matter how carefully it is made it is still brittle and can't take large impact.

[Jarmo]

If german "medium length" 76 can penetrate T-34 so easily, then how about long 50mm? If 76 works at distances over 1000 meters, it suggests 50mm might have a chance at very short ranges.

I have always thought 50mm had no hope of penetration, except from flank at close range.

[illo]

(sarcasm on)

I really enjoy reading Great Patriotic Skippers posts

(sarcasm off)

IMO

T-34 was best choice to produce for soviet industry.

Panther was same for german industry. They were unable to produce tanks in such huge numbers.

T-34 had larger overall effect in war.

1vs1 T-34/85 was inferior to Panther.

PS. Patriotism is sad thing. It only leads us to fight eachother.

[PzKpfw 1]

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

U.S. also tested T34/85's found in Berlin ruins, and an SU 85.

Russian armor made out of same stuff, designed for 400+ Brinell Hardness, and can only get worse than standard high hardness armor.

High hardness armor is like glass made out of standard window stuff, no matter how carefully it is made it is still brittle and can't take large impact.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lorrin, test's on a pittance of AFVs out of a huge production run will not provide emperical results for the whole series IMHO to many variations of quality control or lack of as well as design 'improvements' w/o approval took place in Soviet factories during the war. As an example we can look at QQ procedures, an inspector can have a random number of units pulled out of a series line & all meet specs, yet after delivery to units, flaws can be found in a number of units. We do agree on high hardness weaknesses etc.

Regards, John Waters

[ 07-02-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[rexford]

German tests with 37mm and 50mm guns against T34 armor (same composition and hardness) showed that 50mm Pak could penetrate 45mm at close range and many steep angles but not at 60°.

Our book has 101mm penetration for 50mm Pak at 100m and 0°, with a 3.1 slope effect against 45mm armor at 60°. So T34 armor resists 50mm hits like 45 x 3.1, or 140mm.

High hardness armor modifier brings resistance down to about 117mm. Based on calculations, 50mm Pak should not penetrate T34 glacis using APC ammunition.

[ 07-02-2001: Message edited by: rexford ]

[rexford]

John,

Please state what it is we don't agree on, as it is not clear. My point is that T34 armor will almost always be very brittle due to high hardness, and will lose gobs of resistance when 45mm plates are hit by 75mm projectiles.

1.

British, American and German armor analysis show T34 armor to be high hardness, Germans say always over 400 Brinell, which agrees with American analysis. Germans analyzed MANY T34 prior to their 1942 report, so we're not talking a hand full of Allied reports.

2.

45mm high hardness armor ALWAYS loses about 25% of its' resistance against 75mm hits, regardless of quality

75mm L43 should generally not have any problems penetrating T34 glacis below 1000m, and many times out to 1200m or further ranges.

3.

T34 armor varied in quality from great to poor, which may have varied resistance by a little bit (high hardness makes it poor against 75mm as general rule, so poor quality makes poor resistance a little poorer)

4.

Some T34 had add-on armor, which would increase resistance by a small amount.

5.

As a general rule, there is no evidence that any factories used 50mm to 55mm thick plates on T34 glacis as design rule, or lowered design hardness to 250-300 BHN.

6.

T34 used different turret designs.

[PzKpfw 1]

That reminds me of an Soviet report I read from late 1942 that commented that with the appearence of the new German 5.cm AT guns single KV tanks could no longer harrass German Inf positions with impunity, seems quite a few KV-1's were lost to the new gun.

Regards, John Waters

[PzKpfw 1]

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

John,

3.

T34 armor varied in quality from great to poor, which may have varied resistance by a little bit (high hardness makes it poor against 75mm as general rule, so poor quality makes poor resistance a little poorer)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the point Lorrin, I pointed out difrent Soviet factories could produce better or worse products, concerning plate hardness i believe generlisations based on a few examples of a mass produced AFV reflecting the whole series is not a real basis for an emperical conclusion.

So is assuming all T-34 armor albeit Soviet armor plate is extremely vulnerable to German 7.5 cm L/43 guns & above an accurate representation soley based on the results of a few tests on Soviet plate.

