T-34

Ah yes, Tom Jentz - famous Osprey author :roll: , and Horst Scheibert who has written a lot on the subject.

I have no problem with source information, I love it. What I do not care for is when I see someone quoting things out of context trying to prove a point that has absolutely no merit when his own sources he is quoting say elsewhere in the document it is simply not true!

As far as the penetration goes, this will differ somewhat by source. So what? All one can do is what is called 'crtitical analysis' using the most commonly quoted or in instances where there are few examples, use the smaller or lesser figure.

To do otherwise is simply misleading.

So button up, lock & load!

Let's rock!

:smok:

 

Ahhh i give up... :roll: :roll:

Nomatter what sources i bring you, you just ignore them or you start critisizing them.... I give up :roll: :roll:

I cant satesfy you nomatter what..... what is it you want "Pictures" ???.......more books ?????

Anyway keep believing in whatever you want, since i cant convince you to believe in what i say.......

Regards, KBO

 

Not at all KBO.

I just call a spade a spade.

I am always interested in discussions that bring to light new or unknown facts and knowledge. There have been times I have erred on statements as well.

It is not in anyone's best interest to quote text out of context or use half truths and misleading or just plain wrong information to try & prove one's point.

If there is one thing I've learned on this BB is that there are quite a number of well read members on board.

My apologies for offending you if I did. That was not my intent.

:smok:

 

Greg I didnt get offended but i felt abit frustated....

I Just thought you didnt believe me......... :-?

But i have not made any half true facts or anything like that, so i felt frustrated over that you didnt listen to my facts and called them false........

Regards, KBO

 

And that is where I felt that you did when you talked about the 53% hit probability. It wasn't qualified in your initial post and your own source later states that engagement range for the 88 L/56 was 800-1200 meters and any hit beyond 2000 meters were considered pure luck.

:smok:

 

Awww, ain't it lovely when folks make up...

 

I was just quoting some Test results not combat results...... and the test results clearly says 53% hit probabillity at 3000m......

And the Pure luck thing is not intirely true since they said it would be
considderet Lucky hits, but infact alot of T-34's and KV-1's were destroyed beyond 2200m by the TigerI....

Regards, KBO

 

There's no point in fighting when we just kinda missunderstood each other....

Regards, KBO

 

I don't think the experienced Tiger crews would claim that!

Tiger gunners OFTEN hit the mark at 2,000 m plus.


Remember, in 1943/1944 long range engagements were the norm.

Study the eastern front and you'll find out.! :lol:

Forget the 'western' set of standards. Totally different! :lol:

 

Oh please, Lyndon!

I've studied the Eastern front probably more years than you have been alive so don't start that!

The year of the engagement does not change physics. Simple fact Lyndon: In WW2 average engagement ranges were less than 1,000 yards. If you think otherwise then I'll be the skeptic from Missouri: "Show me"!

You can site a number of examples where this was exceeded but those were not the norm and even as such, represent only a fraction of total combat engagements.

So get off the "Supreme Race" garbage. The average German soldier was no better than his opponents.

What we do find in history readings is however, that the loser is always ready to discuss the whys and why nots of his defeats. The winner is always hush hush about his own errors.

I think that is why we seem to have so much written about how great the Reich was! Simple fact - they got their head handed to them on a platter.

:smok:

 

Average engagements were around 1000 meters (for all I know ), but the average tank was the Pz.IV...

German soldiers did tend to outperform their Allied counterparts. Superior training? Superior morale / dedication? Superior equipment? I dunno, but they managed it. I would not suggest they were the 'Master Race', but they did scarily well.
I'm sure you can dig up incidents where vastly superior German forces were defeated by 3 GIs and their pet hamster, but will these be the 'average'?

 

Greg stop assuming that everytime we talk nicely about german tanks that we are Nazi's.... its really disturbing listening to.... :angry:

The facts are "German tanks by far outclassed there counterparts in both Firepower and Armor, and were about equal in Mobillity"....
The allies won partly because of airpower and because of the Russian effort.........

The TigerII was superior to any tank in everything exept mobillity....

Im just Telling it as simple as possible..........

