T-34

Again, Sarco, you are a very funny man.

 

If the Germans had not produced the Tiger / Panther, they would have been faced with overwhelming numbers of Soviet tanks that were markedly superior to the PzIV.
Not a good situation. In 1941 they did so well as:
a) much Soviet armour was inferior (BT-7, etc)
b) far better tactics

the same story holds true for Western Europe in 1940, although the French tanks were mostly very good.

By 1942/3, the Soviets had anb alarming number of T-34 and KV-1 tanks, both better than the Pz.IV. They were also becoming tactically far smarter.
What was needed was a tank superior to everything the Soviets had.

Without the Tiger & Panther, the Soviets could well have been in Berlin before D-Day happened.

 

Ok, lets see..

T-34 was already in use in 1941, otherwise Germany could not have copied it for creating Panther, I hope we both agree on that. Now back to argument wether Germany needed a tank "superior" to T-34.

What exactly in your opinion is role of a tank in a war? I am not sure what you intend it for, but according to Guderian himself and entire military doctrine of blitzkrieg it was to "spearhead deep breakthroughs" precisely that occured in 1941-42 when tank armies would break thru Soviet lines and encircle them. Worked absolutely beautifully I may add. Standing ovation.

Now, how could heavy, unreliable and most of all inefficient Tigers and Panthers spearhead any breakthrough? The fuel supply alone would have limited their range. I am not even beginning to speak about tactical difficulties with crossing rivers (not many bridges can hold a Tiger whereas T-IV often crossed those by ice during winter) and absolutely enormous spare part shops.

Panther and Tiger were simply too heavy, slow (in case of Tiger) and unreliable. They didn't even excel in tank vs tank battles (re: Prokhorovka) and those weren't even main concerns for a tank to face. Aviation, artillery and mines were the bane of tanks during WWII. Whereas T-IV posessed maneuvrability so needed for blitz krieg, Tigers and Panthers would have been a burden to fast advancing troops. Remember the King Tigers in Ardenne offensive? Yes, thick armor and big cannon, how did the rest of people didn't think of that! Most of those were burned by their own crews never reached combat. Stuck in mud. What a way to go.

I have not even begun talking about production. T-34 was absolutely suited for mass production. Reason it was so incredibly good isn't because it could stand toe to toe with a Tiger or Panther and win every time (honestly these duels almost never happened) but because it was so easy to produce, repair and was so reliable in field. 5th tank guard under Rotmistrov's command arrived to Kursk after about 200 miles march and went straight into the battle. 3/4th of Tigers wouldn't be able to make the march by itself much less fight the battle after that.

T-IV was excellent tank. It was an analog of Russian T-34, perhaps inferior to T-34 but it pulled its weight, was easy and most importantly CHEAP to produce. The insanenely labor intense and unreliable Tigers and Panthers you couldn't mass produce with lets say forced labor. You needed professionals.

And for what? For tank duels? How will it help you when you blow up on a mine? Or get bombed? Or anti-tank gun hits you? Or an infantryman blows up your tracks? Compare reparing T-IV and T-V r VI in field and imagine you are stuck with either. Imagine maintenance of those all the way thru Russia, imagine mud, shitty roads and old bridges.

If German army was armed with Tigers and Panthers to begin with, German columns would run out of fuel and spare parts at around Kharkov.

Yes, Tigers and Panthers were "ok" to fight from hideouts and in defensive warfare. Well masqueraded Tiger could be an "effective" tank destroyer, but so could an anti tank gun crew and they cost so much less to train, make and maintain. The defending is not what Tanks are made for. You don't win blitzkrieg in defense, you win it by once again, attacking, encircling, destroying.

What Germany needed was fast, reliable and most importantly CHEAP and easy to produce tank. T-IV was excellent for it. That is how Germany got to where it was in 1941-2. If they ever hoped to turn tides of war back, they should have sticked with it. It is no surprise that after 1943 when Germany got their "toys" they never mounted a successful offensive in the Eastern front. Why? Because those tanks are not suited for offense.

Now, imagine in 1941 Germans sitting in defense, waiting for Russians to advance.. so they can utilize their "defensive advantage".

As long as you forget "tank vs tank" and realise that role of a tank has nothing to do with comparing "tank dicks" you will understand and actually agree with my point.

