The ten best machines and ten best Small-arms of WW2

The T-34/85 came in the winter of 43, but the PzIV F and StuG F already came in early 42. The Tiger came in August 42.

Is this not what i said ? (Btw a little correction on my above statement, I ment "PzIV", not "PzVi")

The 85mm gun on the T-34/85 was notorously inaccurate, and very weak compared to its size, but that not all, its optics were poor aswell.
At 1500m the PzIV F could with a single shot on the Gun-mantlet blow up the T-34.

Initially it was a shock to the Germans.

By 42 it definently was Gun-fodder, and the StuG's and PzIV's didnt seem to have any problems with them at all.

THe JS series was a good infantry support tank, but not much else, its powerful gun was simply too slow, it was however a tough shell to crack open.

Best regards, KBO.

 

But the Finns reported engaging these unstoppable tanks (KV's), and as far as i remember the Finn's could do almost nothing against them, except hope they would run over a mine or something.

KBO

 

My feeling is that the discussion here dashes forward like a German tank in Russian mud. Maybe it´s time for some conclusions and move on?

 

FNG
The Pz.Kpfw.IV lg. was better than the T-34/76 (against which the Pz.Kpfw.III lg. held up pretty well). The T-34/85 came one-two years after the Pz.Kpfw.IV lg, these two tanks were about equal.

Izaak
Plans for a German heavy tank began in 1936, and the Tiger can be traced back to these plans.

I don't understand what you mean by the Tiger being clumsy. It has better automotive capabilities than the Pz.Kpfw.IV and Sturmgeschütz. It was much more expensive than the Pz.Kpfw.IV to build. The first versions had diving equipment, but this was removed later on. The straight angles made it easier to build, and gave the same protection as sloped armour of the same weight. The front wheel drive was favoured by the Germans in all their designs, and there are advantages and disadvantages to both front drive and rear drive.

Christian

 

Christian, thank you for your cultivated tone of conversation. I´ll try to emulate you. The straight angles…. Well, I am not a balistician. But nobody has been using this since.
Why compare one clumsy vehicle with other clumsy vehicles? Why not take some better examples?
Pz4 was originally essentially a light tank, which with growing behov for armor and everything else, became clumsy. As to the front and real drive issue: as far as I understood, the reason why German vehicles were always ca. 10 tons heavier than expected (and heavier then their Soviet counterparts) was precisely the forward drive. It was not very bright to have thought about how to deliver it to the front in freight cars and then find the strange solution with double tracks.
Then comes the heavy but weak and easily combustible engine (vs. light – aluminium –, strong and economical(diesel) and less fire-prone (diesel) like the Russians).

As to how far back Tiger can be tracked…..with some imagination, probably to Leonardo da Vinci or further still.

 

Christian he's trying to speak our language !

Just kidding Izaak, you just made a Danish phrase thats all.

Best regards, KBO.

 

No wonder. Haifa is apparently in Denmark these days.

 

Haifa is everywhere these days! :lol:

Haifa is everywhere these days!
KBO, good to know who one is talking with. That little device helped me fret you out of the bushes and it worked. I won´t tell where I´ve got my suspicions from, ´cause I don´t know.) On the other hand, I do know some Danes and like them very much. )
Maybe it was your and Christian´s similar propensity to kind of like all things German….

 

The Leopard II use vertical side armour. The Le Clerc has some sloped armour, but also vertical armour. The Merkava also has vertical side armour.

The Pz.Kpfw.IV was a rather old design, but it still good maneuvrebility. It wasn't a light tanks, though, it was a medium tank.

I don't see how a forward drive will increase the weight by ten tons. The driving rod will increase the height a bit, but not with 20%.

Both diesel and gasoline engines has advantages and disadvantages. Gasoline and diesel - as a liquid - burns at roughly the same temperature, but diesel is more difficult to put out once it burn.

Christian

 

But weight/power ratio of Pz. Kpfw IV J is only 10.6 hp/ton.