Or for that matter any AFV Ie,an German Tiger II glacis was found to be 225 BHN based on a portable poldi reading yet were all Tiger II glacis's 225 BHN?. Considering the Brit reports finding on German armor construction practices & varying armor manufacture & levels of worker skill as well as QQ testing at German factories.

Regards, John Waters

[ 07-02-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Dittohead]

Using the lowest armor quality for all T-34's would be no different then how the Panther Armor is treated now.

[PzKpfw 1]

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

Using the lowest armor quality for all T-34's would be no different then how the Panther Armor is treated now.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True Ditto, but if BTS goes with the values we have been discussing, your looking at the Panther's 85% rateing vs a 65 - 70% rateing on Soviet armor. Their is going to be a whole lotta discussion, on how poor the T-34-76, T-34-85, KV-1 etc, ends up when it runs into the long German tank & AT guns as they will punch thru the armor like a knife thru butter.

This is one reason why the 7.5 cm L/48 would be more then adequate vs the T-34-85 etc, & why I have no doubt the L/43 & L/48 guns had no problem with T-34's out to 2000m using data from the armor anylyss, as long 7.5 cm ammunition's penetration increased vs Soviet 400 -500 BHN plate.

Regards, John Waters

[ 07-02-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Jarmo]

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

That reminds me of an Soviet report I read from late 1942 that commented that with the appearence of the new German 5.cm AT guns single KV tanks could no longer harrass German Inf positions with impunity, seems quite a few KV-1's were lost to the new gun. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sort of makes sense, isn't KV-1's armour actually less effective than in T-34?

But I remember reading form somewhere that PzIII with 50mm gun had no hope of penetration against KV-1. Not frontally anyway.

Might have been about the shorter 50mm, though.

[Freak]

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

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 ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Commissar,

My feeling is that the price of AFV's in CM2 will remain the same at least at a base price only going up in price with rarity on not going down. I am not fully sure on this but I recall reading that somewhere.

Though it has nothing to do with deployment it is interesting to know that Panther production was at a higher rate then the PzKpfw IV if one takes into account overall production years for both tanks.

Total production of PzKpfw IV is 8544 over 9 years. PzKpfw V is 5976 over 3 1/2 years.

Seeing that Panther deployment on the east front was higher or about equal with the PzKpfw IV from september 1944 on, lead me to believe that Panthers might be cheap. I had forgot the above base rule that makes all units price based on combat effectiveness even with rarity on. (again I am not fully sure on this)

[ 07-02-2001: Message edited by: Freak ]

[ 07-02-2001: Message edited by: Freak ]

[rexford]

During our research we found German test firing results for 50mm Pak against KV-1 tanks. KV-1 has 75mm front hull armor at 30°, and 50mm Pak penetrated this at 100m and failed at 200m in actual tests, so actual range for 50% success is in between 100m and 200m.

From our books' perspective, 75mm armor at 30° resists 50mm APC hits like 96mm at 0°. 50mm L60 APC penetrates 96mm at 190m on half the hits, which is in same ballpark as test results.

KV-1 armor was machine quality, 250-300 Brinell.

Early model KV-1 ('41 and first part of '42) was vulnerable to 50mm Pak on side shots, with 75mm side armor (hull and turret) which could be penetrated out to 700m by 50mm L60 APC. Since Germans often tried for side shots and ambushes to reduced losses, 50mm Pak would be very effective against KV-1 tanks.

T34 with high hardness armor has greater resistance than KV-1 front hull against 50mm Pak, and might laff off hits. T34 glacis resists 50mm hits like about 112mm at 0°, KV-1 like 96mm at 0°.

From Russian miniatures gamer perspective, T34 armor is great against 50mm Pak and KV-1 is going to get penetrated at close range on frontal overrun attempts.

Later KV-1 adds high hardness plate to front hull armor, which makes KV-1 more difficult to defeat frontally than T34 when they are attacked by 50mm Pak and 75L43.

Robert Livingston took notice of fact that 30mm plates added to KV-1 front hull were high hardness, and T34 45mm armor was high hardness, and several other armor tidbits (including T34/85 and SU 85), and a pattern appeared that is discussed in our book.

