T34 Vulnerability

[Paul Lakowski]

Jeff the only problem is the first HEAT rounds used aluminum liners that got about 60% of the penetration of iron liners and I gather were with drawn after issue.

Claus B was telling me this a couple of years ago, the Iron liner [ 75mm penetration] were not issued until early 1942...from what I remember reading.

[Jeff Duquette]

Paul:

Don’t get me wrong…I’m not attempting to be argumentative, I’m simply quoting the stuff I happen to have at my finger tips.

Anyway I noticed a copy of Ian Hogg’s extensive book on German Artillery of WWII at my favorite bookstore the other day. I have been waiting for an excuse to buy it. Perhaps I’ll grab it today to see if there is some sort of independent verification as to dates on German HEAT rounds (A little light reading for Easter Weekend )

Maybe we should drop Claus an email. Perhaps he also has some additional insight into actual dates. Seems rather important as I reckon the short-barreled STUG III would have a tough time tackling T34’s without HEAT at anything other than extremely close range.

[Paul Lakowski]

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

Paul:

Anyway I noticed a copy of Ian Hogg’s extensive book on German Artillery of WWII at my favorite bookstore the other day. I have been waiting for an excuse to buy it. Perhaps I’ll grab it today to see if there is some sort of independent verification as to dates on German HEAT rounds (A little light reading for Easter Weekend )

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It doesn't , but its still an invaluable desk top reference to have with some great drawings of ammo.

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

Maybe we should drop Claus an email. Perhaps he also has some additional insight into actual dates. Seems rather important as I reckon the short-barreled STUG III would have a tough time tackling T34’s without HEAT at anything other than extremely close range.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[rexford]

Americans published penetration data for 75L24 APCBC based on their tests, 62mm at 0m/0°, 54mm at 500 yards and 49mm at 1000 yards.

75L24 with above penetration could pierce T34 45mm at 40° side hull armor and 52mm at 30° turret side armor after high hardness deficiency is cranked in.

If the information that Paul has posted in the past is applicable, slow 75L24 rounds would increase 450 Brinell Hardness resistance compared to 75L43 hits, but hard armor would still lose some resistance due to overmatching.

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Paul Said: It doesn't , but its still an invaluable desk top reference to have with some great drawings of ammo.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So it would seem. I took a long gander at Hogg today at lunch. No dates for 75mmL24 HEAT are included.

I did find a great book called “Tiger Ace, The Story of Michael Whittmann” by Gary Simpson. In it, there is a fairly detailed chapter on Whittman’s infamous STUG III engagement around Borbin (presumably the battle which Rex is referring). The description indicates Whittmann’s short-barreled STUG III assault gun was employing AP…K.Gr.rot Pz? The terrain was wooded and typical engagement ranges appeared to be less than 400 or 500 meters. From the account it appears that Whittman’s crew KO’d at least 3 T34/76’s via frontal shots deliberately aimed at the turret rings of the Soviet tanks (pretty good shooting to be able to put a round through the turret ring at 400 to 500m…three times in a row). Sounds like the other 3 KO’d T34’s were from side or rear shots. The last T34 engaged frontally @ approx 500m received several hits on the front hull which apparently ricocheted. It was finally KO’d with a turret ring hit.

Just a side note…Speilberger in “Sturmgeschutz & Its Varients” indicates in one of the appendices that STUG crews preferred using panzergranaten over Gr.38 HL. Doesn’t say why. Presumably the reference is referring to latter war long-barreled STUG’s in which pzgr 39 ammunition has approximately 2/3 greater muzzle velocity than Gr.38 HL. Flatter trajectory…greater accuracy.

[JasonC]

"just because they don't fit with your view of the world"

Not at all. I was happy to be corrected about the difference between late Pz IVs and the earlier ones, c. 1942, in terms of what ranges the T-34/76 could penetrate them. It is not my view of the world I am trying to match, is the the German documents issued by their head of panzer forces staff, as well as the reported tactics of the German crews.

