Your favorite Russian tank

I am told :bang: that it was a :bang: copy of something Italian. :bang:

And what's :bang: with all the " :bang: ", anyway. :bang: :bang:

 

:bang: why :bang: are :bang: we :bang: shooting :bang: each :bang: other :bang: like :bang: this :bang: ?


oh well


:bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:


On a serious note, my favorite Russian tank from World War 2 is probably the IS-3, if it can qualify as a WW2 tank : .

The T-18 might not have been the best but atleast its in the top aesthetic spot!

:smok:

 

The KV-IIB would definetly be my favorite Rusky tank if i liked rusky tanks but i don't like them at all.... !

 

T-34/85 is my favorite Soviet tank. Good all around.

 

Upon further review:

The USA, Britain and Canada supplied the USSR with around 22,800 armored vehicles of all types, of which about 2,000 (<10%) were lost on the Murmansk run. This equlaed 16% of Soviet tank production.
In 1941 over 650 tanks were shipped to the Soviets and over 5,500 were shipped in 1942.

Over the course of the war the USA alone shipped over 500,000 vehicles of all types, including more than 75,000 jeeps, more than 150,000 one ton trucks and over 200,000 two ton trucks.

 

Aaarh im not to sure about that, because Tiger's were deployed in many places during the Russian campaign, so there might just be a pretty good chance that i would run in to some Tigers or Panthers...

KBO

 

There weren't a whole lot of Tigers compared to other tanks in the German arsenal. You'd probably meet them at some point, but in the average engagement you'd be up against PanzerIVs and possible Panthers. Therefore if I would have to fight any kind of campaign I think I would prefer mobility and a reasonable amount of protection and power over massive armour and firepower at the cost of mobility.

 

Although if you were in a really successful campaign, you stood more chance of meeting Tigers, as they were used as a 'fire brigade'.

 

Well here's a funny note... There were actually more or at least as many Tiger's operational on the front during the war then there were Panthers

KBO

 

That's odd. As far as I know over 5000 Panthers were built against only 1400 Tigers. Were they so unevenly distributed?

In any case, either tank would be totally outnumbered by the amount of PanzerIVs and StuGIIIs on the line at any time and place.

 

Well the Panthers obviusly must have been abit more plaged with mechanical issues or the Tiger's were simply being put as top priority.. i dont know wich is the fact, i just know the numbers....

KBO

 

KBO,

Can you share the numbers you have? According to what I have, there were (very) roughly about 1,800 Panthers and about 450 Tigers (I & II) available per month for the last year of the war.

 

Sure will do..

Here you go, this is from Tom jentz Germany's Tigertanks- TigerI-II: Combat tactics:

Percentage Operational At The Front:

EASTERN FRONT_WESTERN FRONT

Pz IV/ Panther/Tiger_Pz IV/ Panther/Tiger/
31May44: 84/ 77/ 79/ 88/ 82/ 87
15Sep44: 65/ 72/ 70/ 80/ 74/ 98
30Sep44: 65/ 60/ 81/ 50/ 57/ 67
31Oct44: 52/ 53/ 54/ 74/ 85/ 88
15Nov44: 72/ 66/ 61/ 78/ 71/ 81
30Nov44: 78/ 67/ 72/ 76/ 71/ 45
15Dec44: 79/ 69/ 79/ 78/ 71/ 64
30Dec44: 72/ 61/ 80/ 63/ 53/ 50
15Jan45: 71/ 60/ 73/ 56/ 45/ 58
15Mar45: 54/ 49/ 53/ 44/ 32/ 36
Overall: 68/ 62/ 70/ 71/ 65/ 65


Sry about the mess, i couldnt quite get the numbers stabled right..

Regards, KBO

 

Thats weird, where did all the other Panthers go? Norway??

There were 5,000 Panthers built in WW2 while only around 1400 Tigers built. The Tiger was even built earlier than the Panther.

That is not to say i dont believe u KBO, (or ur source), but where the hell did all the other Panthers go?

 

Ah - it all seems clear to me!

That list is:

So on 31 May 1944 you have:
Eastern Front:
84% of Pz IVs operational
77% of Panthers operational
79% of Tigers operational

Western Front:
88% of Pz IVs operational
82% of Panthers operational
87 % of Tigers operational

So not more Tigers than Panthers, but a higher percentage of Tigers in operation. The figures seem to be more of an indication of reliability than anything else...

(Please correct me if I'm wrong!)

 

Yeah.. didnt i say that... Oops my bad

I stand corrected I was thinking of two intirely different things :lol:

KBO

 

I would be interested to know a little more background on these figures:
where does the percentage come from?
Is it the % of all tanks delivered to the units? (so destroyed tanks are included in the non-operational' column)
Is it the % of all tanks owned by the units & not completely destroyed? (so tanks being repaired after battle damage are 'non-operational', but destroyed tanks don't count)
Is it the maintenance records? (so tanks damaged/destroyed in battle are not even referred to)

 

The table demonstrates that the percentage of Tigers operational at the Front was about equal to the PzKpfw. IV and as good as or better than the Panther. Meaning the rest were either destroyed or damaged..

 

Ah, so it is basically a chart of what percentage of each tank was knocked out or too damaged to immediately use at that date?

Now this could cause controversy!

As to the Panther vs Tiger thing - Panthers were the new 'MBT' of the German army (well, pedantically the new medium tank, but hey!) so they were in service more-or-less continuously, as the Pz.IVs were, or the Shermans for the Western Allies, or the T-34 for the Soviets.
Tigers were heavy tanks, and only used where heavies were really required - important attacks / counter-attacks, plugging dangerous gaps in the line, etc.
Therefore they would get less total 'combat use' than a Panther.
Possibly.
IMHO.

Not sure if my argument is even worth stating - just pointing out a possible reason for such stats. The huge disparity in sample size is also an issue here. Speaking as someone who took Statistics at A-Level (and boy, I wish I hadn't! :evil: ) I would say that this disparity in sample sizes could be used to laugh off any accusations of comparative reliability - especially as the overall difference is so small.