CMBB Matchup - PzKpfw III Ausf. J versus T-34-76 Model 1941

[Runyan99]

I am curious to find out how this matchup of the best available tanks from 1941 is going to play out in CMBB. What I really want to know is: will the German tank be able to go head-to-head in a frontal shootout with the Russian tank? Or will the German player be forced to try for side shots? To find out, I dug up the following stats:

PzIII Ausf. J Main Armament - 50mm KwK 38 L/42

According to the Acchtung Panzer website, this gun has the following penetration capability:

Penetration of Armor Plate at 30 degrees from Vertical.

Ammunition: ------ 100m 500m 1000m 1500m 2000m

Panzergranate 39 - 54mm 46mm 36mm 28mm 22mm

Panzergranate 40 - 96mm 58mm 0mm 0mm 0mm

Pzgr.39 (APCBC) - Armor Piercing Composite Ballistic Cap

Pzgr.40 (APCR) - Armor Piercing Composite Rigid (Tungsten Core)

So, let's compare this to the armor on the T-34. Again, we are only looking at the frontal armor:

Armor Detail Front

Hull 45mm@30°

Superstructure 45mm@30°

Turret* 52mm@round

Mantlet 40mm@30&90°

Now, if we take 500m as the "average" engagement range we will encounter in CM:BB, we get the following results for rounds hitting various locations on the front of the T-34:

Hit on Hull - Penetration (just barely when using Panzergranate 39!)

Hit on Superstructure - Penetration (just barely again!)

Hit on Turret - ? Hard to say. Is round harder or easier to penetrate than a 30 degree slope? Either way the Panzergranate 39 will probably bounce off, while the Panzergranate 40 MIGHT penetrate the turret.

Hit on Mantlet - Penetration for either ammo.

To sum up then, the German tank has a good possibility of penetrating the frontal armor of the T-34-76 Model 1941 at ranges of 500m and under, even with "normal" armor piercing ammo. At ranges beyond 500m, it would appear that the tungsten core Panzergranate 40 will need to be used to ensure a reasonable chance of penetrating the tank.

This is encouraging news for the German player!

I would now do the same analysis with the Russian gun against the armor of the German tank, but I cannot find the penetration data for the 76.2mm Gun L-41 (F-34) that the T-34 has.

Can anyone fill in the blanks?

Here is the data for the frontal armor on the PzKpfw III Ausf. J:

PzIII Armor Front

Hull 50mm@69°

Superstructure 50mm@81°

Turret 30mm@75°

Mantlet 50mm@45-90°

[ 01-13-2002: Message edited by: Runyan99 ]

[ 01-13-2002: Message edited by: Runyan99 ]

[ 01-13-2002: Message edited by: Runyan99 ]</p>

[Mace]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Runyan99:

What I really want to know is: will the German tank be able to go head-to-head in a frontal shootout with the Russian tank? Or will the German player be forced to try for side shots? <hr></blockquote>

The 50mm equipped PzKpfw III Ausf J is going to have a lot of trouble penetrating the front of a T34/76 A. This was one reason why it's stable mate the PzKpfw IV was upgunned to a (longer) 75mm.

Mace

[aka_tom_w]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Mace:

The 50mm equipped PzKpfw III Ausf J is going to have a lot of trouble penetrating the front of a T34/76 A. This was one reason why it's stable mate the PzKpfw IV was upgunned to a (longer) 75mm.

Mace<hr></blockquote>

Interesting...

What does Rexford's book have to say on the issue??

-tom w

[Scott B]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Runyan99:

So, let's compare this to the armor on the T-34. Again, we are only looking at the frontal armor:

Armor Detail Front

Hull 45mm@30°

Superstructure 45mm@30°

Turret* 52mm@round

Mantlet 40mm@30&90° <hr></blockquote>

Check your sources - I don't believe these are correct.

Scott

[Michael Dorosh]

Why 500m?

[Cogust]

The values for the armour slopes seems to be the angle from horisontal (German style) and not from vertical as it is displayed in CM.

The gun data seems to use angle from vertical and it is impossible to compare the both. Use the 60deg data for the gun to get it correct.