 

Wich is more than adequate, as the Gearbox easely handles the PzIV's relatively small weight.

KBO

 

T-34 has 15,7 hp/ton.

 

Your point being?

Christian

 

Christian, isn´t that right that PzIV weighed originally 22 tons ? It´s 2 tons above wartime American classification´s division between light and medium tanks. All the later additions were done on a carcass that originally was designed for this weight and this armor (30mm front, 20mm side).
That was the reason why I´ve written – an ESSENTIALLY light tank. Particularly when compared with the classican medium designs as t-34 (originally ca. 27 tons) with its rational construction.

Of course, some new designs do have straight angles here and there, but hardly the glacis or turret. The whole conception of armor has changed since Tiger. The tactics of tank forces is different. So, you can´t compare, I´m afraid. Even the Germans quickly abandoned all straight angles in Tiger 2.

Diesel fuel will hardly burn because of sparkles that inevitably appear when a tank is hit at or near the engine compartment, but not penetrated. Gasoline will. Try to set diesel fuel on fire with your matches or lighter. Nothing happens. A penetration is another thing, but A LOT of hits do not penetrated neither KV, T-34 nor JS. Besides, the diesel motor is more economical and can be used for longperiods without refurbishing. And the aluminium diesel all these tanks had such a motor.
KBO, it´s not gearbox that makes (even a German tank) move.

Rear drive spares a lot of height: you have to build the foundation of the turret higher, which has to be covered with extra panzer, and a thicker panzer at that, because of the height. That requires a stronger, heavier engine and more space for fuel, which also has to be covered with extra armor, and so on. A spiral upwards, without end.. That´s why the beautiful KV (regular production started in Feb. 1940) could weigh less than 50 tons and still have 75mm plates on the chassis and 105mm on the turret and move 35km/h. The German tanks in 1941 received an order not to engage KV. Only 88mm Flak could take it. The 88mms take as trofees bt the Soviets during the Moscow offensive had inscriptions “shoot only KVs”. All the other AT weapons didn´t touch it at that time.
Which shows that Stalin was preparing for his offensive in June ´41 seriously, contrary to Le Corporal.

 

But the Finns reported engaging these unstoppable tanks (KV's), and as far as i remember the Finn's could do almost nothing against them, except hope they would run over a mine or something.

KBO

According to a book I'm reading at the moment the Finns first engaged the KVs from December 19th 1939. The did not find them unstoppable and were apparently capable of despatching them with fire from 37mm Bofors guns. I'll post references later, probably monday when I get the chance.

Simon.

 

KVs in Winter War were experimental. There were two other heavy models tried at that war. KV was chosen for mass production.

Please, don´t forget references on penetration of panzer iys plates by 37mm gun. Sure, you can always put an AT mine under the tracks or shoot at the tracks or optics. You can even remove the optics with a rifle fire, for that matter, if you are lucky.

 

The KVs in Winter War were KV2s.

 

My point is that Pz. Kpfw. IV weighs 29 tons and T-34 about 33, IV having 300 hp and T-34 500hp. Quite a great difference resulting an another great difference in maneuvrability, acceleration and therefore survivability.

 

Izaak
The Pz.Kpfw.IV was always a medium tank, the weight has nothing to do with this, neither has US classifications.

I don't know what is meant by 'rational construction' of the T-34. The Pz.Kpfw.I through Tiger II were results of a series of careful considerations, and were rational too.

In either case, all of this does not change the fact that the same amount of armour - wheter sloped or vertical - offer the same relative armour thickness.

Also, you logic is flawed - if you spiral - as you call it - has no end, then all German tanks had an infinite mass. The front drive was a choice made by the Germans, because of the benefits achieved by this decision. Also, if the engine and drive is placed in the rear, then there must be speering rods and cables running from the front to the rear. The Russian gear boxes weren't exactly easy to operate, and it required considerable force to change gear.

Christian

 

They used to have to whack it into gear with a hammer I read somewhere. Not quite easy driving.

FNG