When the German staff says, the T-34s stay out at this range, knowing their advantage, then I sincerely doubt they were making it up. When the German crews go for this range, and consider a kill at that range unusual enough to report as an accomplishment, I sincerely doubt their standard tactics involved KOing everybody at twice those distances.

Rexford's correction about the invunerability of the front hull of the late-model Pz IVs was a useful correction, not because it contradicts those things - it couldn't be right if it did - but because it needn't contradict those things, but does help locate in time, a change in doctrine we all know happened at some point. To wit, at some point the Russians stopped standing off, and tried to close instead.

We know from the German documents that the Russians were standing off in 1941 and early 1942. We know that after the Panther (mid 43 and after), they were closing - and against late model Pz IVs, they would have been dumb not to, as rexford pointed out.

We know there has to be a change over between the two. But not exactly when or why. That is what remains to be lined up with the tech issues under discussion.

I can put the principle this way. If you specify all the penetration and range envelopes, and then I take the Germans to your Russians, if I do not have to adopt the historical German tactics of that period of the war to blow you away, then the numbers you specified are wrong, slanted in favor of the Germans. And conversely, if you specify a different set of numbers and I take the Russians, and can blow you away without having to do the sorts of things we know the Russians did at that point of the war, then we know the numbers are slanted toward the Russians.

If the penetration ranges make the actual tactics senseless, then they can't be right. Equally, if obvious penetration facts (not a nuance , and e.g. exactly the sort of thing rexford pointed out in the late Pz IV case) don't fit a supposition about how long a given tactical doctrine was used, then that supposition about tactical doctrine can't be right. So I happily changed my supposition about how soon, and why, the Russians went to a tactic of "close".

The true tactics and the true penetration facts have to match up. Either can correct guesses or difficult estimates about the other. Neither can contradict clear facts about the other. It is not a question of one order of facts or another being "more important", but of a simpler thing - truths don't contradict each other.

[JasonC]

Is it possible all those "turret ring" hits weren't exactly on the turret ring, but instead involved defeating the angle of the hull armor by a shot-trap effect?

That is, imagine the shell hits the turret, but barely above the hull. Can it deflect down? And if so, might it face 45mm armor only, without much in the way of slope, at the actual impact angle?

Why do I suggest this? Because, as the previous fellow stated, the actual turret ring is an awfully small target to hit repeatedly with a relatively low velocity gun. But if you expanded the "vunerable area" via a shot-trap effect, then it wouldn't be so magical.

[Paul Lakowski]

I can put the principle this way. If you specify all the penetration and range envelopes, and then I take the Germans to your Russians, if I do not have to adopt the historical German tactics of that period of the war to blow you away, then the numbers you specified are wrong, slanted in favor of the Germans. And conversely, if you specify a different set of numbers and I take the Russians, and can blow you away without having to do the sorts of things we know the Russians did at that point of the war, then we know the numbers are slanted toward the Russians. [/Quote:]

I hope your not trying to suggest to me that your using CM to prove or disprove the validity of all this discussion on documented and estiamted armor resistance or gun penetration???

[rexford]

The human component of the battle can influence the ability of tanks to penetrate at ranges where theory says they should.

5 Panzer Division reports 1200 to 1600 meter kills of T34 and KV-1 by 75L43 PzKpfw IV's, where each hit did destructive damage. There are other stories where Russian attacks were so badly mauled that they stopped attacking, early '43 or late '42, forget which.

Other reports indicate that 75L43 penetrates T34 at 1200m regardless of angle.

The above two reports tend to confirm that 75L43 could handle T34 at practically all ranges, which is in line with "theory" (1600m penetration of T34 front hull).

There are other reports in Jentz' book where T34's are feared, where hits are reported to bounce off the angled armor and PzKpfw IV with 75L43 is to be carefully located in a column lest T34's pick it off.

Allied tankers in Normandy were scared stiff from the threat of a Tiger, which no doubt caused some stupid moves and nervous, ineffective fire. Couldn't T34 have caused the same jitters in panzer crews who feared their highly accurate fire at over 1000 meters range.