[Eric Young]

Another concideration is the very poor quality of the face hardened armor of the Russian tank. I would have to look all the sources up, but it is Sunday and the Packers playoff game is going to start and I have to make a two hour drive to the party. Russian armor quality varied greatly from factory to factory. If memory serves me the Tula plant was the only one that was any good. Most was very poor with very slite face hardening.

http://history.vif2.ru/map.html

This is a link with some info.

E

[ 01-13-2002: Message edited by: Eric Young ]</p>

[JasonC]

Several problems. First, the J model Pz III was the first to mount the KwK 39 50L60, a longer and more powerful gun than the KwK 38 50L42 you seem to have confused it with. They are both guns with 50mm diameter bore, but the first is 42 calibers long (that is, 2.1 meters), while the second is 60 diameters long (3 meters). It fires a higher velocity shell - 2750 m/s rather than 2250 m/s for the shorter one, for plain armor piercing ammo (PzGr 39). That much additional velocity is enough to raise the kinetic energy of the shell about 50% - it is not a trivial change.

The 50L42 was used on the Pz III F through H models. Actually, the F series was factory built with the original 37mm gun used on the A-E, but was the changeover model, converted to carry the 50L42. The G and H models were all 50L42. Then the J model switched to the more powerful 50L60 ("long"), which remained the main armament through model M. (Again, some early "Js" were made with the shorter 50mm, and then retrofitted with the longer one). The N model used a short barrelled 75L24 and was used as an HE support tank. After that, they made StuGs from the chassis instead of additional Pz IIIs.

Second, the basic problem you have with your T-34 stats is the angles are wrong. The T-34 was a revolutionary tank design because it incorporated extreme slopes in the main armor plates, both front and side hull. T-34 armor is not 30 degrees from the vertical, but 60 degrees - 30 degrees from the *horizontal*. This makes a huge difference in the resistence of the armor. Just by the laws of trigonometry, a shell has to pass through twice the armor thickness to penetrate armor at a 60 degree slope. It is also easier for the shell to glance off.

There is no way the early war German tank guns are going to get through 45mm at 60 degrees at medium ranges. In terms of armor penetration abilities vs. 30 degree slope, it has an effectiveness between 80mm and 90mm. US 60mm bazookas bounced right off them. To get through it is going to take 88mm FLAK AP or 105mm howitzer HEAT. Special APCR ammo from German 50mm tank guns (tungsten rounds) will need very close ranges, and slope is especially useful against such rounds anyway. They will only kill by hitting the turret at under 500 yards (for the 50L60 - more like 100 yards for the 50L42 - *with* tungsten - without it that gun won't do a blessed thing).

There are some vunerable spots on the T-34. The lower side hull lacks the slope of the front and upper side hull (though it was also half obscured by the running gear). The drivers hatch and turret ring are weaker points, especially on the earliest models. And the turret, while thicker, is less uniformly sloped than the hull, making it possible for occasional shells to "stick" - especially turret side shots. The last helps with the long 50mm, or point blank tungsten from the 50L42, or 75mm HEAT from Pz IVs or early StuGs. But not with straight AP from the main German tank guns of 1941 - 37mm, 50L42, 75L24 will all bounce from the turret as well as the hull.

The first AFV gun that was actually dangerous to the T-34 was the 76.2mm captured Russian gun mounted on Marders, fielded a year into the war in 1942. The German 75L43 and then 75L48 were also effective against them, fielded later in 1942 and in 1943. In the first year, the Germans will need towed guns - the 88 FLAK or field howitzers with HEAT - to deal with the T-34s. The Germans used gun fronts to stop the Russian heavies, not tank dueling. (Psst - The KVs are even more monstrous than the T-34s).

The 1941 technological mismatch at the top end of the armor scale was even more extreme - in favor of the Russians - than the 1944 mismatch in Normandy. The German tanks were as incapable of killing T-34s and KVs from the front as vanilla Shermans were against Panthers and Tigers. And their initial armoring was inadequate to deal with the 76mm replies, as well.