 

Tigers (and other heavy tanks...) were actually created as a 'breakthrough tank' which would punch a hole in a heavily defended line to allow Bltzkrieg to start up...

Yes, the T-34 was around in '41, but not in huge numbers!

I'll be interested to see your evidence for this!
Early Panthers did do very badly in the Kursk offensive, but that was due mainly to mechanical faults due to a rushed development.
Tigers had a phenomonal kill ratio. Ask Lyndon. Check the 'Tiger losses' threads.

No, but I don't see how a Pz.IV is better off than a Panther in a minefield.
If anything, the Panther & Tiger are better off in many situations because of their heavier armour. Try killing a Panther with an AT rifle!

Actually yes, they did need this!

All of your arguments have actually been discussed before in other threads...

 

Tanks need not be designed for engagements with other tanks? Tank fights not happening very often? Oh brother. America tried this with the Sherman. It was designed as an Infantry fighter right from the start. Within a year they started updating it for combat with other tanks.

 

Sarco,

60,000 T34s were produced during WW2. How many were left after Berlin in 1945? Mmmmmm that's right, just a few thousand. 'Something' must have been knocking them out! Were they just beemed up by Scotty?

In contrast around 6,000 Panthers and 1850 Tigers were produced. THAT'S why the Soviets won. Sheer force of numbers, not any superiority in design technology. The Germans had a marked technological superiority in tanks from 1943 onwards, not just against the Soviets but also against the western Allies, but they just couldn't build them in sufficient and telling quantities. In fact for every Tiger ko'd by the enemy, the Tiger despatched TEN enemy tanks. That is a fact whether you like it or not..

You want to know how many Soviet tanks were destroyed in the heavy fighting in southern Russia in the winter of early 1944? Circa 7,000 Soviet against 2,500 German and the Tigers and Panthers had a VERY high kill ratio in this period. Schwere Panzer Regiment Bake alone (mixed group of Tigers and Panthers) accounted for 267 Soviet tanks in 5 days for the loss of ONE Tiger and THREE Panthers near Balabanowka. Ever heard of that?

 

Ehh..

There is huge difference between Russian figures and German ones. Trust me, more than few thousands of T-34's reached Berlin. How many of J.Tigers were stuck in the mud during Ardennes offensive? Convenient to forget isn't it?

Tank vs. tank battles. Prokhorovka comes to mind. Note, we are talkig HEAVY tanks going against MEDIUM tanks. Mere fact that Russian design medium tanks were able to win the battle, should point to you that Heavy tanks are highly ineffective.

Yes, I will repeat again, Tank vs. Tank duels were quite rare during WW2, main source of tank losses were mines, aircraft and antitank artillery. How is T-IV less vulnerable to mine than TV or VI? Quite simple, its cheaper and much easier to repair.

If you want purely tank vs tank comparison, why not compare Tiger to IS 2? T VI loses by every single parameter so does T V. The reason why Soviet Union did not halt production of T-34 and replaced it with IS 2 was precisely because T -34 was a better tank. No, it didn't have a bigger gun and thicker armor (IS 2 did) it didn't have longer kill range (IS 2 did), it was simply best tank for the job. IS 2 was worse tank than T-34 simply because T-34 was "perfect" tank for the job. It has just big enough gun, just thick enough armor, was reliable and easy to maintain and repair. In a fight it was a tough challenge regardless of opponent.

Yes, "SOME" Tiger crews had remarkable kill ratios. What you forget however, is that Tiger crews were formed from the "best" expirienced crews. T-34 was in same class as T-IV, the Guard regiments (hi 5th Guard) did remarkably well against Tigers and Panthers. Less expirienced regiments had higher losses. That is natural and speaks more about expirience of the crew than about quality of the tank. IS 2 could move thru T-IV's with ease, hell KV-1 was literally invulnerable to German tanks in 1941, it didn't make them good tanks.

You know, you could also compare BT-7 to Tiger. Comparison IMO still would be against Tiger. In any theater Germany has ever had any kind of success, they owed success to mobility and maneuvrability. Be it Rommel or Paulus or von Manstein they won because of speed. Tiger and whole concept of the few expensive and labor intense complicated and unreliable tanks was the reason Germany lost the tank war.

The small amount of Tigers and Panthers produced was because they were so damn labor intesive and expensive. If instead of 1 tiger/panther Germany produced 2-3 T IV's perhaps improved and modified, they would be far far far better off. So yeah, Tiger was a crappy tank and so was Panther. T-IV was better than either. Don't listen to me, look what tanks brought Germany success and what tanks brought it defeat.

 

Sarco
You appear to me making a lot of statements, without anything to back them up.

First of all, on the topic of tank superiority - in a tank vs. tank engagement, the T-34/76 was superior to all German tanks at the beginning of Barbarossa.
By the time the Pz.Kpfw. III lg. arrived in significant numbers, the German army had a very which could present an actual threat to the T-34/76 and KV-1, and was spoken fondly of by the Panzer-Divisionen. With the arrival of the Pz.Kpfw. IV lg., the situation improved even further in tank vs. tank engagements.[1] There are many combat reports from such engagements, even though combatting was generally perceived as and better left to Panzerabwehr (later Panzerjäger) units.[2]

By the arrival of the Tiger Ausf. E and Panther, the T-34/76 was hopelessly out-gunned and out-armoured. The T-34/85 fared better, even though it is all in all technically better comparable to the Pz.Kpfw. IV lg. than the Panther. The Tiger Ausf. E didn't have as strong frontal armour or as powerful a gun anti-tank wise as the Panther. Still, it was technically superior to the T-34/76, and could out-range the T-34/85 by quite a good margin.[3]
The German qualitative superiority in equipment couldn't make up for the Russian quantitative superiority. Furthermore, the change of lucky wasn't brought about because the German army switched to the Tiger and Panther - by the time the Tiger was introduced en masse, Stalingrad, along with the 6. Armee, had been lost - the Panther wasn't evne introduced until Kursk, where it (despite generally flattering reports) took heavy casualties, generally because of bad luck and poor leadership.[4]

The Tigers could definately spearhead an assault, though. One example would be Kursk, where the Tigers of Panzer-Grenadier-Division Großdeutschland and SS-Panzer-Regiment 1, 2 and 3 spearheaded the attack of the southern pincer. By the time the operation was called off, the advance has been succesful enough for Manstein to request that the attack was upheld, and the four units had lost only three Tigers in total - one from each SS-Panzer-Regiment. The two other units employing Tigers (schwere Heeres Panzer-Abteilung 503 and 505) lost 4 and 6 respectively, making the total of lost Tigers during Kursk 13.[5, 6, 8]

Regarding unreliability, out of the 774 Tiger Ausf. E's lost on the Eastern Front, 403 were known combat losses, 161 were unknown and 210 were knnown non-combat losses. Out of these 210, only 12 were lost due to mechanical failure and only five were lost due to lack of fuel.[7]

The Pz.Kpfw. IV was slower and less agile than the Panther and Tiger. Its action radius was smaller than the Panthers and was only 15 kilometers longer than the Tiger Ausf. E's on road.

Regarding the Ardennes, the total losses of both Tiger I's and Tiger II's within units involved in the battle from until 1945-01-15 was 19. Out of these, at least four and no more than eight were Tiger I's.[8]

As for the JS-2, I'm not interested in going into a discussion on detailed technical specifications, however one important factor is the gun. The German 7,5 cm Kw.K. 41 L/70 is comparable to the Russian 122 mm. A-19 Model 1931-1937 in penetration, but has a much faster loading time.[3]

You are also mistaking that the TIgers were always equipped with the best crews - many crews which were given Tigers had received nothing but basic training, especially later during the war.

I would also like to know how Germany could have produced and fielded 2-3 Pz.Kpfw. IV's for each Tiger or Panther.

Sources
1. Thomas L. Jentz. 1996. Panzertruppen Vol. 1, Atglen: Schiffer Publishing Ltd., 287p.
2. Len Deighton. 2000. Blitzkrieg, Edison: Castle Books, 295p.
3. Lorrin Rexford Bird and Robert D. Livingston. 2001. World War II Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery, Albany: Overmatch Press.
4. Thomas L. Jentz. 1996. Panzertruppen Vol. 2, Atglen: Schiffer Publishing Ltd., 300p.
5. Thomas L. Jentz & Hilary Doyle. 1993. New Vanguard - Tiger I Heavy Tank 1942-45, Oxford: Osprey Publshing Ltd., 48p.
6. Mark Healy. 1993. Campaign Series - Kursk 1943, Oxford: Osprey Publshing Ltd., 96p.
7. Ron Klages. 2002. Trail of the Tigers, Mukilteo: Ronald E. Klages.
8. Thomas L. Jentz. 1997. Germany's Tiger Tanks - Tiger I & Tiger II: Combat Tactics, Atglen: Schiffer Publishing Ltd., 175p.

 

You simply have the wrong data?

The range of Tiger similar to T-IV? how about half of that? Panther with similar range used double the fuel, which is effectively pretty much half the range as well. With crosscountry speed of 10km/h Tiger could lead breakthroughs may be in wild dreams, but not in much else.

The correct info is widely available on the net, would you like me to dig you the links? I dont mean to sound snotty, but you seem to get your facts from fantasy books rather than actual documents.

How could they field 2 T-IV for each Panther/Tiger? Well, purely resourcewise, each Tiger or Panther used about double the metal tha T-IV did and about 3x the manhours to build. You switch resources/manpower from producing Tigers/Panthers and produce T-IV. That sounds easy enough? Fuelwise the ratio is roughly 2:1 as well, so each 2 T-IV would consume just about same amount of fuel that Tiger or Panther would.

Now, lets discuss reliability/failure rate, according to your own post, roughly third of the losses were due to mechanical problems for Tiger E. I am guesstimating they werent lower for P and definetely were higher for Panther, that brings us to about 1/2 or more of all losses were due to technical failures. T-IV was remarkably reliable by German standards if you have numbers I would appreciat them, but I would be surprised if those were more than 1/10th lost to mechanical failures.

There, you just got yourself 3 working T-IV's for each Tiger I (P or E) or Panther ever produced that actually made it to the battlefield in the Eastern Front.

 

Christian,

The Tiger I actually had better 'all round protection' than the Panther. The Panther had comparitively weak side, and rear armour compared to the Tiger I and the Tiger I's gun had better accuracy and better armour penetration at 2,000 to 3,000 metres plus(I believe) which was common on the eastern front. Also the Tiger I had a FARRRRRRRRRRRRRR better HE round round than the Panther which was ALWAYS useful in day to day combat. All in all all the Tiger I was superior in actual combat to the Panther in my honest opinion.

It mattered not that the Panther's frontal armour and anti tank gun was 'marginally' superior to the Tiger I. Everything the Tiger I came up against was inferior to it and it's 100mm front plate was NEVER penetrated more easily then the Panther's sloped glacis. There is no eveidence to suggest otherwise. BOTH were almost proof against enemy armour and BOTH guns were equally as effective in combat.

The Panther had MINOR advantages over the Tiger in 'some' aspects but the Tiger had MAJOR advantages over the Panther in others.

 

Re: You simply have the wrong data?

I have read most of your posts Sarco, and you do sound rather snotty whether you mean it or not. Perhaps you should tone it down a bit. Christian has given you solid arguments backed up by good sources, I think he deserves a more respectful response than you have managed to cook up. What do you mean by fantasy books btw ? That they don´t exist at all ? Or that they don´t represent facts ?

This sentence actually explains a lot. I´m sure correct info is available on the net. The problem is that you wouldn´t recognize it unless you had other sources available as well, like books. Most of the info you´ll find on the net is either simplified or downright wrong.

 

Sarco
I mis-read the information on the range, however the Tiger did have a range on road of 195 km. and 110 km. cross-country. This would mean that the Tigers at Kursk could potentially reach their target without having to refuel.

The Tigers cross-country speed was 15-20 km./h., not ten.

Your conversion for the Pz.Kpfw. IV to the Panther or Tiger doesn't hold. You only measure by wieght. You need to measure by a number of different factors, such as

• Raw material usage (not final product weight) and availability
• Subcomponent usage and availability
• Logistic capacity
• Crews needed
• Ammunition and fuel needed

You will, for example, use almost as many ball bearings for a Tiger as for a Pz.Kpfw. IV. This was one subcomponent in dire need in Germany. You will also need as many optics and crew members for a Tiger as for a Pz.Kpfw. IV. You would also need a greater logistic capacity to transport two or more tanks with crew and ammunition to the front.

As for my post, if you read it carefully, I wrote that out of 613 vehicles lost for known reasons, 17 were lost because of mechanical failure or fuel shortage - that's less than three percent. I don't kow where you get the 'P' vehicle or Panther failure rates from. You then go on to make more guesses in your post regarding Pz.Kpfw. IV reliability.