All Russian armor of 60mm thickness and under is high hardness in every case we have observed. Whether 1941 T34 or 1945 T34/85, with SU 85 and others in between, thinner plate and cast armor is high hardness. Probably designed to maximize resistance against 50mm Pak.

Starting in 1944 Russian use high hardness on all castings, based on the materials we have reviewed.

So T34 is always vulnerable to 75mm hits at fairly good ranges due to brittle behavior of very hard armor.

Airplanes use face-hardened armor to get the most bang from the millimeter against cannon and machine gun fire while keeping plane weight down. T34 appears to have used the same logic, the tank is designed for rapid penetration and not for trading shots with German panzers using 75mm and larger guns, so armor is designed for maximum resistance against the small anti-tank guns used by Germans in rear area defense (37mm and 47mm and 50mm). This is our theory based on looking at armor resistance.

KV-1 is a heavy tank designed to trade shots and win, so armor is thick and is machine quality which will not be so brittle when a 75mm or 88mm round bounces off.

T34 armor quality may be a non-issue against 75mm hits due to brittle behavior by even the best plates and castings.

[ 07-02-2001: Message edited by: rexford ]

[rexford]

The IS-2 and IS-2m tanks used high hardness armor everywhere but the 90mm vertical side hull, based on American analysis of tanks found in Berlin ruins.

We do not have any hardness for ISU vehicles and T70 and many others, but the trends developed for the tanks we do have data on point to certain thickness-vs-hardness criteria based on period of war.

[Skipper]

> I really enjoy reading Great Patriotic

> Skippers posts

If you dont like it, dont eat it.

> T-34 was best choice to produce for soviet

> industry.

With all sorts of caveats, that's likely true.

> Panther was same for german industry. They

> were unable to produce tanks in such huge

> numbers.

That's not quite as likely. As I understand it the strategic implications of this whole story with Pz-V development, in 1942 germans gambled on quality vs quantity. It seems to me that they expected quite a bit more bang for the buck from Panthers than what they actually got.

> T-34 had larger overall effect in war.

Yup.

> 1vs1 T-34/85 was inferior to Panther.

Yup.

> PS. Patriotism is sad thing. It only leads

> us to fight eachother.

You know, any good thing can be made absurd if taken to the extremes. Iirc, I haven't as much as personally insulted anyone here, let alone fought.

[Commissar]

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

Hi Commissar,

My feeling is that the price of AFV's in CM2 will remain the same at least at a base price only going up in price with rarity on not going down. I am not fully sure on this but I recall reading that somewhere.

Though it has nothing to do with deployment it is interesting to know that Panther production was at a higher rate then the PzKpfw IV if one takes into account overall production years for both tanks.

Total production of PzKpfw IV is 8544 over 9 years. PzKpfw V is 5976 over 3 1/2 years.

Seeing that Panther deployment on the east front was higher or about equal with the PzKpfw IV from september 1944 on, lead me to believe that Panthers might be cheap. I had forgot the above base rule that makes all units price based on combat effectiveness even with rarity on. (again I am not fully sure on this)

[ 07-02-2001: Message edited by: Freak ]

[ 07-02-2001: Message edited by: Freak ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In addition, the total production numbers probably also reflect the war footing and the corresponding shift to full wartime production that Germany finally entered around 1942 and 1943. Germany was relatively late in converting their factories to full war production unlike other countries like the Soviet Union. The Panzer IV may have been around longer than the Panther, but the Panther production got started around the time Germany finally got serious about war production while the PzIV existed well before that time. This would explain the disparity of total numbers of tanks produced and the amount of time to produce them. We know that Germany produced the old PzIV until the very end but it would be logical for the Germans to switch as much production capacity to the Panther as far as possible. I wonder how much the fear of the delay that would result from retooling the necessary factories prevented the Germans from switching to Panther production at full steam.

