Debate: Under and over rated tanks of WW2

After discussing the matter thoroughly for an extended period of time, approaching the problem from every conceivable angle, they realized they had forgotten the subject which they were originally discussing.

 

That about sums it up.

 

The T34 had a ... let's say MAJOR flaw in the early designs. It's glacis plate was made of one piece of steel that was worked with an angle. How to put this more clearly? Well, the upper and lower glacis plates on tanks are not cast in ome piece, but welded together at an angle. T34 had it's original glacis plate cast in one piece. And that's a major flaw!

And as for guns, what point is to have a big, powerfull gun, if you can't hit the target?

 

Why is that a flaw? Just because casting is somewhat weaker than welding doesn't mean that having a cast glacis/hull plate is a major flaw, especially if it aids production speeds.

 

I didn't explain enough. This pice on T34 is not cast in that shape, but is cast as a steel plate, then worked into that shape. And because of that, it's frontal glacis plate is not as strong as it is suposed to be, but is actually weaker.

Also, a cast piece is certainly a boost to speed in production, but in T34's case, the extrawork that had to be put into making this piece ment a slowdown of production. For this reason, Later models of T34 were made with welded steel plates. An interesting fact I found on the internet is that T34 and Tiger tanks had the same speed in combat situation, of around 25km/h.

 

Lets pause for a moment to wish the topic of Debate: Under and over rated tanks of WW2 a happy first birth day.

 

Roel said

Shouldn't we base overrated and underrated on the 3 primary points of armoured warfare? Armour protection, firepower and mobility. If we break down to specific periods, then we can talk about other tanks, but if we talk in general, then late war models are the focus here.

There is a problem with battlefield and paper. On paper, an 88mm Kwk L56 would pierce 45mm armour on a T34, but german reports say that often they found the projectile in the engine, after it went through the glacis. Also, most of the people here make a mistake: you think of today's guns, and how they work against armour, and then apply this to WW2 guns. It is not good. Today we have guns with higher muzzle velocity, and stronger materials, not steel plate. Anther mistake often made is to consider that each country produced identical quality steel. British steel had higher Si percent in steel (comming from higher Si percentage found in british manganate), where german steel was rigurously checked for quality.

 

Do you have any reason to assume that we do not put our debates on WW2 tanks in their contemporary context? If you read any of the topics here in the Tanks section you will find extensive debates on the relative quality of armour produced by different countries, as well as manywords about guns and different types of ammunition used in WW2, which has no relation whatsoever to modern armour or modern guns.

I for one can say quite a few things about WW2 guns and armour piercing technology, but I know next to nothing about the same field in modern warfare.

The 3 points you mention are all discussed but they are quantitative dimensions of a qualitative question: does a tank actually live up to or surpass its reputation?

 

How about this?

"You can angle the armor any way you want, and beyond a certain point of shot overmatching plate, the obliquity will cease to be relevant. In fact, at certain conditions of shot overmatching plate, the cosine rule is broken and the plate resists less well than the simple cosine relationship would predict (LOS thickness is greater than effective thickness). The above only applies to WWII era AP and APC/APCBC, and WWII sub caliber ammunition. The long rod penetrators of today are greatly overmatched but they bring so much energy to the plate that they penetrate by "ablation" in which both projectile and armor behave like fluids. Hollow charge also enters the field of fluid dynamics, with a very thin jet penetrating overmatching armor with ease, regardless of obliquity" (Robert Livingston)" (About WW2 sloped armour effectiveness)

And

"When striking a Tiger I driver's plate, for example, this "shatter gap" for a 76mm APCBC M62 shell would cause failures between 50 meters and 900 meters. These ammunition deficiencies proved that Ordnance tests claiming the 76 mm gun could penetrate a Tiger I's upper front hull to 2,000 yards (1,800 meters) were sadly incorrect."

Durin WW2, T/d is the main thing to consider, and not armour penetration tabels. This also ilustrates my point about paper tabels and stories.

And in support to my claims that Tigers were not overrated

"During a scouting patrol two Tigers encountered about 20 Russian tanks on their front, while additional Russian tanks attacked from behind. A battle developed in which the armor and weapons of the Tiger were extraordinarily successful. Both Tigers were hit (mainly by 76.2 mm armor-piercing shells) 10 or more times at ranges from 500 to 1,000 meters. The armor held up all around. Not a single round penetrated through the armor. Also hits in the running gear, in which the suspension arms were torn away, did not immobilize the Tiger. While 76.2 mm anti-tank shells continuously struck outside the armor, on the inside, undisturbed, the commander, gunner, and loader selected targets, aimed, and fired. The end result was 10 enemy tanks knocked out by two Tigers within 15 minutes" (The 13.(Tiger) Kompanie, of Panzer Regiment Großdeutschland, reported on the armor protection of the Tiger)

 

I could post a story about a T-34-85 destroying several King Tigers in an ambush. Single incidents like this do not prove or disprove the claim.

