T-34

Back for a few.

Do I really have to dig out photos of burning Tigers?




Unless of course you will come back claiming those were cardboard makets that Russians made up for propaganda reasons.

OK, lets look at resources. How much more manhours would Panther's cooling system take to assemble? I am by no means working on a paper to investigate German's tank production during WW2, but since I have had general interest in the subject I was curious. One source said that by manhours alone, Panther was about 2x as labor intense and by qualified labor was about 20x as labor intense.

Fantasy books. Well, most of those "heroic exploits of the Tiger crews" are just that. Fantasy. After 1943 Germany was on the run, thus there was usually no way to verify or confirm any "kill" claims by German tank crews, thus unless there is verifyable Russian source or you can provide names of regiments and back it up with Soviet reports of losses, I would be highly skeptycal of those reports. After all, they could claim they killed 20000 T-34's and 300000 IS-2s and there would be no one to go back and check.

Now, back to your "sources". Where did you dig info that the loading time of IS-2 was slower than that of Tiger? That one made me smile, because I actually know where it comes from. It has absolutely no relevance to how fast actual gun could be loaded, aimed and fired. It is based on assumption that since IS-2 shell was heavyer, it would take longer for tanker to load. Note an ASSUMPTION. It had no relevance to actual rate of fire of either tank in reality.

I am surprised neither of you actually adressed the main point I was attempting to make, the reliability of Tanks as part of their projected "effectiveness" on battle field, but I guess it isn't a factor after all. Your arguments honestly remind me fantasy football, i.e. pure stats taken out of context with reality and argued upon. Could at least get the stats right in that case.. heh.. longer loading times..

 

Sarco,

Nice SIDE penetration of a KT turret when I gave you a FRONTAL turret penetration on a IS-2 from a Tiger I.

YOU are the one who said the IS-2 was superior in every parameter to the Tiger. I never said the Tiger was invulnerable or could never be defeated. Of course it could when faced with overwhelming numbers which was ALL the Soviets had that told the difference. I just pointed out that Tigers could just as much despatch IS-2s as vice versa. The IS-2 WASN'T superior in every parameter to the Tiger I. You are aware of the slower firing rate, the small ammunition capacity, the inferior sighting and accuracy range of the IS-2's gun? The Tiger I was more accurate at long ranges than the IS-2 was. Many stories of IS-2s consistently missing their targets at long range exist.

IS-2 = very good tank but still not superior to the Tiger I nevermind the Tiger II.

After 1943 Germay was 'on the run'? Is that why it took a good year and a half to defeat her from BOTH sides? 'On the run'? I don't think so.

I ask you again, give me numbers and models of T34s that were available in May 1945. How many out of the 60,000 produced? I have asked you this before. Also please tell me how many Jagdtigers were 'stuck in the mud' during the Ardennes?

 

Sarco,

I actually think that the T34 was an excellent tank from 1941 to 1942/43 and a very good tank for the rest of the war. The T34/85 wasn't as good against the new generation of German tanks as you supposed.

I think that the IS-2 was also an excellent tank in 1944 and 1945 despite it's severe shotcomings. It could deal with most German tanks easily except Panther, Tiger and King Tiger. It was still vulnerable to these so it wasn't superior. Check out the battle around Tirgul Fromus in Romania in May 1944. The Panthers and Tigers of Grossduetschland DECIMATED the IS-2s there.

However, just because the IS-2 was generally a good tank that doesn't stop the Panther from being an excellent tank. The late Panther G became the best all round tank of WW2 while the Tiger I and especially the later King Tiger could manage to beat any enemy tank head on at good range (including the IS-2). The King Tiger was almost invulnerable head on and at this late stage in the war the role it played suited it down to the ground. None of this 'breakthrough' must have applied to the KT through much of it's combat life as it was more often than not mostly in defensive roles.

 

Re: Back for a few.

No, facts as in ...........THE GERMANS DESTROYED FAR MORE SOVIET TANKS IN WORLD WAR TWO INCLUDING THE LATTER HALF OF THE WAR THAN VICE VERSA.

Simple really when you come down to it.

How many Soviet soldiers were killed? How many German? Add them up and you'll get a consistency here also. Not saying it's great or whatever. Just saying those are the facts and you should take not of them. The Soviets won through sheer numerical superiority.

 

Sarco
I asked for pictures of Tigers destroyed at Kursk. Those Tiger II's were destroyed much later than this.

In either case, just because it could be destroyed doesn't make it inferior to everything.

With regards to fantasy books, I find it interesting that while I quote books by authors widely respected in the World War II community, you qoute nothing. The German were quite strict on claims, so a kill had to be confirmed by someone else before it counted.

As for reloading times, the 122 mm. U-11 had a practical rate of fire of 2-3 shots per minute. That of the 122 mm. D-25T and 122 mm. D-25S was 1.2-2.5 rounds per minute.
This is according to the usually (on Russian tanks) very accurate Russian Battlefield, pointing to The artillery armament of the Soviet tanks 1940-1945, Armada #4, 1999 as its source. Perhaps you can come up with something better?
Also, if this is wrong, then perhaps you can tell me how to load ammunition which is two-part and heavier, in a smaller turret, faster than ammunition which is one-part, leighter and in a larger turret?

Also, I didn counter you argument, by giving you the percentage of Tigers lost due to breakdowns compared to the total amount.

Basically, you are wrong whenever you write something, and you don't even provide any sources to back yourself up.

 

Where? And why is it wrong?

So, what is the rate of fire for an IS2?

Well, surely the weight of a round is one factor. I'm sure you could reload a 40mm gun far quicker than an 88mm, simply because the shell is so much 'handier'.
What do you see as a realistic set of criteria governing rate of fire?

 

Going back a bit...

Just suppose, for a moment, that Germany somehow finds the resources (ballbearings/copper/etc), the manpower, and the logistics network to build, supply and maintain 3 Pz.IVs instead of every Tiger & Panther actually built.

So... around 6,000 Panthers and 1850 Tigers were produced. Which works out at around 23,550 Pz.IV tanks. Say 24,000 to be generous, to allow for the time/effort wasted on prototypes, plus a bit extra. Plus the 8,600 built anyway - so 32,600 Pz.IVs.

The Soviets produced 60,000 T-34s.
And a lot of KV-1 tanks.
And the Americans produced huge numbers of Shermans, so say 1/6 of the Pz.IVs (5,400ish) go west to fight them.

The T-34, and KV-1 were, we all agree, generally superior to the Pz.IV.

Problem.

So, now we have Germany launching offensives against an enemy with both qualitative and quantative superiority. Oh, and with greater air cover (as 75% of Luftwaffe fighters were in Western Europe - thanks CheekyMonkey!).

Now, Western Europe in 1940 (especially France) could be argued as having quantative & qualitative superiority. However, they were tactically obsolete, having their armour distributed in small quantities, and paid the price. Due to the smaller size of France (compared to the USSR!) by the time a counter could have been thought up the British had been pushed into the Channel and the French had lost the ability/equipment/initiative/space to respond. Plus, they lacked air superiority.

In Russia, the Germans had made their customary lightning advance, faced with a huge enemy with obsolete tactics and obsolete equipment. PzIII vs. BT-7? Bf109 vs. MiG3?

However, the USSR has space. The German attack only got as far as Moscow (in the Centre/North) before winter. Had the USSR been France-sized - war over.
Space buys time.
Time brings new equipment (T-34, for example. KV-1. Neither especially 'new' to late 1941, but now available in mass quantities.)
Time also brings new ideas. The Soviets may not have been the equals of Henrici (all arguments to go on the topics in the 'Leaders of WW2 section please), but they knew that the old tactics of dispersed armour were getting nowhere, and that the concentration of armour was a good thing. Fight Blitzkrieg with Blitzkrieg, so to speak.

Simple equation - if your enemy has bigger numbers, you need better firepower, to reduce those numbers a touch. how do you think the Europeans conquered chunks of Africa? How the hell did us Brits conquer India? How did the UN resist the Chinese in Korea?

And let us look at the later offensives the Germans did launch without the benefit of Tigers/Panthers. The drive south-east to the Oil. It did not arrive. Stalingrad was, um, a mild setback.
Would it be any different with Tigers involved?
A good question for the 'what-if' lovers.
A tank with heavier armour and a bigger gun available to punch through defenses?

Draw your own conclusions!
:smok:

 

I don't agree that the Pz.Kpfw. IV lg. was inferior to the T-34. It was superior to the T-34/76 and comparable to the T-34/85.

 

Christian,

But I would say that the armour of the PZ IV, even though it's gun was excellent, wasn't as good as the T34.

I think I would have rather been in a T34/85 than any variant of the PZ IV and I'm a big German armour fan.

 

Ricky,

I like your points. You've hit the nail squarely on the head. That's surely the last word on the subject that no Tigers and Panthers would have meant more PZ IVs and that somehow that would have benefited the German armour forces. Clearly it wouldn't have. I argue that the Panthers and Tigers were some of the main reasons why Germany was able to put up such a hard fight and destroy so much enemy armour when she was being squeezed from all sides. Without the Panthers and Tigers it would have been an easier drive to Berlin. After all, by the time the Panther was properly introduced (not including Zitadelle which was a bit too premature for it's baptism) and the Tiger was being used in more numbers, Germany was already on the defensive in the east. These tanks helped to slow the enemy down for two whole years. It wasn't THEIR fault the pendulum swung in favour of the Soviets. Imagine if the Panther and Tiger were both introduced one year before in early and mid 1942 when Germany had easily the upper hand? Something worth thinking about.

 

Still, both tanks could destroy each other at any normal combat range frontally, however the superiority of German optics would usually allow for the Pz.Kpfw. IV to fire sooner.

Christian

 

Yep, definately I would agree with the superiority of the optics and the PZ IV's gun. I can't argue with that at all.

Both Panzer IV and T34 were also the basis for excellent tank destoyers too lets not forget. I think the SU 85/100 and the Jagdpanzer IV were quite fantastic.

 

One thing that has to be kept in mind about the huge Soviet tank losses is that much of this was due to the superior training of the German panzer crews. The Russian tankers learned on the job, with far too many failing to survive the first lesson.

 

Was busy...

anyways, hi! Here is a good source of specific Kursk photos:
http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/wwii/ ... age_10.htm

I believe there are quite a few burning Tigers there. Also, are there any photos of those "200 T-34s"? Or at least number of regiment that lost 200 tanks? I mean its a tank army for crying out loud. I would like to see if I can find info of Soviet Tank army vanishing into thin air after 1943.

Now back to debate of "T-IV vs T-V/VI".
I think 40.000 T-34's is much more realistic number. KV-1 as well as 2 were just what Tigers were, big gun and thick armor. They were scrapped precisely because they were too unreliable to actually use them.

Production, if I remember correctly, the technological superiority of T-34 production wise was the cast hull. Germans had to go thru much more labor intense technologies.

OK, so 40.000 T-34's vs 34.000 T-IV's. KV-1 was never really a factor and was generally a shitty tank. Of course it had thick armor and big gun (relatively for its time).

Even if we count 60.000 of T-34's we have to realise that first of all, many of those were produced in 1944-45 and thus the absolute number superiority was achieved, as Red Army pushed forth and so did allies with bombing of German factories and etc. but I am arguing the point that:
1. Had Germany relied on T-IV rather than changed horses midstream it would be able to if not reverse at least halt Russian advance, well at least slow it down enough with counter attacks.
2. If Red Army did not liberate soviet territory in 1944 and invaded Eastern Europe, Allies wouldn't have landed in Normandy.

Also, generally after Kursk battle we see only movement backwards thus most damaged tanks or abandoned ones (huge percentage, read that battlefield article where pretty much half King Tigers were simply abandoned) are lost beyond recovery. If you have enough armor /fuel to launch successful counter attacks, you can either recover/repair tanks in field conditions (case with T-34's) or at least use them for spare parts. That cuts your effective losses even further.

Now, T-IV was much easier to repair and maintain in field conditions. If it was stuck in mud, it was much easier to drag it out, if it fell into the marsh, you could have a chance to pull it out. If it blew up on a mine, you could get it out. I dont mean to suggest that light tanks were best of German armor because they were light or that if you could carry tank out of mud on your arms it was the best ever. I am saying that overall, all around, T-IV was best compromise ever. Reliable, efficient, easy to repair, tenacious in fighting and most of all expendable.

The hole in frontal armor of JS-2. What was the distance from which it was hit? What were the circumstances? Look back at that website, at least it wasnt abandoned because it was STUCK IN THE MUD.

Once again, 32.000 T-IV's vs 40.000 T-34's is much more even match than 40.000 T-34's vs less than 20.000 of combined T-IV', V, VI.

 

Sarco
I looked through all the photographs on those 16 pages - not a single photograph of a destroyed Tiger! You are yet to back up your false claim!

Also, do you have any information to back up your claim of 40,000 T-34's at the wars end?

As for abandonned Tigers, only 25 are known cases where a Tiger had been lost because it was abandonned on the eastern front.

You also keep talking about vehicles getting stuck in the mud, yet can't come up with any information to substatiate this.

I hope that the forum administration will forgive me for saying this, but you are a joke.

 

This is interesting.
Any reasoning behind this?

 

The Allied high command started planing the landing in France in 1941.
This had nothing to do with the Soviet Union's victories,because at that time there simply weren't any!

 

A single KV-1 apparently held up the German advance at Ostrov for 2 days, destroying:
7 tanks
1 AT battery
1 88mm AA gun (+ crew!)
4 'Hanomag' halftracks
12 trucks

It was finally knocked out by an 88mm gun, which was the only available weapon in 1941 that could destroy a KV-1 at useful ranges. (the 105mm howitzer could immobilise it).
So surely, if you are invisaging a situation where the Germans are on a continued offensive, such a tank is very useful?

Yes, there was the unfortunate mechanical problems (a half to three-quarters or more of losses were apparently due to breakdowns etc), but given the industrial capacity of the USSR, and the expected lifespan of weaponry in an army on the defensive, would that have ben a worry?
And surely it was not 'scrapped', but replaced with the IS series of tanks...

This is fun!

 

The KV-I did have some mechanical troubles, but no more than the T-34 had to begin with. The biggest flaw it had compared to the T-34, at least from a tactical point of view, was its slower speed. It also lacked some of the agility of the T-34, but it stayed in service right up to the end of the war. Production, however, ended in 1943.

 

The KV I S was introduced in late summer 1942. This was a slightly lighter version of the KV I and was faster. However, it wasn't a total success and production stopped less than a year later. It's running gear and chassis were the basis for the KV 85 which in turn led to the IS-I and IS-2.

The KV I S had a redesigned turret, rear engine deck and lighter tracks. At 42 tons, it was 5 tons lighter than the KV I model 1942.

By the way, I am still interested in the numbers of T34s around at the end of WW2.