Panzer III vs. T-34

The prokhorovka tank battle is a propaganda joke. The 5th guards did enter battle but there never was a close battle where Red Army tanks rammed Tigers. That is not true.

the T-34 could take punishment due to its sloped armor and wide tracks made it able to travel in mud better that German tanks. However, the Pz III did not have enough powerful gun to penetrate the T-34 I think, but the Soviet problem was the stabilisation system. They were shooting here and there while Germans could hit what they were aiming at, the Soviet gunner couold not be sure. Then again if the barrel hit something on the way the aiming system might be totally false for the Germans as well but still T-34 was pretty inaccurate in my opinion unless you were very close and against a tank that could not penetrate your armour.

 

In one of my military WWII magazines there was an article about Prokhorovka. The author found the German after-action battle reports of SS Pz Corps in that battle. The German tank losses for that PART of the battle were fairly low. One should remember that the tank battle at Prokhorovka was only part of a much larger battle, starting with the German two-pronged attack. Then, after the action at Prokhorovka Hitler called off the attack and then the Soviets counter-attacked on the flanks of the Kursk bulge. These were the Soviet reserves with fresh tanks and crews which the Germans had to then battle after their initial attacks had been stymied. I believe that much of the German tank losses attributed to Kursk were in this latter phase of the battle where the Germans had to fight this new threat while retreating. In a retreat, broken down tanks are harder to recover and fix, plus the German tanks had just finished a hard battle and needed maintenance work which the Soviet counter-attack denied them. I suspect, breakdowns/damaged but unrecovered tanks, plus actual battle losses were very severe during this last stage of the battle.

I'll dig around for that article.

 

Thanks! Would be a good read.

 

Kursk was only pt 1 of the Soviet plan. The bigger plan was to mobilize the huge reserves behind lines once the German offensive had lost its power to crush the German troops inside the Kursk pocket and push them back hudreds of kilometers. It was never a coincidence, it was a death trap for German Army all the way.

 

My last post on Kursk here. We have one huge thread on this which can be found from the eastern front section, use Search function if necessary:

[SIZE=12pt]On Frankson-Zetterling book on "Battle of Kursk" from 2002 an estimation on battle of Prokhorovka:

Lasted 12.-16.7.

Losses:

Red Army

334 Tanks ands assault guns totally destroyed
21,000 men dead

German Army

25 tanks and assault guns totally destroyed
5,500 men dead [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Frankson/Zetterling "Kursk" facts:

All in all the battle in Kursk meant for both sides 2-3% losses of all the losses in 1943 battles.

In the southern sector of Zitadelle on 4th July the Germans had 330,000 men and 1,500 tanks. The Russians had over 625,000 men and 1,700 tanks. During the German offensive phase the Red Army got 300,000 men and 1,200 tanks more and altogether Red Army had over 900,000 men and 2,900 tanks against the southern pincer...[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]From the interesting book by Frankson-Zetterling that I have mentioned a couple of times before, it is actually claimed that Hitler had already BEFORE the beginning of the operation Zitadelle decided that the Waffen-SS troops would be sent to Italy if there was an invasion ( read when ) and possibly fall of Mussolini ( later on ). So it may be that Hitler did not invent the withdrawal of troops from the battle as he heard of the invasion in Sicily ( invaded on 10 July 1943 ).I think Hitler cancelled Zitadelle on 13th. Yet as the Russians made breakthroughs only LAH could be sent.[/SIZE]

 

I was just wondering but since you mentioned that, were there a lot of things exaggerated about the battle of Prokkhorovka?

That does sound like a good read.

 

I think the myth of Prokhorovka was considered the truth until the collapse of the USSR and after that things were bit by bit revealed. For instance the Mainila gun fire which is mentioned the reason for Winter War, and according to the USSR was done by the Finns, was revealed in 1991 by Russia that the Red Army shot them themselves.

 

Mh, this is kind of surprising. Not the fact that that they lost more broken down tanks when retreating. But this would mean that the German tank losses in the offensive phase of Zitadelle would be quite low. One must wonder how this was possible knowing the formidable defenses of the Soviets. The constructed several anti tank strongpoints, belts - not to mention mines & arty and normal infantry weapons vs. tanks (well those were quite weakl 45mm At guns as well AT rifles and molotovs - but still would count). The stronpoints however would also have digged in tanks with 76mm and a multitude of other 76mm/122mm field guns maybe even 76/85mm AA emplyoed as AT !

 

The article I mentioned dealt just with the time of the Prokhorovka battle and the SS Pz. Corps involved. Look at my first few sentences. However, they would suggest that the German tank losses, that's tanks being total losses, weren't as severe as many thought. I haven't read a lot about the nitty-gritty tactics in the first part of the attack phase, but I suspect that the Germans used mostly infantry units to attack the fortifications. In such actions infantry casualties are normally high.

 

That was the German main problem. Not enough men for the attack and protect the tanks either. Like usual, the Germans were able to destroy a huge number of Soviet tanks but the Red Army reserves were so huge there were more and more coming after awhile.I recall reading Haüsser after one battle in the Prokhorovka area counting destroyed T-34´s with a chalk and getting a figure of over 100 and he was shaking his head in disbelief.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Prokhorovka

I guess this says it all: "The Battle of Prokhorovka may have been a tactical victory for the Wehrmacht, but was not an operational victory. A great number of Soviet tanks were destroyed and the striking power of the 5th Guards Tank Army was temporarily degraded, but the Germans were unable to take Prokhorovka or break through into open ground."

