Debate: Under and over rated tanks of WW2

I don't want to turn this topic in a debate between my opinion that Tigers were living up to their reputation, and everyone else's opinion that I'm wrong. I said I compare tanks based on 3 elements: firepower (ability to hit and destroy a target, with bonus for long ranges), protection (how much punishment it can take before being destroied and how difficult was to destroy it) and mobility (a tanks ability to move on the battlefield).

Panzerman said

A T34 could be destroyed by a 50mm gun, but not a KV1. Costs were not that much lower, and mobility was slightly in favor of the T34. Strategicly, you are right, tacticly, you are wrong. I rather be in a KV and laugh at germans trying to knock me out with their puny 50mm rather then in a T34 and be affraid of death.

Were they? I guess that russians did copy the Panzer IV when they designed the T34! The MK4 was innitially designated to complement the MK3 in the role combat suport, so when designed, they didn't even had the same specification. But I guess is not fare to compare them either, because Mk4 bad a longer gun and armoured skirts in later models. From what I remember, T34 was at about 30t, where Mk4 is at about 23t.

Then do it! No one will stop you.

Christian Ankerstjerne said

When considering T/d, the 88 had the advantage. His frontal armour was not as thick as the Tiger, and was more brittle, therefore easier to pierce. From a short movie I saw, its suspension was superior to Tiger's, and provided a better gun platform to fire on the move. But if you move, and your target move in WW2 you DON'T SHOOT. Because you'll miss. So if you stay, and the other guy stays, maybe is better to have a bigger gun, and not a longer one. Otherwise, why do you make 128mm guns or biger? Also, Christian, AP would also kill by detonating its explosive charge after piecing the armour. You could add this to your site.

Side note

Germans had problems with czech riveted tanks. When a shell will hit, even if would not pierce, it will cause the rivet head to break and become a flying projectile inside the tank. Early Sherman blew up even if armour was not pierced, because hits will often cause splinters to fly inside the tank, and ignite ammo on board.

 

This evaluation only fits into the topic if it is compared to a tank's reputation, and therefore your opinion on the Tiger as opposed to ours indeed relevant.

It seems highly unlikely that the Panzer III's 50mm gun could pierce 45mm of armour slanted at 60 degrees from vertical, with an effective thickness (counting ballistic effect) of something near twice its actual thickness. Seeing as the KV-1's armour was unsloped in most places, its defence against enemy AT fire went no further than the thickness of its plating, which was insufficient as soon as the Germans brought longer-barreled 75mm guns and 88mm guns to the battlefield (which, in the latter case, was instant). Therefore the T34 was indeed a better design than the KV-1; this last tank made its reputation by its bluntly thick armour, very much like the Tiger did, without any sophistication behind its design.

Depends on which model of either tank we use. The early Panzer IV indeed wasn't meant to be used as an MBT, and therefore you should compare the early T34 to the Panzer III - a comparison where the T34 inevitably comes out on top (thicker armour even nominally; better gun; wider tracks). After the Panzer III was phased out as an MBT in favour of the late-war Panzer IV, the comparison would be between the Panzer IV and the T34 because of their role on the battlefield.

This is a novelty as far as I'm aware, do you have any sources to back this up? As far as penetration tests can be used as proof (and since they provide empirical data they should), the 75mm L/70 had an advantage over the 88mm L/56 in terms of penetration at ranges under 2000 meters, though it did have less effective HE shells de to their smaller size. The frontal armour of the Panther was 80mm thick but slanted at 45 degrees making its actual thickness some 113mm, which is thicker than the Tiger's frontal armour.

Bigger guns tended to be less effective in penetrating at greater distances because the weight of the shell negated the advantage of more propellant.

 

Yes, the T/D ratio of the 8,8 cm Kw.K. L/56 is better, but the 7,5 cm Kw.K. L/70 still has better penetration capabilities. There are other factors than the T/D ratio.

That is true for most tanks (including the German ones), however some US tanks had gyro stabilizers. Besides, since it would be true both ways, it makes little sense.

What do you mean, exactly?

They have better high explosive capability.

That would depend on the AP round. British AP was solid shot, so in that case, no. Strictly speaking, if it has an explosive filler, it is AP-HE (or APCBC-HE, etc.)

 

Roel said

Using APCR, they could, but only within 100m, which will expose german tanks to russian 76mm guns, which were more then capable to make holes in Mk3's. But, at this point, russian tanks were only deploied in small numbers, and german tanks outnubered them. Germans were instructed to shoot at russian tanks even if they had no chance to destroy them, but the constant sound of hits against the armour was more then enough to make some russian crews to bail out of their tanks even if no shell has pierced.