You see, who had the strategic initiative had more to do with winning than who had the better tanks. In 1941-2 the Russians lost badly with the best tanks in the world at the time (in pure gun-armor terms; they had other problems like few radios and 2-man turrets limiting their rate of fire) - just like the Germans did in the west in 1944-45.

You must remember, however, that T-34s and KVs were only a fraction of the Russian pre-war armor fleet, most of which were 45mm armed, thinly armored light tanks - T-26s and BT series. And many of the pre war tanks needed repair on the day of the invasion; readiness was not high. Russian production did focus on the T-34 immediately, however, so all through the fall and the first months of 1942 tons of the critters were rolling off the assembly lines and into action, with the Germans having nothing in the way of AFVs able to stop them. Hence the scramble to field the ad hoc Marders during 1942.

[Mr. Johnson--]

Remember if we are going to play with rarity on, it will mean those prices for diffrent tanks are going to fluctuate. So early game, Russkie players will not spend money on the T-34 and the German player won't even be able to buy the PZ-III lang. Then as time goes on, we might see both of these tanks being used as MBTs. Then we will see massive amounts of T-34s, and the German should be able to afford the upgunned PZ-IVs so, then it changes everything.

[rune]

Hmm...i get to tell JasonC he is wrong.

There were 1549 Panzer IIIj made with the short 50mm/L42. production started March 1941 and the German designation was Sd Kfz 141. The actual order was for 2700 of them

However, in December 1941, the Panzer IIIJ with the 50mm/L60 was produced. 1,067 were made, and had the designation of Sd Kfz 141/1.

Sources include Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two by Chamberlain and Doyle.

Rune

[aka_tom_w]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by rune:

Hmm...i get to tell JasonC he is wrong.

There were 1549 Panzer IIIj made with the short 50mm/L42. production started March 1941 and the German designation was Sd Kfz 141. The actual order was for 2700 of them

However, in December 1941, the Panzer IIIJ with the 50mm/L60 was produced. 1,067 were made, and had the designation of Sd Kfz 141/1.

Sources include Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two by Chamberlain and Doyle.

Rune<hr></blockquote>

WOW

thats news to me

From Playing Tobruk (the board game) long ago, I thought the Panzer IIIJ only came with the long 50mm. Perhaps in the Arfica Korps it appeared in the dessert only in its long barreled form. I did not know there was an earlier Panzer IIIJ short barreled 50mm version.

Very informative.

Thanks also to JasonC for the equally informative earlier post.

-tom w

[Andreas]

According to a statement by a former German officer in Glantz 'The initial period of war', all the usual suspects that his unit was equipped with (I think it was 7. PD) failed against the KV-1, up to and including the 8,8cm Flak. The only real help was the field artillery, 10,5cm lFH and 10cm field cannon.

According to a report from 1.PD attacking along the Vilnius axis I believe, the best the German tankers could hope for was immobilisation at distances of 30-60 yards using Tungsten(!). Also (Puff is going to like this), engineers using demo charges succeeded in disabling the heavies, by causing turret traverse failure, gun damage and immobilisation.

Looking at the composition of one force in June 1941: the advance element of 1. PD in their attack across the Lithuanian border on the 22. June consisted of the following:

3. Kp. S.R.113

- 16 APC

- 2 SP 20mm AA guns

- 10 Panzer III

- 2 Panzer IV

- 1 battery lFH 10,5cm

I would surmise that the intention was to have the field artillery handy for dual use.

Bottomline is, in the absence of the actual failures of the Red Army heavies (lack of fuel, ammo, training of the crew, and transmission prone to failure for the KV-1) on the CMBB battlefield, the initial war scenarios can get ugly very fast for the Germans.

Regarding rarity - there were quite a few of the T-34 and KV-1 around it seems (several hundred of both types I think, but don't quote me on it). The real problem appears to have been that nobody had trained with them, and that they were used piecemeal and with no infantry support.