KBO

 

Everything I´ve read suggests, allthough long range engagements were more common than in the West, that the average range of engagement on the Eastern Front was 700-800m. That ranges above 1000m or more were the norm does not sound likely in any case as, even as late as by the end of 1943, a large amont of the inventory in German armoured units still consisted of PzKpfw IIIs, short barreled PzKpfw IVs and even Pz 38s etc.

 

No one has called you a nazi. But it is obvious that you have some sort of agenda, and one might wonder why it is so important to you to prove that the German tanks were so fantastic.

I´ll guess you have to, if you should have any hope to share some of your superiour knowledge with the rest of us dopies.

And you wondered why I asked you to cool down.

 

Superior Knowledge what are you talking about...... :-? now what have i said........ Why are you provoking me...????

I didnt say anything to you, the message was ment for Greg..... not you.. i didnt say that you said those things........

And Come on... "Agenda" give me a brake.........

I just told Greg that mensioning the "Supreme Race" as if refering that Lyndon is a Nazi...wasnt the right thing to do....

So lets end this because its a never ending story.......Ok...

Regards, KBO

 

Certainly there were elite German units with superb training. There were also young boys at 12-16 years old in service. A friend of my father's had to kill a young boy about 12 in house to house fighting in Germany. He was sick about it and it never left him.

In 1944 the "Master Race" was so hard pressed they were using wagons to haul supplies. Men being sent into battle with little supplies and poor equipment. Tankers sitting in their tanks in prepared positions because they had no fuel to move.

Then, right under their noses, men, women, and children were being systematically executed. Herded into gas chambers for the cyclone B. Their clothes they were forced to remove before going to "shower", redistributed for the Master Race. The gold in their teeth removed after death for recirculation. Yes, the Master Race made $24,000,000 dollars (of the time) off the deaths of 6,000,000 men, women, and children.

My significant other lived in Germany and spoke with a number of militay people (her "X" was military). Each she talked to said they had no idea what was going on in "the camps" and were shocked when they saw the film footage of the atrocities.

Sorry, got off on a rampage.

Yes, from 1939-1941, I would say that the average German soldier was better equipped and trained than their counterparts. After that, not a chance.

:smok:

 

What have you read Skua?

I'd be very interested in your sources. Can you state them and can you state where it says that ranges above 1,000m were not the norm?

In the winter battles in southern Russia Ukraine from December 1943 to March 1944 over 7,000 Soviet tanks were destroyed against 2,500 German. Air power was irrelevant due to constant bad weather. The terrain in the Ukraine (hey I'm a poet and I know it) was mostly flat steppe with little cover. Therefore, apart from skirmishes in towns, cities etc tank engagements in the countryside generally took place at VERY long range. It was almost impossible to get within 1,000 metres and have close tank to tank fighting out in the open country of southern Russia/ Ukraine etc.

Also, in these winter 1943/1944 battles the Panzer IIIs were few and far between as were short barreled Panzer IVs. Your source must be wrong. Stug IIIs and L/48 Panzer IVs were the most prevalent and were better than the T34/76 at long range. How many Panzer IIIs and Panzer IV 'stubs' do you assume there were in winter 1943/1944? There were actually very few. Perhaps you are getting confused with the early 1943 winter and the battles around the Kalmyk Steppe and Kharkov??

Tank v tank fighting at long range was common in winter 1943/1944. How else do you explain the huge ratio of Soviets tanks destroyed compared to German ? Remember the Soviets also had a numerical advantage to begin with. Long range engagements were part of the main reason why so many Soviet tanks were destroyed.

 

Then why was it such a hard slog from Normandy to Berlin? It took almost a year for the western allies to advance into the heart of Germany. Please don't mention the old 'supply' problem because that is nonsense. Why was Italy a tough nut to crack?

I think the average German soldier proved himself as the finest of WW2. Sorry if people don't want to hear that but that's the way it is.

 

Really, then could you please inform all of us what was the reason for the German counter thrust around the Manych river and Kuberle in early 1943 and what were the results?

I'll give you one day to respond! :lol:

 

Well, maybe more like up to 43/44, but broadly agree!

And your rant shows exactly why they are not the 'Master Race' - 6,000,000 people killed because you have a rather warped view of genetics.

It should be noted that ideas of 'Racial Superiority' and 'pure' races were very fashionable at the time. Up until the 1960s, Sweden still routinely sterilised Gypsies, people with physical/mental 'deformities', and other such 'undesireables'.