Debate: Under and over rated tanks of WW2

Jentz, specifically New Vanguard 1.

 

Discovery Chanel had a few shows about WW2 tanks and armoured vehicles. One story I remember is that russian tank commanders had to get out of the T34 and signal for istructions with flags!!! If that's true, I feel sorry for them. This was in 1940. And at this time, there were not many T34's around.

Now I'll mention a number, but don't take this for true. It is appreciated that no more then 40 Tigers were combat ready, AT ANY TIME, ON WHOLE EASTER FRONT, DURING THE WHOLE WAR. When I'll get some new info on this, I'll tell, but this is something I saw on Discovery.

Any one considering a "hull down" position?

I thought that only the SS had received Tigers, that later were formed in heavy companies. And that only the most skilled tankers (or stug or jagd) crews were elected for heavies.

Also, on the same chanel, they said that T34 were no better then KV1. Actually, their success was due to their numbers.

Early german tanks were not ment for Russia. Period. Pz1, Pz2, Pz3, Pz4 were all ment for european wars, were roads were paved, and existed. There are stories about germans stopping their Pz at french petrol stations to refuel. In Russia, at the first rain there were no more roads. Just mud. And no petrol stations to refuel (so panzers were running with a trailer full of petrol to cover the wast spaces). Wide open spaces ment that Tigers and Panthers were at home (long range fighting was surely in german favor).

The Churchill was underrated by all accounts. It was well protected, difficult to knockout, and had good hill climbing capabilities (essential for Tunisia campains). Early problems were solved, and by 1944, this was a tank capable of tackling Tigers and Panthers.

 

I'm sorry, Selesque, but the Discovery Channel is a really bad source. You're best off not believing anything they say, though some of it is true. There are too many errors.

I can't comment on the Tigers since I have no numbers ready. However, the things they say about Russian tanks are generalizations or flaws. The T34 suffered from a lack of radios, that much is true; some of them did however have radios, so it was not standard for Russian tank crews to have to communicate by other means. The KV-1 was designed and built before the T34, at a time when the Russian main battle tank was the T26; its purpose was that of the heavy tank, combining tough armour with a good infantry support gun - and at the time it headed the list in those departments, worldwide. The T34 was an entirely different design with an entirely different purpose so comparing the two is rather pointless; however if you must, the KV-1 had considerably thicker but unsloped armour where the T34 had thin but well-sloped armour in most places. Their armament was initially the same and both tanks went through comparable upgrades through the years, the KV gaining much more in armour thickness though.

Every part of the German Heer was meant ultimately to fight Russia.

 

That 40 Tigers number is completely untrue. Just to use two numbers which I found first:
1944-05-31: 233 operational Tigers on the Eastern front
1945-03-15: 125 operational Tigers on the Eastern front

 

Christian:
My sources are based on the book:
Tiger Ace--The Life Story of Panzer Commander Michael Wittman
By Gary L Simpson

I stand by my comments. I'm sure the situation was much different in the last few months of the war.
Are you implying that Tiger IIs fought the Battle of the Bulge in Dec '44 using mostly untrained crews?

Tim

 

I would be interested in hearing the account about Villers Boccage from that book.

I would recommend that you have a look at some of the reviews of this book at Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk, by the way.

I'm not implying anything, and I don't have my books at hand.

 

Christian:
I just happen to have that book within arm's reach.
If there is something in particular about this account of Villers-Bocage you're looking for, please elaborate... I'll do my best to respond.

I respect your knowledge on the subject of armor Christian... but are we down to arguing who's references are most accurate? If so, please share some background on yours. I'm always eager to add to my knowlege.

By the way, I like your choice of tank-destroyers. The Pz IV/70(V) is one of my favorites too. The PaK42 L/70 was a potent weapon. (137 Pz IV/70(V)s participated in the Ardennes Offensive.) Vomag had built 930 of these vehicles when production ceased in March of '45. (My references...)

Tim

 

I am aware that Discovery is not entirelly reliable, that some of the movies they show were not actual combat movies, but fabricated after the fights. Yet, I am aware that 40 tanks is also a small number (incredible small). But, I don't think that 233 Tigers were actually combat ready at any time. Also, only a few companies had their full complement of Tigers in reality. On paper... that's something else. Even so, if on whole easter front you have 250 operational Tigers, at any time, that is a very low number compared with how many tanks were emploied by russians (even if they were lower quality). It is true that for any Tiger destroied in Russia, 5 russian tanks were destroied, and in west 4? Or this numbers are not true either?

 

The Tiger was not the only German tank, and certainly not the most numerous one. On most late-war offensives the Russian tanks outnumbered the Germans by a factor of 2, judging the numbers I've seen; these numbers were not broken down into different tank types however.

 

Hoosier
Re Villers Boccage, I would particularly be interested in the tanks that is claimed to have been destroyed by Wittmann there. From the reviews, it looks like the book is full of mistakes, so this would be an obvious trap to have fallen in.

As mentioned, my source is Jentz's New Vanguard 1. As always with his 'second-generation' books, Jentz has only used primary sources for New Vanguard 1, thus making it correct.

Selesque
On 1944-05-31, there were 233 operational Tigers on the Eastern front. Operational means operational. That is a well-known fact. If you don't believe that, then that it your problem, but you'll be wrong. You might want to have a look at Panzer Truppen 2 by Jentz, where the number of operational tanks for each unit at different dates for the entire Eastern front is listed.

 

As dmackenz said it, Panzers run quiter then T34. I looked on some material I have at home from internet, and I found some test. in 1939, the soviets brought 2 PanzerIIIs and tested them against T34. And they were shocked. The T34 was only better protected and had some better crosscountry capabilities. And the soviets noted that a panzer III could be heared from 150-200 meters, as oposed to the T34, that could be heared from 400-450 meters. Also, their motors had problems, their gear boxes, and in fact whole mechanics. With great efforts, soviets were able to produce an engine that run 150 hours without breakdowns. Even late T34s had troubles, and they bogged down in marshes just like panzers. First models of T34 had only comunications betwen comander and driver (they say nothing about radiocomunication with HQ). And the biggest problem, is that T34 was an entirely new tank, that required new tehnologies and machines to massproduce. This coud be the reason why there were just a handfull of T34s in 1940.

I have no problem with numbers, and I'll agree with 233. Still, Tigers were front-line tanks, that drew attention on the battlefields (and a lot of shelling and pounding). A small force that forged a legend (fueld by some people's lust for legends), I can hardy think of Tiger beeing overrated. T34 certainly. It was a design ahead of it's time, and when his time came, it lasted just a short while.

 

Interesting. The T34 wasn't in production by this time. Was this a test with a prototype, or did it in fact compare a completely different tank to the Panzer III?

If this is still about the T34 in a prototype stage, then the most important difference between the 1939 Panzer III with its 37mm gun is a huge advantage in firepower from the 76.2mm gun on the T34, as well as vastly better protection (thicker and heavily sloped armour).

As a design the Tiger is definitely overrated, but like I said, sheer overkill in terms of armour and firepower made it a legend when it first appeared and a tough kill until late in the war. Tigers were not, however, indestructible, definitely not by 1944.

 

Actually, the T34 prototype had a 45mm gun, and it was called A13 or something like that. (I'll look into it and post some real data)

It is, however, unclear to me on what we base the overrated and underrated labels on. Kill to loss ratio, particular theaters of combat, our own pleasure?

 

I think both are based on the facts compared to the reputation of the tanks mentioned. Most tanks have recieved definite auras over the years, or even during WW2, and these aren't often true to their actual ability (on paper, but also on the battlefield).

If the early T34 was indeed armed with a 45mm gun (no production model ever was, so that is really irrelevant) it would still have been superior to the contemporary Panzer III in firepower.

 

That would bepend on the gun.

The 45 mm 20 Km was equal to the 3,7 cm Kw.K. in firepower, only the 45 mm VT-42 superior.

 

The lather was used from 1942 onwards, therefore is out of the question.

 

As examples:

The Sherman was a paper-hulled tinderbox that caught fire if the Germans coughed

The Tiger was an unstoppable beast that would have won the war for Germany if only they had a few more

Both are mostly hype, based on the very early service of both tanks.

 

"Ze Americans are coming! Ze Americans are coming!"
"Quick, put Fritz in ze front trench, he has a cold" :lol:

Christian: fair enough. However since no production model of the T34 was ever armed with the 45mm gun, it is really irrelevant that this gun proved to give the tank no advantage over the early Panzer IIIs. The 76.2mm-armed T34s, even those of the old L/11 model, did certainly have this advantage, and that is what matters.

 

Agreed - but that wasn't the point of discussion. The 76.2 mm. gun was about equal to the 5 cm Kw.K.

 

Um, what was the point of the discussion? :-?

As far as I can tell, it started with a Pz.III being tested against a T-34 in 1939, which would apparently have meant that the T-34 was a prototype with 45 mm 20 Km gun, and the Pz.III would have a 37mm gun.