Calm panzer crews in 75L43 armed tanks blow T34's apart and stabilize the front, scared tankers who know that a 76.2mm hit is lethal to 50mm armor are less likely to perform their best.

Tactics don't always match theoretical kill ranges because warfare is more than aim and pull trigger.

IS-2 can penetrate Panther glacis at 1500m to almost 3000m, yet Russian Battlefield states that it took an excellent crew to obtain hits at over 1000m. Even though IS-2 can penetrate at tremendous ranges when one considers turret hits, would we consider the 122mm penetration data and reported maximum kill ranges to be baloney if we found that IS-2 tanks would not engage Panthers beyond 1000m?

[JasonC]

"5 Panzer Division reports"

But does it even allege that they were front aspect, hull hits? Or with PzGr39?

"Other reports indicate that 75L43 penetrates T34 at 1200m regardless of angle."

But does it say what ammo they mean? No one has yet put together the HEAT part of the story, it seems to me.

Also, even taken literally of PzGr39, "1200 at any angle" does not mean 1200 through front hull at 60 plus a 30 degree side angle.

At 30 side angle, the side of the tank is as much exposed as the front. (More foreshortened, but longer, about the same overall).

And the lower hull plate is vertical. So that would just be 45 @ 60 (all of it side angle), not 45 @ 60 plus 30. So you'd have turret side plus lower side hull, perhaps 33-50% of the target area, more vunerable than the front hull. Penetrable at any angle doesn't necessarily mean, the worst plate on the tank at that angle, still penetrated.

Nor is it in the least clear, that the person reporing "1200 at any angle" meant to include side angles, rather than just "not only through the side, but also through the front". 1200 dead on (0 side angle) on the front hull, is rather believeable to me for the rest of

It seems to me quite a stretch of construction, to assume the speaker meant 30 degree side angle and PzGr39 and through the hull front plate. Why would he? It is not like he was trying to construct an armor penetration table. He was trying to tell tankers what range they could fight at and get hits that counted.

"There are other reports in Jentz' book where hits are reported to bounce off the angled armor"

But, apparently, only the reports of the longest penetrations are true, while the others are false reports caused by nervousness or something? Even though the longer reports, often do not specify the aspect hit, or which plate was hit at that aspect, or what ammo went through it.

I call it "averaging up". One takes the best results or the best ammo reported, and constructs a sort of "could have been this good" picture. Then all deviations from that good, are dropped as "friction".

"Couldn't T34 have caused the same jitters in panzer crews"

It seems to me rather unlikely that the several reports I've seen, of StuG and Pz IV crews blowing away whole tank battalions at 600-800 yards while outnumbered 2-3 to 1, were caused by nervousness. They held fire to 600-800 yards because they wanted every hit to be a kill.

If they could kill the T-34s readily at twice that range - and a fair portion of the replies would bounce off their front hulls at that range - why didn't they? They had better sights, better ROF.

"warfare is more than aim and pull trigger."

I quite agree. But I have to assume even highly successful German tank crews were nitwits to buy the whole 1600m story. It is possible. It seems to me just as possible that someone who said "an angle" meant "any aspect front-side-rear" or "most vunerable exposed plate", not toughest plate at toughest angle. And that particular reports of 1500m kills hit turrets, sides, and weak points - or were HEAT-C perhaps - rather than meaning PzGr39 always went through the front glacis.

"it took an excellent crew to obtain hits at over 1000m...would we consider the 122mm penetration data and reported maximum kill ranges to be baloney if we found that IS-2 tanks would not engage Panthers beyond 1000m?"

No, certainly. They report the reason - too hard to hit. We know about the optics and crew differences. They also had quite limited ammo in an IS-2, a fair portion of it HE, and low ROF. So low % shots at range could be tactically a bad idea despite ability to penetrate. So far as that is your point, I quite agree with it.

If half of the Russian tankers reported bounces off the too-angled armor, would we need to look again at how the round handled 60 degree slope? You bet. But they don't say that.