 

What version of the T-34.The T-34 had advantage of Gun,armor and maneuverability/tread size. The Pz3 had the radio and a larger crew, the French, British and early Soviet tanks required the commander to be both assistant gunner and commander which severely limited his effectiveness. There were numerous versions of the T34; the original and then every year it was upgraded, in 1943 it had a 85mm cannon and it was changed to the Stalin tank in 1944, which was a response to the panther and tiger

 

I think we ended up discussing the Prokhorovka battle alone and the German tanks were Tigers, and Soviet tanks were t34/76 but it did not matter as the Tiger´s reach was so far that the T-34´s did not have a chance.

 

Somebody recently posted an old US Army yellowed evaluation of the Sherman vs German tanks. It was well written for its time. What it basically said was that the Sherman was the best all around tank. All factors. Reliability and service ability. Numbers. Parts...It's not all gun and armour. Unless you are a pillbox. Which means you're not really an effective tank in all realms.
How long could a t34 run/travel without maintenance compared to the Sherman etc etc.

 

Yup this makes sense, the inf + engineers would have the highest losses. I read some study of soviet defensive tactics and they improved a lot from 41 to 43. 44 it would be quite impossible to huge breakthroughs in soviet lines, esp. if you have a meager force left.

 

Read soviet studies about Sherman they weren´t impressed, compared to their own KV/T34. Also weren´t impressed with PzIII lol - however they ackloledged some things the PzIII had which missed in T34. But for faster cheaper production, most were not included in T34 afair the reading. Soviets also weren´t impressed by late war german armor, cause the quality degraded (missing raw materials). However early & middle war armor was better than soviet´s. PzIV + TigerI had good armor quality. Tiger2 and late Panthers not so much.

 

Well depends on the terrain and weather. If T34s can come close enough in great numbers it will be hairy. And T34 was fast. However in open country with good visibility Tiger (as well Panther, as well PzIV with long 75mm would take out most of T34s if crews are good - means in later war that isn´t such sure thing cause crews weren´t as good anymore)

 

The terrain meant almost everything for the Tigers and Ferdinands for "free killing". In post-Zitadelle battles the Ferdinands left took out some 450 T-34´s alone in the Orel section, and the terrain was favorable for long-distance shooting.

 

Kind of depends on who you listen to in this regard though. Some Soviets seem to have preferred them to the T-34 especially in the exploitation role. Aberdeens report on the T-34 was hardly a glowing endorsement either. See for example:
Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks
http://www.amazon.com/Commanding-Red-Armys-Sherman-Tanks/dp/0803229208/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1421780953&sr=1-1&keywords=red+army+sherman
has some reviews.

 

Geeze, the Soviets stored drum fuel on the back deck of the Sherman on cover of that book. Never seen that before. Must have been a diesel Sherman. Otherwise that could be really dangerous. lo

Also, there is something here about the design of T34 - the air filter(?) for engine was so badly designed, it may have been sabotage? ...sorry, no good at finding previous related posts here. But it was a good read.

 

Here the other view:

1. The M4A4 is undoubtedly superior to the M3, and has superior mobility and acceleration.
2. The 40 degree grade coming out of the stream can be traversed by the M4A4 tank in second gear, while the M3 tank can only traverse it in first gear.
3. The M4A4 tank has a more comfortable driver's compartment than the M3.
4. Both tanks are definitely worse compared to our T-34, and possibly even the KV.

Conclusions

1. The Chrysler tank factory is the one of the newest and largest tank factories not only in the US, but in the world. All factory equipment (machines, devices, cutting and measuring tools, valves, and internal transportation) is new, mostly produced in 1939-1942.
2. The factory is currently capable of releasing 1000 tanks monthly. This capacity is guaranteed by the company engine plant, which produces 35 tank engines daily.
3. The factory produces the M4A4 medium tank with a gasoline engine. This tank is used by the American army and is mass produced at all American tank factories capable of producing medium tanks.
   Note: the M4 medium tank is available in four modifications:
   M4A1 with a Wright air-cooled gasoline engine.
4. M4A2 with two General Motors water-cooled diesel engines.
5. M4A3 with a special 6-cylinder Ford water-cooled gasoline engine.
6. M4A4 with a 30-cylinder Chrysler water-cooled engine.

[*]The M4A4 tank is identical to the M4A2 (as well as other M4 modifications) in hull design, suspension, armament, observation devices, and communications devices.
The M4A2 is well known in the Soviet Union from previously sent documents, and all of its drawbacks are repeated on the M4A4 (high ground pressure, height, insufficient amount of vision devices, difficulty in installation and removal of components, difficulty in service, etc)
The tank's mobility (speed, maneuverability), ability to cross obstacles, and hp/ton is nearly identical to the M4A2 tank with the General Motors engine.
The M4A4 is superior to the M3, both in the engine, which works on much lower octane gas (65-70) and is water-cooled, and the mobility.
[*]Overall, thanks to a lack of experienced tank designers, the Chrysler factory is building tanks whose design and combat performance does not measure up to the potential of such a first-class tank building giant.
Engineer Sorvin.

September 7th, 1942
Washington"


http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/2014/08/chrysler-visit-and-sherman-inspection.html

Seems the only western tank the soviets really liked was the humble Valentine.


@ Poppy: The USSR used the Diesel Shermans, as the T34/KV was also Diesel.