I have allready posted on this subject on page 6. Also posted about paper tabels. Told you not to trust entirely to paper tables. On paper, a 75mm L/70 is more powerfull, but in reality, is not. "In terms of World War II tank warfare, thickness is a quality in itself, since armor resistance is mainly determined by the ratio between armor thickness and projectile diameter (T/d)." Hence, the larger the caliber, the higher the chance to pierce armour, especially if armour has less thickness then the diameter of the incoming shell.

Gyro stabilizers and Ir technology came late into war, and I think too late to consider.

They made bigger caliber guns because they had higher chance to pierce armour.

During early 1942 the penetration ability was improved with the introduction of the Pzgr.39 of 10.2 kg weight with reduced HE filler of 59 grams. Muzzle velocity was 800 m/s. (for 88mm 36 Kwk L56)

Roel said

Not quite. The bigger the shell, the heavier is, and thus more piercing power. APCR rounds lose penetration power over range at a faster rate then APCBC rounds.

 

Maybe a pigeon flew infront of the bullet and deflected it to it's desired target? Me neither lol.

 

That is why the Germans called teh Shermans "Tommy Cookers" because the armour was not needed to be pierced for the tank to blow up. Also if penetarated same effect and the crew had little chance for escape.

 

Selesque
If you are only looking at the T/D ratio, the 8,8 cm Kw.K. L/56 was more powerful, but as mentioned above, there are other factors as well - muzzle velocity is one of them.

If you only look at the T/D ratio, then anti-tank rifles appear to be useless - yet, the 14.5 mm. PTRD and PTRS were able to penetrate 40 mm. of armour, which (by your logic) would mean that the 8,8 cm Kw.K. L/56 could penetrate 243 mm. of armour, and the 12,8 cm Kw.K. L/55 could penetrate 353 mm. of armour - neither number is realistic.

Furthermore, by your logic, the 8,8 cm Kw.K. L/56 and 8,8 cm Kw.K. L/71 had no difference in armour penetration capabilities.

Finally, if we are not to look at 'paper tables' (even though they are calculated using the DeMarre equation), I assume this means you have test fires both the 8,8 cm Kw.K. L/56 and 7,5 cm Kw.K. L/70? If not, then how did you arrive at your numbers?

As for the 8,8 cm Pzgr. Patr. 39 Kw K 36, the explosive filler was 64 g., not 59 (see Merkblatt Geheim 28/1).

 

A few points -

So why were the British 'discarding sabot' shells (for the 17pdr) the best the Allies had?

IR technology yes, Gyro-stabilisers no.
They were fitted as standard to the M3 series and the M4 series.
However, their usefulness was questionable - I have read a few sources that state that the tank crews would not engage the gyro as they were unhappy about the prospect of a fast-spinning chunk of metal getting loose if the tank was hit.

 

Roel wrote

Actually quite the opposite: a bigger gun would have better pentration at long range since a more massive round would hold its velocity better. A small fast round will have a higher velocity drop than a large fast(ish) round, and since penetration varies with the square of velocity - among other things - then the large calibre rounds are better long-range killers than smaller ones (providing that you get a hit - faster rounds are easier to hit with since target movement and ranging errors don't count for as much).

 

The Gyro also have the problem of being level with the terrain, which is good for fireing on the move, but is bad if you are standing close to the gun, and suddenly hit a hole in the ground.

 

So the Russian T34 crews only had to fear their Panzer III adversaries if they were within 100 meters and firing APCR rounds? That makes it highly unlikely that any T34 crew feared for its life when engaging these tanks, which makes your entire point void. If you're trying to save this untenable point by saying Russian crews would bail out even when not penetrated, well, that goes for both sides.

Seriously, though: if a tank is vulnerable to enemy fire only within 100 meters, at which point it has itself had the effective means to destroy the enemy's best tanks for a long distance, it is a very effective tank indeed. It seems to me that you're defending the Tiger on exactly these grounds, so why would you dismiss the T34 on the same grounds?

You are completely ignoring shell velocity and ballistic effects such as angle of impact and armour slope. Obviously the equation would come out in favour of the Tiger if we count only raw armour thickness and shell size because it had barely any sloped armour and a very heavy gun, but that is exactly the mistake those who overrate the Tiger constantly make. Sloped armour gives more protection for less weight; higher velocity guns give more penetration for smaller shells with a higher ROF.

APCR rounds may lose penetration power faster than APCBC rounds at range but that doesn't make them less powerful than most APCBC rounds at the greatest tested distances. Even with all their decline in punch they still penetrate more than the average APCBC round of the same calibre at greater ranges.

 

I remember reading somewhere that when T-34s were advancing against German armour with the ability to knock the T-34 out at long range the Russian tank crews would constantly fire shells at the Germans while they advanced (firing on the move) simply to try and disrupt the Germans enough to give themselves more of a chance to survive - and maybe score a lucky hit or two.

 

That isn't entirely true. The only advantage of sloped armour is that of an increased chance of deflection of incoming grenades. The weight compared to the relative armour thickness is still exactly the same, because even though the armour plates are thinner, they are also larger.