And if the Germans had lower ROF, limited AP ammo, and worse optics than the T-34/C, then it would make sense for them to hold fire. But they don't, they have the reverse. And with them, firing at range would make sense if the rounds would go in.

In fact, even with relatively few penetrations, a tank company might successfully firefight at ranges were penetrations are marginal (need turret or weak spot e.g.), when they excel in rate of fire and such.

And we know the Germans sometimes did this. They recommended "base of fire" tactics even when they had only 50mm guns, and reported Russians breaking off action when hit repeatedly, even without penetrations. Obviously, such "hail" tactics will work much better if there are even limited areas of the target tanks, that the rounds will go through - or angles they will go through. But you would expect such tactics from the side with better ROF (3 man turrets) and better crews.

I can tell you want you've convince me of, and what you haven't. You've convinced me that the L43 could penetrate the front of the T-34 hull at 1200 meters with a flat-on front shot. You haven't convinced me it could do the same with a 30 degree side angle thrown in, or at 1600 meters when the shot was flat front.

How do I put that together with all the reports? My hypotheses.

1. The reports of the bounces reflect side angle cases especially.

2. The good crews holding fire down to 600-800 are doing it to defeat any plate, counting some side angle.

3. The 1200 any angle report meant front as well as side and rear (most likely), or (less likely) included the turret and side hull cases, i.e. was talking about the weakest exposed plates, not the strongest ones.

4. The reported kills at 1500 were turret hits, side shots, HEAT-C, or weak-point penetrations (driver hatch, turret ring, donno about shot traps) in "hail of fire" tactics that sometimes scared the Russians off, often bagged a few, sometimes wiped units out.

5. The general report on the Russian side, "those kill us at 1 km", was a practical combination of 1200 flat vs. the front, with modest side angle and random effects, based on experience and made a rough rule of thumb.

That is my sense of it. You doubtless have yours.

[Paul Lakowski]

When a AP type projectiles with blunted noses strike angle armor thats thinner than the projectile the effeciveness of the resistance plummets, so that 60° may only offer 1.8 to 1.9 times as much resistance instead of the LOS value of 2 times.If the same plate thickness is struck by a ogive penetrator the resistance should be about 2.2 times the plate thickness due to the turning of the projectile during penetration.

In these cases angled armor is a liablity not a help....it would be better to have twice as thick vertical armor.

[Jeff Duquette]

Paul:

Got some feedback from both Conell and Claus on the availability and service dates on the various incarnations of the Gr.38 HL. You may have seen Conall’s info over at TankNet so I will spare the redundancy. The gist of Claus’s and Conall’s digging is:

Gr.38 Hl:

Introduced in June 1940. Apparently withdrawn from service soon after due to some sort of problems with the round.

Gr. 38 Hl/A:

Introduced in early 1942

Gr. 38Hl/B:

Early 1943

Gr. 38 Hl/C:

January 1944

Much of the above is derived from combat reports of specific round types used relative to dates. Most of these AAR’s are contained in Panzertruppen Vol 1 & 2.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Jason: “But does it even allege that they were front aspect, hull hits? Or with PzGr39?”<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 5th Panzer report clearly indicates Pzgr39. Moreover the only real elaboration regarding the effectiveness of HEAT rounds – Gr.38HL/B -- in the Report is relative to short barreled 75L24. The 5th Panzer Report also clearly indicates that Gr.38HL/B was seldom used by crews firing the 75L43.

With regards to the 75L43, As I indicated earlier from a reference report contained in Speilberger’s “Sturmgeschutz and its Varients” crews with the long 75 preferred the panzergrante over HEAT rounds. Couple obvious reasons; Pzgr39 for the 75L43 has better penetrating capability than Gr.38HL/B out to ranges in excess of 1200meters. Second; Mv of pzgr39 for the L43 is 740m/s. Gr.38HL/B Mv is only 450m/s. Pzgr39 obviously has a much flatter trajectory, and is a much more “accurate” round.