 

Read this first

This is NOT a story. Is a report about how much a Tiger can take. But, there are also KV1's or KV2's that stopped entire panzer companies. And there are pictures of KV1's that were hit more then 100 times by german 50mm guns and were not destroied. I'm not a child to live with stories. And this is not singular, but it just happened to be at hand. Plus, Wittman did something like this, and his Tiger survived.

I like history and engineering.

 

Yes it is:

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/story
My emphasis

 

Ok, let us be clear.

Is a true story, or a fairy story?

 

Its feasible, but it should also be remembered, that German claims are on average about 200 % of the actual Allied losses.

 

Yes, is true. Germany has reported more kills then actually had. So did other countries. 2 Tigers versus 20 T34-76 in front and some other in a flanking move. Let's say there were only 10 T34 in front and 5 in flanking. That means the Tigers open fire at 800 to 1000 meters and worked progresively closer. Is not difficult to accept that they did destroied 10 tanks. Also, Tiger tanks (don't know if King Tiger too) had the best armour of WW2. No, not the thickest, but the best quality, hardest.

When I said is not a story, I ment it is not fictional, but a report (maybe exagerated).

So, Tigers lived up to their reputation as killing machines. Firepower was unparaleled, armor protection was excelent, and mobility was good. By contrast, T34 had average firepower, good protection against 50mm or less guns, and good mobility (altough it consumed less fuel then Tigers). This sums up pros and cons to Tigers vs T34. But there were other tanks in WW2 that should be mentioned here. Maybe no other could match the Tigers in firepower and armour, but were better then T34 for sure. The KV is one example, and the Churchill another.

 

Hardest does not equal best.

Actually, there are many tanks that are superior to the Tiger I Ausf. E. IS 2, M26 Pershing, King Tiger, Panther (arguably), etc. Comparing the T-34 to the Tiger is unfair, it is like comparing the IS 2 to the Panzer IV. Compare the T-34 to the Panzer IV (medium vs medium instead of medium vs heavy) and the results will be much more even. The T-34 is far superior to the KV-1.

 

You cannot support an accurate evaluation of an engineered design without applying concrete facts about it and comparing these. What happens on the battlefield may sometimes be different from what these facts suggest but they are not in fact a consistent set of facts by which to judge a tank. I am well aware of the differences in armour quality and test criteria of different countries during WW2, and these filters we can apply to the facts we have, but a field report stating that a Tiger held off 20 T34/76s doesn't make its armour any thicker. And just because something happened doesn't mean it's a law; just because something didn't happen doesn't mean it can't.

A company of Pz V Panther tanks were once held off by a single 57mm gun, which destroyed four of these beasts in the process. However, very few people go about claiming that the 57mm was some sort of destructive superweapon capable of handling any armour including the German heavies.

The firepower on the Tiger was surpassed by that of the Elefant, Nashorn, Jagdpanther, King Tiger, M26 Pershing, ISU-122, ISU-122s, ISU-152, SU-100, JS-2 and JS-3. Some of these tanks only had an advantage in shell size and hence explosive charge fired; others had a distinct advantage in penetration.

 

Panzerman said

Don't see how! Detail a little.

Yes you are right. I shouldn't have said hardest. Brinell Hardness Index for Panther armour is higher then for Tiger.

"There is an optimum BHN level for every shot vs plate confrontation, usually in the 260-300 BHN range for World War Two situations. Below that, the armor is too soft and resists poorly, above that, the armor is too hard and therefore too brittle. Tiger steel had a Brinell hardness index of 255-260."

The Tiger vs T34 comparison is based purely on personal preference. Many prefer T34's to other tanks, and I prefer Tigers to other tanks. I said why! As for Pershing, too little they were used in WW2. King Tiger was more powerfull, both in terms of armour and firepower, but mobility is an isue I can't overlook. IS 2 is also a good tank, and Tiger guners had to fire their small number of tungsten carbide rounds to knock them out. IS 2 had a larger caliber gun, but I guess it had also poor optics, and not very skilled crews, which somehow didn't made it a legend (but it would have lived up to his name).

As for Panther, you are right; arguably! Everything was almost as good as Tiger's, but not quite as good. Let's say is a cheaper and lighter Tiger.

 

The Panther's 7,5 cm Kw.K. L/70 had superior penetration capabilities to the Tigers 8,8 cm Kw.K. L/56, and its frontal armour was superior.

 

Don't see how! Detail a little.[/quote]

For a much lower cost and better mobility, it brings the same gun to the battlefield. In my mind, that gives the T-34 better strategic and tactical value.

I prefer the Leopard 2A6 MBT over the A7V. Should I compare them on an equal basis. No. When making a fair tank vs tank comparison, you should compare tanks that were designed for the same roles. The Panzer IV can be compared to the T-34 IMO, as they were of equal weight and design. I could compare the IS 2 and the Panzer IV, and make the IS 2 look a lot better. But that would not be fair, woulnd't it?

See Christians post. I would like to add that it was faster, more mobile, and a much more modern design.