The other thing we would need to know is also deployment. Total numbers and even available inventory only tell part of the picture. How many Panthers in the available inventory were in the Eastern Front or Western Front, or Southern Front? How many Panthers in the inventory were actually ready to rock and roll and how many had to go to the shop because they broke down getting to the front or whatever??? I don't have any books at hand that can tell me this so I can't say. Any serious rarity factor has to take this into consideration as well. Whether the average number of Panthers at the front were less than 500 to 700, that is still less than half of total Panther inventory. If so, signficantly cheaper Panthers are unlikely unless you are talking about relative cost from year-to-year and if Panthers were noticeably more common in the East than in the West. This maybe the case, I don't know. Either way if Panthers are cheaper, the T-34s are going to be more numerous than geeks at a Star Trek convention. 5976 total Panthers produced is pretty laughable compared to 57,000 or 58,000 total T-34s produced.

[ 07-02-2001: Message edited by: Commissar ]

[ 07-02-2001: Message edited by: Commissar ]

[Freak]

I showed that the PzKpfw V was produced at a higher rate only to show that if one uses numbers Panther and PzKpfw IV are pretty neck and neck. This breaks down to the deployment in the east so in the time of september 1944 on, in the east the panther seems to be just as common as the PzKpfw IV.

Postd by Commissar:

"The other thing we would need to know is also deployment"

Deployment numbers in the east have been posted. Thats why I have posted what I have already.

I do understand the microscope you put on the actual number in the field, and that will be interesting to see if numbers of that can be produced.

Commissar I don't know what BTS's methodology is on rarity factors. I think what comes into play the most is its base price point, which of course is based on combat effectivness. I recall that the base price will not go down much with rarity factors on, but it will go up. (again this is what I recall)

[ 07-02-2001: Message edited by: Freak ]

[PzKpfw 1]

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

The other thing we would need to know is also deployment.

Deployment numbers in the east have been posted. Thats why I have posted what I have already.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have already provided numbers of German tanks deployed in the East & West from Sept 44 on. If you can get search to work you can find the data under German tank strength.

Regards, John Waters

[ 07-02-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Commissar]

In this thread, the only number I recall seeing for Panther deployment in the East was 600 or 700. The person claiming this didn't provide a source so I don't know where this number is coming from. The number I saw in The Red Army Handbook was rarely over 500 on the Eastern Front. Panzertruppen vol2 p.247 provides an official German report that states that 776 Panthers were station on the Eastern Front as of March 15, 1945. However, only 387 of those 776 were actually operational. So, the number of 600 or 700 sounds technically right but the number itself is somewhat deceptive since the operational total is about half the total number technically deployed. From what I found from offical German reports the actual total number of operational Panthers out of the total deployed, out of the total produced is not all that large. Large maybe for the Germans but that is not necessarily saying much. Anyway, I just have a hard time believing that Panthers in CM2 are going to be really all that cheaper to be apppreciable. Eh, whatever.....

[Grisha]

rexford,

Very interesting point regarding Soviet AFV armour hardness, and Soviet armor doctrine. There may be something to that if enough data exists to back it up.

[rexford]

Spanish Civil War experience with tanks showed that hard armor increased casualties, as armor would splinter and send jagged pieces flying about after penetration. Kind of like breaking a piece of glass with your foot.

Russian tanks with soft machine quality armor (able to be machined by normal equipment) would be penetrated and crew would walk away if projectile didn't hit them on fly or something else didn't explode. Hard Krupp armor on PzKpfw I and II would take crew members on penetrations due to flying fragments.

But observers of war in Spain noted that Russians quickly went back to hard armor. Might have been a fear of 20mm and 37mm penetrations that hard armor would help defeat.

Armored cars generally use very hard armor to defeat bullets and HE fragments, which minimizes weight and helps keep speed up. T34 with 76.2mm gun seems to be based on speed, keep armor thickness down, keep crew area down, slope plates to maximize resistance, etc. High hardness maximizes resistance against 37mm and 50mm ammo, in theory.

Instead of thicker turret front armor, look at a Model 1941 or 1942 T34 turret and you'll see that it is shaped to minimize frontal area and maximize rounded shape to help ricochet hits. Make turret front small and curved to cause misses or deflections.