[rexford]

5 Panzer Div. report states that EVERY hit caused destructive damage, and given that 26 T34 were knocked out at 1200-1600m range, it seems totally logical to assume that a certain percentage were frontal hits. At and 1200-1600m range the hull front is going to catch at least half, if not more, of the frontal hits on a T34 Model 1942 or 1943.

So, given the limited specifics, the report suggests that 75L43 could penetrate T34 frontal hull to 1200-1600m.

If hits at any angle penetrate to 1200m, it suggests that frontal hits at combat angles resulted in penetrations.

My point on the IS-2 may have been missed by some. If one didn't know that IS crews had a hard time hitting beyond 1000m, then how would one interpret the result that IS tanks would not open fire at more than 1000m range? It could be interpreted as meaning the rounds wouldn't penetrate (some people's interpretation on 75L43/48 holding fire), which would be suggested using much of the penetration data out there.

If 26 T34 are killed at 1200-1600m and EVERY hit damages, it is natural to assume some were frontal hits and a good portion of these were frontal hull hits.

And if 75L43 penetrates at EVERY angle out to 1200m, well it is natural to suggest that it includes some frontal hull hits.

And if the above interpretations support the armor hardness equation we have developed, it does not prove the value of the equations but it is suggestive. That is all we are saying, that 75L43 could, based on our equations, penetrate the T34 front hull to 1600m or beyond.

The reports in Jentz' books appear to support our work, and certainly don't invalidate it.

It is possible that T34 could be penetrated frontally on a hull hit at 1600m by 75L43 APCBC. 5 Panzer doesn't say all hits were damaging except frontal hull.

Regarding "most hits are turret", look at the front of a T34 model and where is most of the area? We have American drawings of German hit locations on Shermans in the desert, and where do most hits land? On the hull front.

The use of general statistical data can be misleading.

[Grisha]

I don't have a problem with this. T-34s were pretty vulnerable to the newer 75mm cannons on the PzIVs by this time. Of course, PzIVs were not much better off either wrt T-34 and KV-1 cannon fire in 1943.

But, I agree, Soviet tactics had changed by this point to a 'close then fire' approach. In fact, it was more of a 'ambush, then attack' if circumstances allowed for it.

[PzKpfw 1]

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

I don't have a problem with this. T-34s were pretty vulnerable to the newer 75mm cannons on the PzIVs by this time. Of course, PzIVs were not much better off either wrt T-34 and KV-1 cannon fire in 1943.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Paul, etc yes I have been extremely busy in RL & will continue to be for some time yet so only brief appearences here etc. Anyway Rex answered yer question on why the IIS-2 as well I'd also add the Soviet's concluded that an IS-2 crewman had a 20% higher chance of survival then an T-34 crew. .

Exactly Grisha, with the appearence of the 7.5 cm KwK.40 L/43 the Germans gained the upper hand in fire power. Now this advantage was tempered by inferior armor as well on the PzKpfw IV Ie, the 80mm plate thickness was not developed to be proof vs the F-34 gun, but to defeat the Soviet 57mm AT gun's AP round.

Regards, John Waters

[Username]

The Panzer IVs frontal turret is often pointed out as being its major weakness. Since it is only armored to 50mm at near vertical, most weapons can punch a hole there.

But this area is actually pretty small in comparison to the size of the tank. Its roughly equivalent to hitting one side of the vehicles tracks. The gun mantlet over laps this 50mm area with another 30mm of armor. This is also Face hardened armor.

So its my opinion that this achilles heal is over stated in CMBO. Hopefully it will be addressed in CM2.

I have seen pics of tracks being welded on in this area on panzer IVs. They were obviously aware of the problem.

Lewis

[JasonC]

Very useful, thanks. So the "C" is only out in '44, when production of 75mm HEAT had already dropped. So the only large numbers of effective HEAT, would be the "B" in 1943. And that was for the L24s? Because there were still Pz IVs with L24s, though not all that many, and also some of the late model Pz IIIs (N and such) with 75L24.

It would be interesting to see if 75mm HEAT was also issued to the towed PAK, which were longer guns. But on the whole, you give a very plausible picture - the HEAT craze was a stop-gap to make the 75L24 somewhat effective, and the drop in production later reflects the abandonment of the L24. The PAK ought to be a good double-check, though. If they were using substantial amounts of HEAT, the picture would be more complicated.

[JasonC]

"given that 26 T34 were knocked out at 1200-1600m range, it seems totally logical to assume that a certain percentage were frontal hits. At and 1200-1600m range the hull front is going to catch at least half"

But they are not talking about every occasion. They are reporting on one, right? And the portion of side hits, and turret hits, can vary all over the place from encounter to encounter. And the engagement range drops to 1200 meters.

So, if they hit a number of them initially from a flank - then the rest went to hull down positions, with only the turret up - and then some of the German moved closer, regaining view of hulls but going from flanks, or at 1200 yards - all of which are perfectly plausible for a single report - then the report is perfectly compatible with the 1200 front hull view. Since it does not say "at 1500 yards, went through the front hull". Nor is it advancing a general claim about all occasions.

"any angle penetrate to 1200m, it suggests that frontal hits at combat angles resulted in penetrations"

It doesn't say it, and it certainly doesn't say that they went through the toughest exposed plate on tank. You limit yourself to "suggests". It is still "averaging up" to me.

Moreover, the two reports are not the same, and you almost sounded like you were making them one by association. The any-angle report does not say every round went in. Which is compatible with the side hull and turret for 30 degree side angle.

"it is suggestive"

Sure. Anything that gives a high range suggests kills at high range, and if for entirely different reasons, you think those kills were possible even through the front glacis, then it seems to confirm it. But if other reports talk of bounces off of too angled armor, along with engagement ranges used in practice, it suggests that every round did not go through the front glacis as logn range.

"where is most of the area?"

That depends on whether I put the tank hull down or not. There is not much area on the turret from the front, certainly. There is somewhat more from the side, and the side hull becomes a significant target from 30 degree side angle, on out, because it is vertical, if not hull down.

The reason turret hits are in general more common is not because the turret is a majority of the area on any model of tank, but because it is higher, and exposed in hull down positions. As you well know. As for the Shermans-in-desert case, deserts are mostly flat, so naturally hull down positions are harder to come by.

Incidentally, I never claimed that most hits were on the turret. I simply explained penetrations reported at range that way, along with side shots weak points etc. The statement, "most penetrations at long range were turret hits" is not equivalent to, and need not imply "most hits at long range were turret hits".

As for the JS-2 example, it shows other factors operating certainly. And you can hypothesis the same working in the case of a StuG report in Ukraine. But then you have to see if the hypothesis makes any sense. Tankers tend to do things that work or that they think will work, and especially successful ones tend to use aspects of tank combat in which they have some kind of edge.

In the case of the IS-2, there are several sizeable factors to explain the choice of low range, and I mentioned them - low ROF, limited ammo, and limited AP especially since HE was a large part of the limited load. Plus Russian optics and crews. All of these things would tend to penalize an attempt to engage in duels at long ranges. I take them in turn.

At long range, the hit probability for each shot is lower. The kill chance per unit time is much more dependent on the ROF, since repeated shots, overs and unders to find range, etc, will improve the accuracy of later shots, making the equation for "get a hit" more than linear in "shots fired". Therefore, dueling at long range is a tactic that will tend to be favored by the side with the higher ROF, not the lower.

Limited ammo. The IS-2 carried just 28 rounds. The majority of them were HE. 10-12 shots AP was about all they could expect before resupply. In all tank engagements, some tanks die with rounds in them unused, while others in the formation, alive longer, have to handle more of the enemy. To duel at ranges with hit probabilities below 1/4- 1/3 would therefore be pretty dumb in an IS-2, if one has any choice about the engagement range.

As for Russian optics and crew training (though the last was more nearly equal by late war), everybody knows the Germans had more accurate sights and in general more accurate gunnery. The edge those provide is increased at long range, while shorter engagement ranges render them marginal.

Now, for your hypothesis that the StuGs and such were engaging close for similar reasons, where are those reasons? Did they have lower ROF than the T-34/C? Only the Hetzer. The T-34/C has a 2-man turret, and consequently a lower ROF if the commander has to do anything related to command, and maneuvering the tank.

Did they have ammo loads too small to duel at range? 44-54 rounds for the StuGs. With the F model StuG and counting HE in the mix and if facing superior numbers, it is a plausible factor, though nothing like the IS-2 case. Otherwise, not very. The Pz IV carried 87 rounds; it was not going to get into trouble dueling at range.

Did the Russians have superior optics and crews to hit them more often at long range? No.

These things being the case, why would the Germans pass on a long range duel featuring better ROF and better accuracy? What edge are they after? What weakness are they masking? I can certainly come up with explanations that might fit in some individual circumstance - maybe it was terrain e.g.

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Jason Said: And that was for the L24s? Because there were still Pz IVs with L24s, though not all that many, and also some of the late model Pz IIIs (N and such) with 75L24.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. But I think the 5th Panzer report is specifically referencing the Gr.38 HL/B as employed by short-barreled MkIV’s and the MkIIIN support tank. The bit from the report:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>7.5 cm Kw.K. L24 in 9 Pz.Kpfw.III and 5 Pz.KpfwIV1 KW-I, 6 T34, 1 T60, 4 T26, 1 Mark II, 4 Mark III, 2 General Lee Gr.38 HLB had a destructive effect when fired at ranges under 600 meters at the hull and rear of the KW-I. The T34 was also engaged by firing at the hull. Three to six rounds of Gr.38 HLB were required to kill each enemy tank.

Regarding John and Greg’s posts…I also agree. My personal take on this thread is not to prove the T34 was somehow inferior to the long barreled MkIV or StugIII. Quite the contrary. I think the intent (at least in my mind) is that in spite of the T34/76 being a superior machine in many ways to the MkIV and StugIII, these long barreled fellows could still KO the T34 frontally at normal combat ranges. Big change from the often impotent performance of the MkIIIH’s, MKIVe’s and Stug III’s against the T34 during 1941 through mid 42.

[Username]

The T3476 versions were much better suited for the defensive role. In the early war years, they put the screws to the germans offensive operations. They are kind of like StuGs with turrets.

They were slaughtered in large numbers when used in offensive ops that required the coordination of radios and 3 man turrets. But the russians had the numbers to practice this mechanized bum-rush type of warfare.

The germans had success with the 50mmL60 and 75L43-48 against the T3476's. It was only earlier when they had the 50mmL42 being the predominate PIII weapon and the 75mmL24 as the PIV weapon that there was such T34 shock going on (that line from the untouchables comes to mind "bringing a knife to a gun fight"). It was left to 88s and 105mm field guns to stop the dominance at that time.

The german PIIIL and PIVG+ with their 3 man turrets supported by StuG G+ (plus means that version and later) and the always superior radio/command restored the germans to tank men. These vehicles could out manuver and find hull down positions with thier superior gun depression. The support of 75mmL46 and other effective ATGs helped hold the infantry in the line.

When the russians starting fielding 3 man turret vehicles with radios in large numbers; it was all over for the germans in 44.

Lewis

[ 04-15-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

[Skipper]

> The T3476 versions were much better suited

> for the defensive role.

Strictly speaking, they were not intended for such a role by the designer. However, soviet commanders noted that, indeed, when they switched from defensive to offensive operations in early 1942, casualties mounted.

The main (and practically, the only) cause for T34 holding the record for KO'd numbers is that it was the most produced. If you look at annual production and loss figures of both German and Soviet tanks, you will see that they very closely correspond. Ie, almost all tanks that you build, you SPEND within a year.

Comparing T34 with a StuG is incorrect. These machines had different roles on the battlefield. RKKA fielded several variants of SUs, from SU-57 to ISU-152.