Re APCR vs APCBC, the APCR has a smaller range than the APCBC, because it is lighter (i.e. its inertia is lower, and will therefore be influenced to a higher extent by outside forces, mainly air resistance). This is also the disadvantage with APDS, which also has an increased instability because it is very light.

This isn't really important, though - most WWII APCR shells had a range up to or beyond normal combat ranges, and then the APCR and APCBC were fairly close, so there would rarely be a problem there.

 

Roel said

Shell velocity is within 800-810m/s. Matching calibers had close muzzle velocities.
APCBC rounds had a blunt head, which will ensure that there is a good contact surface between projectile and armour, even if armour is sloped.

Roel, T34 were not concentrated in tank companies when Germany invaded. Therefore, T34's were outnumbered by german panzers. This means that T34s had to endure countless hits against armour by the time they were in 100m range. Germans had superior gunners and thus a higher chance to hit russian tanks at long ranges. After the initial encounters with T34 and KV1, german tankers were instructed to shoot at them constantly, even if they had no chance for piercing. The constant ratling of shels often made russian crews to either turn around and leave (with the tank), or just stop it and get out. Also, german tanks were better controled, and often would get flank shots at russians. In a tank, you have little visibility and this is also a reason why russian suffered in the early months (can't see that 88 firing at them). After the introduction of 75mm Kwk L48, MK4's could deal with russian T34's at longer ranges.

So to sum it up, russian didn't fear Mk3 as much as they feared the number of them.

Why? Because you want it so? The first german Tiger captured by british in North Afrika had it's crew bailed out because a lucky hit from a 6 pounder has dug itself in the turet ring and rendered the turet immobile. Ok. But I have no knowlege about this being a constant with germans. I know italians would often surender even if not in a precarious position, but sometimes they were as stubborned as mules. Note that not all russian tankers did this, but in the first months this happened often with them. Later, as they become better, and tanks were organized in tank armies (based on german organisation), they started to be more effective.

 

Code:

Gun             Grenade                         Muzzle velocity
8,8 cm Kw K 36  8,8 cm Pzgr Patr 39 Kw K 36           773 m./s.
8,8 cm Kw K 36  8,8 cm Pzgr Patr 40 Kw K 36           930 m./s.
8,8 cm Kw K 43  8,8 cm Pzgr Patr 39/43 Kw K 43      1,000 m./s.
8,8 cm Kw K 43  8,8 cm Pzgr Patr 40/43 Kw K 43      1,130 m./s.

 

The same went for Tigers vs T34s, though I'm not sure if the German Panzer IIIs really did outnumber the Russian tanks since the Germans never had as many tanks on the front lines as the Russians at any time during the war, let alone more. In any case, the T34 was perfectly protected against 50mm fire from anything but close-range fire and perfectly equipped to deal with Panzer IIIs of any version 1000 meters out. Therefore the advantage here clearly lies with the T34; the same may be said of the Tiger units later on in the war.

I'm not sure what point it is you are defending or which point I am attacking anymore, but I do have some remarks about the remainder of your previous post:

As Ricky pointed out above, so did the Russians when faced with Tigers. Also, I do not see how this points out a disadvantage of the T34 as a tank.

Factors like visibility and morale affect both sides equally, so you can't bring them up in either side's supposed advantage.

As with the Germans and the T34.

Why not? What makes you think the Germans hung on to their tanks until they were either knocked out or victorious? What makes you think the German morale could not be afftected in the same way the Russian morale could? If the effects of a rain of fire can be used to make one side's tank seem worse then logically we must be able to apply the same argument to the other side's tank.

 

Russian tankers far preffered the T-34 (over the KV1). Just like a T-34 could be destroyed by a 50 mm gun, a Panther could be destroyed by a 57 mm gun. Would you rather be in your Jagdtiger than the "puny little Panther"? The Russian soldiers themselves did not find the KV1 do be of tactical value.

Also, if you believe in"Bigger = better", how about the fact that T-34 could be mass-produced, and thus had a larger quantity of them on the battlefield? That means something in a tactical sense as well.

"Quantity is a quality all of itself."

- Nikita Kruschev

 

Which tanks in World War II couldn't be mass produced?

 

The Sentinel, because Australia lacked the required heavy industrial plants. According to Gryle, anyway:

http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3551



Also, mass-producing the Bob Semple would constitute a crime against humankind.

 

Excuse my gross inaccuracy. The Tiger could be mass produced (as some 1,500 came off the production line) but the T-34 could (and was) produced in larger numbers.

While Selesque sees the tank as a (to quote Danyel Phelps) "stand alone killing unit", I also rate quality in things like reliability, cost, fuel effeciency, and production simplicity, and its value strategically and tactically. Thus I find the Tiger, which was a scarce tank, as overrated in the strategic sense.

When it comes to pure tank vs tank combat, the Tiger was never outclassed.