T34 is designed to give it speed and the ability to run through a defense.

KV-1 is the opposite design. Big thick soft plates that can be hit many times by 75mm and larger projectiles and the plate won't shatter, crack or break when it defeats hits. KV-1 and KV-2 tanks that held up Germans during 1941 took 50mm, 75mm and 88mm hits and penetrations and the crew stayed and fought on.

Thick soft armor aborbs projectile energy as plate material is pushed out of the way, and even when it is penetrated round often is broken up or has little energy left. Thin hard armor at an angle is penetrated by busting up the plate in front of the projectile, which often tends to send those jagged pieces flying about.

Even when hard armor at an angle defeats big caliber hits it might still crack or send a disk of armor flying back at the crew. Panther glacis was often brittle and cracked at Isigny when 17 pounder hits bounced at close range, which is what happens when soft machine quality armor is brittle and tends to react like high hardness.

T34 armor is not meant or able to take repeated hits from medium or high velocity 75mm rounds, it just doesn't have the impact aborption. KV-1 and KV-2 armor is.

T34 design centers about speed and giving it the ability to move quickly through a defense. There are stories about the ability of KV-1 to waddle through an obstacle course or even cross a bridge without destroying things as its steering prevents straight movement.

Nothing published states the design philosophy behind T34 and KV-1, but all of the armor characteristics and shapes suggest different battlefield roles that called for different armor thickness, slope and hardness considerations.

P.S.

The inability of T34 crews to see to the sides and rear is a real big problem, especially since the Germans specialize in flank ambushes where panzers draw out enemy and then withdraw, with hidden anti-tank guns to the side of advance.

German panzer crewman who were captured told Russians T34 is blind to the side, side viewing glass has bubbles and does not magnify. Russians respond by adding cupola to T34.

Tank that is moving up to and through enemy lines doesn't need good side vision, in theory. Until they realize that ambushed on way to enemy positions is causing too many casualties.

[rexford]

T34 need for speed helps keep PzKpfw III with 50mm L60 gun an important part of the panzer picture.

50mm L60 tank gun and Pak penetrate 45mm at 40° side armor on T34 to 1250m with no side angle to shot. If T34 goes to 60mm at 40° side hull, penetration range for 50L60 drops to 500m, and less if shot is taken with at an angle to side plate.

But 60mm side hull armor slows down T34, and just as importantly reduces the cross country distance the tank can move without refueling.

Russians know that T34 side armor is very vulnerable and causes many losses that might be reduced by thickening armor. But speed and cross-country/road range are more important.

Adding a cupola to reduce losses through side vision improvements adds weight but not so much, and cupola has less impact on maneuverability than those 15mm to 20mm armor add-ons to glacis that cause all sorts of problems and only reduce penetration ranges by a little bit.

Placed in perspective, it seems likely that T34 design centered around certain objectives and radical changes were not allowed. T34/85 keeps side armor the same while they add bigger gun and heavier turret, cause speed and range are crucial.

T34/85 has cupola to help when enemy is on sides.

[Jarmo]

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

Either way if Panthers are cheaper, the T-34s are going to be more numerous than geeks at a Star Trek convention. 5976 total Panthers produced is pretty laughable compared to 57,000 or 58,000 total T-34s produced.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think so.

I believe it'll go like this:

1. A tank has a base price based on effectiveness. (T-34 would be in the same ballpark with PzIV, I think)

2. The price is adjusted by rarity. But not in a way that german tanks would be compared with soviets. Countrys tanks are compared to other tanks from the same country. At later phases of war, there'd probably be no addition to Panther prices. Certainly none for T-34.

3. Early war, soviets are given all kinds of command penalties, and accompanying discounts.

Me thinks there'll be great howling, when a typical late war fight will have about equal number of tanks for both sides. Same as happened to Shermans in CM.

[PJungnitsch]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>German panzer crewman who were captured told Russians T34 is blind to the side, side viewing glass has bubbles and does not magnify.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A good illustration of that, from achtung panzer, is that the Germans were happy to use captured T-34's but made a point to install commander's cupolas from damaged PzIII or PzIV.: