Which tank is stronger

I stand by what I said. The Panzer IV couldn't hack it with the T-34. I say this because they ran into trouble against the limited numbers of French armor that they were able to slice to smithereens. The faults they found were just too large when stack against the T-34.

 

I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say?

Christian

 

Both with the Panzer IV and the T34 we're talking a world of difference between the common 1941 and the common 1945 version. In both cases the upgrading was vast, and both tanks ended up roughly equal, though there were some fields where one had advantages over the other. However the early Panzer IV was completely outclassed by the early T34; subsequently the late Panzer IV was designed to fight it and therefore way outclassed it in turn. Then the Soviet answer to that was the T34/85 which ended the two up equal.

 

Yes! Exactly! That was what I meant. The 1941 Panzer IV was shreaded byt the T-34/76. Tactics and training saved the Germans.

 

I was referring to the Pz.Kpfw.IV Lg., not the Pz.Kpfw.IV Kz.

Christian

 

I guess the late model panzer IV and the T-34/85 do seem about equal.

 

Panther v. T-34

Might I suggest that the "kill range" or "kill probability" be used as a measure of "better." That is, in a frontal engagement, at what range could a Panther kill a T-34? At what range could a T-34 kill a Panther? I have read and seen a number of TV programs in which Russian tankers from War II complained that they had to get within 500 meters to kill "a German tank" (type usually not specified), while the Germans could hit and kill them at 1500 meters. Were the Russian optics that inferior or was the 76.2 mm gun used on the first t-34's that inferior? From another angle (and theater), one could infer that Gen. Patton felt that American tanks should not engage German tanks at ranges in excess of 700 meters. That inference was drawn based on 1945 statement, which means, of course, that it included the 76 mm gun on the M4A3E8. And yes, you could build a lot more T-34's than Panthers with a given amount of resources.

 

Welcome to the forum, Phip.

The 76.2mm gun used on the early T34 was indeed quite inferior to any kind of late-war German armour, but the early German tanks they faced in 1941-1942 were much more easily destroyed by it. When the Germans started to field better tanks with heavier guns and more armour, the T34 itself was upgraded to carry a gun comparable in AP capability to the most common German AT gun.

Therefore the kill range of a T34 against the most average late-war German armoured vehicles would be smaller than the opponent's in the early version, but equal in the late version. The amazing ranges achieved by some German AT guns were not the standard; 75mm L/70 and 88mm guns weren't the most common German AT guns.

 

Question for Roel (and anyone else)

Does anyone know what kind of AP ammo the Russians used? The Germans used tungsten carbide for at least some models of the 50mm and 75 mm PAK; I'm not sure about the 88 mm. Also, did any German tanks have range finders? In Franz Kurowski's Panzer Aces (Vol 1) (Stackpole), several of the Germans quoted refer to "scissors telescope" or "scissors binoculars"? Were these range finders? By the way, the cited book is great.

 

The Russians mostly used solid shot, but had some APCR rounds later.
T-34 was a better "tank" than Panther by a long shot. If by "tank" we consider it as a wepons system. Panthers were practically hand built with parts from one not readily interchangeable with those on another. And price-wise? No contest. You can afford far more T-34s than you actually need to kill one Panther, for the price of that Panther.
And bear in mind that T-34 entered service in 1940! It took the Germans 3 years and having to meet the thing before they came up with something to counter the T-34.
If you look at the T-34 as a baseline vehicle where did it go? Incremental development > T-44 > T-55 > T-etc etc. One small step at a time, but look what it turned into. OK, Germany lost so Panther wasn't developed further, but what Panther feature are used these days? (Excluding the gun which the French put AMX-13).
The layout was copied, the suspension suspensionhasn't been used since...
T-34, all the way!!! :lol: :lol:
Oli

 

What do you mean by 'price'?

The Panther was used, and since copied, by the French after the war, but it seems logical that it wasn't developed further considering that the influence by main countries in arms manufactureíng came out the winner, and would have hadtochange all their plants drastically if they were to build e.g. the Panther. That doesn't mean it was a bad design, simply a different one.

But you just go get a T-34, and I'llmeet you in a Panther!

Christian

 

OK, if mine breaks down on the way to the fight I can fix it with a big hammer and sticky tape.
You'll need a team of specialist armourers.
:lol:

AFAIK the French only copied it to get there industry back into gear, look at what they did come up with - ARL44, and then AMX 50 types.
Oli

 

Ill just bomb you both :smok:
What tanks do the french use now?

 

Leclerc, beautiful piece of kit, hunter-killer sights and the "smoke dischargers" can be fitted with GALIX 40mm grenades to discourage those nasty little foreign pongoes who want to scratch your tank.
Carries a 120mm L/52 gun as standard. I want one, but my birthday was a couple of months ago.
Oli

 

To a fault, germans tended to over-engineer their tanks. Increased complexity meant increased maintanence. Panthers used a complex torsion-bar suspension ...and the interleaved road-wheels trapped mud and made wheel replacement overly-complex and time-consuming.
Russian T-34's used the Christie suspension, were in general designed to be manufactured quickly, serviced simply... and without many of the engineering queues used by german-designers.
Like the Allies, the Russians tended to concentrate on vast numbers fielded, good reliability and thus hoped to overwhelm the enemy through sheer numbers.
With all this said, I'll still take that long-barreled Panther every time.

Tim

 

AFAIK torsion bars per se are easier to manufacture and maintain than Christie. Christie suspension also takes up valuable hull width, requiring a double skin. If a suspension unit got damaged then the tank needs the hull on that side dismantling to fit a new spring. Torsion bars are external.
You'ld go with a Panther? Have the courage of your convictions and go for T-34!
I like the bit about Allies going for reliability - :lol: :lol: Crusader?? AFAIK Cromwell was the first tank we managed to build that counted as reliable (OK churchill got sorted out in the end, but most Brit tanks might as well have demonstration prototypes as far as maintainability is concerned.)
Oli

 

Pedantic quibbles...

Armour distribution.
The Pather had the vast majority of its armour on the front, with relatively weak sides & rear, and shockingly weak top.
Which, as I think you pointed out elsewhere, is similar to modern tank armour layout.

Oh, and the Valentine was probably the first reliable British tank.

 

Hmmm. The one thing Panther contributes to modern tank design: thin armour :lol: :lol: :lol:
Yup, Valentine, but it wasn't specified by the tank board was it? One up for private enterprise.
Oli

 

Id say Panther one on one but t34s were rare ly alone

 

Oli:
My impression of Russian armour is that they built exactly what was needed and nothing more. (No-frills tank design.) The maunufacturing process made best use of both materiel and labor.
They embraced the Christie design, perhaps after consulting their own, unique needs for that part of the world. If memory serves, their equipment was more robust in terms of enduring the Russian-Winter. (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here.) German tanks at the time, had problems with freezing-up, "POL" unsuited to extreme temps, etc.

Your comment, Oli:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I like the bit about Allies going for reliability - Crusader?? AFAIK Cromwell was the first tank we managed to build that counted as reliable (OK churchill got sorted out in the end, but most Brit tanks might as well have demonstration prototypes as far as maintainability is concerned.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When I referred to "Allied" tanks of course I meant the Sherman-series, and not the true "British hardware." I do like the Crusader-series tanks, even though dated, unreliable, and infamous for shedding tracks at inopportune times.
(Sorry I didn't make myself more clear.)
And I'll still take the Panther every time.

Tim