[Runyan99]

Okay, let me covert the armor angles on the T-34 to degrees from the vertical. The values now become:

Armor Detail Front

Hull 45mm@60°

Superstructure 45mm@60°

Turret* 52mm@round

Mantlet 40mm@60&90°

Clearly this changes things quite a bit, as the penetration values that were sufficient to penetrate the 30 degrees, are going to bounce off the 60 degree sloped armor of the T-34 on the Hull, superstructure, and mantlet. Maybe a lucky shot on the horzontal (90 degree) part of the mantlet will penetrate, but that is about it.

Bad news for the German player :0

One more thing though. Looking at the following armor diagram:

Is there a shot trap for rounds hitting the underside of the turret and/or the top part of the superstructure?

[Runyan99]

I found some data on the 76 mm F-32 at http://history.vif2.ru/guns/defin_4.html

At 500m, the gun penetrates about 70mm of armor at 90 degrees. Compare that to the relatively thin, and poorly sloped German armor:

PzIII Armor Front (degrees from vertical)

Hull 50mm@21°

Superstructure 50mm@9°

Turret 30mm@15°

Mantlet 50mm@45-90°

So, it seems clear that almost any type ammo will be able to penetrate the front of the poor PzIII at the 500m range. This is pretty much what I expected to find, but I thought I would try to figure it out for myself.

HOWEVER, I did find this line of text at the Russian Battlefield site:

"Also, it is important to understand that realistic penetration values in 1941-1943 was reduced significantly due to low quality ammo."

How much of a reducing factor is poor-quality ammo?

[ 01-13-2002: Message edited by: Runyan99 ]</p>

[Wolfe]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Runyan99:

I found some data on the 76 mm F-32 at http://history.vif2.ru/guns/defin_4.html

<hr></blockquote>

The gun on the early T-34 was the L-11, I believe, not the F-32. It's penetration (according to the now defunct Guns vs. Armor site) is slightly higher than the F-32 (73mm at 100m).

- Chris

[Iron Chef Sakai]

Not only was the T-34 numerous, but in 1940 it was also the best tank design in the world. If the Panzer V is arguably the best medium tank of the war, the T-34 should share in the honors. Many of the great features of the Panther were ispired by the T-34. Some of the stregths of the T-34 go as follows....

1) Incredible power to weight ratio for it's time. It carried a 500hp engine while other AFV's averged in around 100-200hp engines.

2) Awesome mobility over nearly any type of terrain. This was due thanks in part to wide tracks, the christie suspension, with a powerful engine; most other afv's of the time had narrow tracks. During the winter battles of 1941 where the T-34 gave the germans a nasty wake up call, the german infantry called the T-34 the "Snow King" because of the tanks abillity to operate in all weather conditions.

3) Great armor protection and armor design. The T-34 had sloping armor long before any other countries tank designers began to incorporate it, wich also allowed the tank to save some weight.

4) Great armament. At the time of it's debut on the battlefield, most other AFV's were equipped with 37mm and 50mm main guns. The T-34 was armed with a good medium velocity 76.2mm gun.

The early T-34 was not without it's problems though. Thw crew compartment was cramped.

Communications proved to be a big problem as the T-34 was competly inferior to the systems used by the german AFV's.(the germans defeated Soviet amored units despite the fact that they were often horrnedously outnumbers due to superior communications hand in hand with superior tactics.)

The transmission of these ealry model T-34's was also a problem as it was prone to breakdowns. The 2 man turret lowered the combat effectiveness of the vehicle due to slowing down it's rate of fire. The German PanzerIII and IV had a 3 man turret and a higher rate of fire.

Despite all of this, the early T-34 was almost and utterly too much for the germans to handle. In the first year of fighting on the eastern front the biggest threats to theb T-34's (in order of severity) go as follows....

1) Air attack( aka Ju-87 attacks)

2) Direct fire from the 8.8cm FlaK 18/36.

3) Heavy artillery. (immobolizing the T-34 made it much less of a threat.)

4) A close range hit from a PanzerIII or anit tank gun to the rear or side armor.

5.) Close assualt by german infantry. ( learning to kill the T-34 without anti-tank guns was where the german infantry honed thier skills and became the best tank killers of the war.)