It is also worth mentioning that the focus of soviet tank production in 1941-42 was not on T34s, but on T-60, T-70 and then SU-57, SU-76.

[rexford]

Jason,

You miss the point, it is not "averaging up".

At 1200m, hits penetrate at every angle.

At 1200-1600m, every hit is destructive

Both statements are suggesting/inferring that hits didn't bounce. And a few, or some, or many, must have been frontal hull hits cause the panzers were fighting ALOT of T34(see below).

The statements say that hits didn't bounce off repeatedly, and since some must have been frontal hits,.......... Both statements infer the same thing.

As far as your oft repeated and oft responded to statement on hulldown T34's, they were attacking the Germans during early 1943 and the PzkPfw IV stabilized the front (stopped the attacks). FOUR PzKpfw IV knocked out 26 T34, 17 KV-I and other tanks by attacking them when the T34 were hulldown?

One must use all the facts to paint a picture, which requires some assumptions.

If you don't feel comfortable with the inferences, and not everybody will, then we have no reason to discuss it further.

My point still holds, both statements regarding T34 penetrations by 75L43 infer that front hull penetrations were possible beyond 1200m. And that is how it will go in our book.

I appreciate all the assistance received from posters on this thread. Thank you.

Time to finish the book and get it to the printers.

[Andrew H.]

While I'm not sure exactly how he meant the comparision, I think Lewis' comparison of the T-34 to a StuG with a turret is a useful way of thinking of the tank. Not because the T-34 was designed the way the StuG was (as Skipper points out, the Soviets produced their own self-propelled artillery), but because in CM 2, there will likely be some similarity between playing a T-34 vs. early war Germans and playing a self-propelled gun vs. the Allies in CMBO now. Although I think really it would be more like playing a Jgpz IV L/70 vs. the US equipped with Sherman 75's now.

Jgpz IV has a devastating gun and lots of frontal armor. But it also has a low rate of fire and is vulnerable to being flanked. With a lot of caveats, this would be a T-34 in Spring '42, when the MkIII's with the long 50's were just becoming available.

If the T-34s/Jgpz IVs are positioned correctly, they can ambush the opposing force and devastate the attackers while being subject to very little risk of damage from their front aspect. But if they are not in a useful ambush position, or they have to shift positions, they become vulnerable to flank shots at meaningful ranges.

Obviously, you have to do some fiddling to get things right -- as slow as the T-34's turret might rotate, it will still be faster than rotating the entire tank. On the other hand, C&C restrictions would probably make early war T-34's react more slowly to unexpected flanking attempts.

But the burden is squarely on the German player to make the flanking move/discomfit the Sov. player in the first place. If the German charges headlong into the T-34, he dies. If the Sov. player figures out where/how the German player might attempt a flanking move, and covers that area, the German is also in bad shape.

Sounds like a lot of fun, as both players try to maximize the strengths of their tanks and minimize the weaknesses.

[Username]

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

The main (and practically, the only) cause for T34 holding the record for KO'd numbers is that it was the most produced. If you look at annual production and loss figures of both German and Soviet tanks, you will see that they very closely correspond. Ie, almost all tanks that you build, you SPEND within a year.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

{So they should have produced less? Huh?}

Comparing T34 with a StuG is incorrect. These machines had different roles on the battlefield. RKKA fielded several variants of SUs, from SU-57 to ISU-152..}

[Skipper]

> So they should have produced less? Huh?

No. They should have produced more. If they could, of course. And they couldnt. Roughly speaking, there would be more dead tankers then, but considerably less dead infantrymen.

> I am just pointing out each weapons

> system, for its own design issues (either

> a two man turret or a fixed gun) was

> better at defensive ops.

This point is quite moot. Any AFV is a lot better at tank killing when working from an ambush.

> Why is that worth mentioning?

Because in 1942 your average german would much more likely see a T-70 than a T-34.

By the way, an impression that T34 turrets were always (or even more often than not) manhandled because of faulty electric motors is not correct. As it was, they were fast turrets.