It would be nice if you would present some sources to back up your claims. I would also be delighted to see some of your sources. Please do list them!

Lyndon
I do know that the Tiger had better side armour, that's why I wrote frontal armour only . The frontal armour was quite important for tank survivability.
I also know that the HE capacity was better f the 8,8 cm than the 7,5 cm, which is why I wrote anti-tank wise. This is a post about armour vs. armour, after all...

I do rate the Tiger Ausf. E and Panther about equal tank-fighting wise, however my personal oppinion is that the Panther is favoured slightly. In the end, the tanks were designed for two different purposes, and thus the advantage will usually go to whomever is on the home court. The difference isn't larger than it would be amply be made up for by whichever tank has the best crew, though.


Skua
Thanks for the support. I have made some interesting observations on the Internet over the years - people who talk about sources a lot, namely other peoples sources, are usually those with the worst sources of their own. I guess you could call it projection

The Internet is definately filled with a big load of rubbish, however many people take it for gospel. I suspect this is why extremist groups (of all kinds) gain an increasingly good hold on the youth - source critisism is nowhere to be found in school, or society in general. Of course, the type of reporters and journalists out there aren't doing a good job promoting this in the first place, so this may be an additional reason.

 

Yes, the Internet is a festering pit of lies and deciete. With the shining golden and holy exception of Achtung Panzer, of course. :roll:

 

Actually, the are noumerous errors on Achtung - Panzer ! - some of them quite serious. I could probably find the first half dozen or so in five minutes time...

 

Christian,

You are quite right as always.What you have said is correrct. However I feel the power advantage of the Panther's anti tank gun and frontal armour was minimal and there was actually no 'noticable' difference on the actual battlefield between the Panther's gun and frontal plate than the Tiger. The enemy couldn't tell the difference as BOTH tanks were awesome and the Tiger's frint plate was still a tough nut to crack. NO enemy tank up to mid 1944 was able to counter EITHER tank really (when they were used properly) so it really didn't make much difference and the Tiger really was stronger 'all round'. An anti tank gun on the flanks that would take out a Panther would more often than not FAIL to do the same to the Tiger. That's why the Tiger has the reputation it does. It was a big old box on wheels that was almost invulnerable from most sides in normal combat conditions, especially in the east with those long range encounters.

Like I said at very long range the Tiger's 88 L/56 seemed to be superior in anti tank penetration to the Panther's 75mm L/70. The Panther had an advantage under 2,000 metres but the Tiger's gun caught up at around that range I belive and improved upon it between 2,000 and 3,000 metres. I think it was superior all round considering it's HE capability too and it was well capable of knocking out any enemy tanks at ranges which the Panther could do.

 

Re: Ehh..

How many T34s did the Soviets have by May 1945?Please,tell me. I'd like figures and the model types. Thanks.

As for J.Tigers in the Ardennes actually very few Jagdtigers took part in that operation to begin with and operations of Jagtigers there are sketchy. Neither 653 or 512 were involved in the Ardennes offensive.No more than a handful of J.Tigers took part in it.You tell ME how many J.Tigers were stuck in the mud during the Ardennes because I can't find any documented evidence of this. :lol:

As for your other nonsense about Tigers and Panthers not excelling in tank v tank engagements or that these encounters didn't happen often anyway well I won't even bother to grace you with a reply to that as it's so ridiculous.

 

Sarco,

The first time a Tiger I met a IS-2. Tarnopol, April 1944. Notice the big hole the 88mm round made in the turret front?? Perhaps the Tiger managed to get in this shot while the IS-2 crew was messing about with that slow two part ammunition? (Which the IS-2 wasn't able to carry very much of anyway.) .

 

Re: Ehh..

Sarco,

Here is another view just in case you missed it the first time.

 

dang
and all that damage from one shot! :kill:

 

Likewise the Tiger Is proved able to cope with spearheading the advance of the German relief attempt on the Cherkassy-Korsun pocket in Feb 1944 despite atrocious weather conditions alternating between mud and snow. The armoured relief columns punched a hole through very powerful Soviet formations and got close enough for the encirled troops to break out and meet them.

This picture is typical of the conditions which the Tigers managed to overcome.