[Mr. Johnson--]

that was a aluminium 500hp engine wasn't it?

[SpazManOught]

An aluminium engine in 1941? maybe part alluminium,cylinder head and clutch housing, but I thought the engineering needed to make a good allu engine didn't come about until recently?

Although I'm proberly wrong.

[ParaBellum]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

Not only was the T-34 numerous, but in 1940 it was also the best tank design in the world. If the Panzer V is arguably the best medium tank of the war, the T-34 should share in the honors. Many of the great features of the Panther were ispired by the T-34. Some of the stregths of the T-34 go as follows....

1) Incredible power to weight ratio for it's time. It carried a 500hp engine while other AFV's averged in around 100-200hp engines.

2) Awesome mobility over nearly any type of terrain. This was due thanks in part to wide tracks, the christie suspension, with a powerful engine; most other afv's of the time had narrow tracks. During the winter battles of 1941 where the T-34 gave the germans a nasty wake up call, the german infantry called the T-34 the "Snow King" because of the tanks abillity to operate in all weather conditions.

3) Great armor protection and armor design. The T-34 had sloping armor long before any other countries tank designers began to incorporate it, wich also allowed the tank to save some weight.

4) Great armament. At the time of it's debut on the battlefield, most other AFV's were equipped with 37mm and 50mm main guns. The T-34 was armed with a good medium velocity 76.2mm gun.

The early T-34 was not without it's problems though. Thw crew compartment was cramped.

Communications proved to be a big problem as the T-34 was competly inferior to the systems used by the german AFV's.(the germans defeated Soviet amored units despite the fact that they were often horrnedously outnumbers due to superior communications hand in hand with superior tactics.)

The transmission of these ealry model T-34's was also a problem as it was prone to breakdowns. The 2 man turret lowered the combat effectiveness of the vehicle due to slowing down it's rate of fire. The German PanzerIII and IV had a 3 man turret and a higher rate of fire.

Despite all of this, the early T-34 was almost and utterly too much for the germans to handle. In the first year of fighting on the eastern front the biggest threats to theb T-34's (in order of severity) go as follows....

1) Air attack( aka Ju-87 attacks)

2) Direct fire from the 8.8cm FlaK 18/36.

3) Heavy artillery. (immobolizing the T-34 made it much less of a threat.)

4) A close range hit from a PanzerIII or anit tank gun to the rear or side armor.

5.) Close assualt by german infantry. ( learning to kill the T-34 without anti-tank guns was where the german infantry honed thier skills and became the best tank killers of the war.)<hr></blockquote>

I see you also own Panzer Commander and its manual...

[ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: ParaBellum ]</p>

[illo]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>german infantry honed thier skills and became the best tank killers of the war<hr></blockquote>

what about finnish infantry? we used logs goddammit!

[Gyrene]

By Parabellum:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>I see you also own Panzer Commander and its manual... <hr></blockquote>

I did think that was unusually lucid for Iron Chef...

Gyrene

[LuckyStrike]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by illo:

what about finnish infantry? we used logs goddammit! <hr></blockquote>

Hey, it worked for the Ewoks on Endor...

[Kanonier Reichmann]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by LuckyStrike:

Hey, it worked for the Ewoks on Endor...<hr></blockquote>

Oh gawd... here we go... bleedin' uber-Ewoks now. When will it all end?

Regards

Jim R.

[Enoch]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Gyrene:

I did think that was unusually lucid for Iron Chef...

Gyrene<hr></blockquote>

I agree. That is the clearest post I've seen from IC. Now you know how easy it can be to spot people cheating on term papers.

[Andrew H.]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by SpazManOught:

An aluminium engine in 1941? maybe part alluminium,cylinder head and clutch housing, but I thought the engineering needed to make a good allu engine didn't come about until recently?

Although I'm proberly wrong.<hr></blockquote>

IIRC, the T-34 had an aluminum engine block. Although they could make it back then, it was still pretty complicated: I've read that even if the Germans had tried to make an exact copy of the T-34 (which several generals had suggested they do), they would not have been able to manufacture the aluminum engine block.