Panzer IV vs M4

I do not think that the late Panzer IV versions were faster than a IS-2, however they were probably more agile.

 

On sloppy terrain on the Ost front especially in Ost Prussia the answer would be yes. The Stalin was heavy, although powerful it suffered the same problems as the Königstiger; it got bogged down easily due to weight disadvantage

 

I'll tell you what I positively despise about the Stalin--that anemic ammunition load! Twenty-eight rounds! Sheesh! Give me the Panther's 82 rounds (on the G model) any day.

BTW, I don't recall the ammunition load for the later Panzer IV variants (H and J). Does someone have the figures? Thanks.

Yours,
Paul

 

The Stalin had (almost exactly) the same weight as a Panther, not as many HP, but yet a remarkably better power/weight ratio than the Königstiger.

 

Maybe gunners with a sore arm from manually rotating the turret

 

Tell that to the guys who faced up to the tiger 1 that took 120+ rounds to the front armour and limped "back to base" (I'll get more details of this later...)

other accounts:

Soviet tank crewman's report preblinka 1944

Better to fire 28 rounds and know that when they penetrate, it will be all you need! Besides, if we were to think like a russian in 1944, the life expectancy of a Russian Tanker could not have been that high, not with their strategies anyhow, so why put 60 more rounds in when it's going to be wasted

 

Maybe so, Bratwurst, but I'd still feel happier and safer with 82 rounds in a Panther G than 28 rounds in a JSII--and let's not forget that not all ammo rounds a tank carries are AP; it also has to have HE rounds. And the machine guns can take out targets not worth wasting a main-gun round on.

Yours,
Paul

 

You are still underrating the IS-II.

82 shells inside your Panther, 28 shells in-side a IS-II. If you spot an IS-II 800 metres away, you might not pierce its frontal armour with your 75mm gun. But if the IS-II shoots accurately at you just ONCE, an AP 122mm shell fired from 800 metres...

You and your crew in your Panther are more than dead.

Besides, the IS-II might not break down as much as your Panther.

And just a thought about the Tiger II. According to my book on the tank, I discovered how technologically advanced and how good it was. It was not only the armour, the gun and the excellent optics. But even if it weighed 70-tons it had a lower pressure on the ground than the Sherman and a slightly lower silhoutte. And of course, 38 Kilometres per hour on a motorway, for a 70-ton thing!

Of course it wasn't a Blitzkrieg tank, but certainly not bad at all.

Its only major flaw was that it caused problems to engineers and transport men...

 

But I happen to think that a worthwhile ammo load for sustained combat is a good idea, Friedrich. The idea of going into combat with a limited amount of ammo is rather revolting.

Thanks for reminding me of the value of camouflage and proper positioning; also sheer cunning. I'll remember that next time I'm playing Panzer Commander and am faced with Stalins ...

Yours,
Paul

 

Just use them the way they were intended to be used: The IS 2 is a support vehicle for the T-34's. It should be using long-range fire to "shoot in" the T-34's onto their objective. The idea should be to give the Germans a delimma. If you engage the IS 2's the T-34's overrun you and you lose. If you shoot up the T-34's the IS-2's shoot you up and you lose. It's hard to remember that your objective was initially to drain the swamp when you are up to your a#$ in alligators.
In this mode, the 28 round ammo supply onboard a IS 2 isn't that big a problem as the crew can take careful aimed fire from long range rather than shoot as quickly as possible trying to get in the first round.

 

T.A. is more than right!

Again tactics come to make almost every technicism irrelevant!

 

Let's not forget the value of training, as well as tactics. Although individual Tiger and Panther crews could rack up huge scores at times--especially against the tactically more inept Soviets--there were just too few of them to stem the tide, and besides, even if the Allies (east and west) had numbers on their side, it wasn't just numbers that won the war. There were experts, forged in the crucible of battle, riding in Shermans and T-34s, too, not just in Tigers and Panthers.

Yours,
Paul

 

Oh no...I'm ducking outa this discussion... T.A. and Herr Generale are talking about carrying Ammo and tactics again!

Yes Herr Generale, the panther is still the best tank in my mind although, as you so rightly point out, the number of breakdowns these lovely creatures had were astonishing, engines catching fire, suspension; it has taken the shine off them a bit for me I suppose the 84 rounds are there for when the bloody thing breaks down and has to act as a pillbox

 

Indeed, the Italians had marvellous tanks, if only they had used the right tactics!

 

Sence when has PzIV been a Panther and a M4 a Stalin. PLZ tell me when this happened

 

I just finished reading Willi Fey's book, "Armor Batlles of the Waffen SS 1943-45," and have never even heard of so many "lop-sided" battle accounts...especially with the battle for Kurstin and fighting in/around Berlin with KoenigsTigers against T-34's and JS II's......???Where exactly can I find any statistical ratio's (i.e. - kill ratio's) of German vs. Russian and Western Allied forces armor battles???

 

here´s something on the eastern front:

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/prod.htm

 

suggest finding the book Tradgodie of the Faithful by Wilhem Tieke through JJF pubs in Canada. The book is also known in the original German. Has some materials on the SS Schwere Panzer Abt. 503 actions besides Will Feys book. Also Wilhelm Tieke's little book on Korps Steiner " Nachträge zu den Truppengeschichten" Nordland-Nederland.

In the case of 1945 battles on the Ost front it is still quite a forgetful time. many of the kills of the Wehrmacht/W-SS still cannot be confirmed as many of the vets were KIA and records were destroyed. But there is no doubt in my mind having a good vet friend serve in the Ost that the fighting was brutal......with no quarter given.

 

Thanks Kai...just printed a buncha stuff!

 

This wold lead us to the extreme... but remember that Italian armoured divisions with German and good Italian junior officers under Rommel performed quite well in North Africa.

And with adequate tactics and leaderships, even with lousy tanks, 350.000 Italians could have smashed 30.000 British and the Greek Army.