Best/Favourate Tank in the west

[Juha]

Soren
are you sure that there was enough D-10s and ammo to them to arm both SU-100s and JSs with it? After all part of SU-100 chassises were armed with 122mm gun. I cannot remember was that what was planned or because of supply problems with D-10 or/and its ammo.

Juha

[m kenny]

Originally Posted by Soren

then you better also plan to put some damn good optics on it so you can take full advantage of each shot. But did the Soviets atleast do that ? No, nothing even approaching proper optics was put on that tank, further nessicating the need for a fast firing gun.

You keep saying this but so far I have not seen a single source. What refernces do you have that show the capabilities of Soviet Optics?

How about this?

"When I fired at the T-34 in the valley, I wasn't aware that there were a number of those monsters waiting two kilometers away at the edge of the forest. No sooner had I pulled the trigger than the Russian behemoth began firing. For once, the Russians struck our tank with their first round. "

from:

Rudolph Salvermoser, A Grodeutschland Veteran

and I gave several other instances earlier that are worth repeating:

Jentz, Panzertruppen 1

page 205:


The Russian tanks usually formed in a half circle, open
fire with their 7.62 cm guns on our Panzers already at a range
of 1000 meters and deliver enormous penetration energy with
high accuracy.
Our 5 cm Kw.K. tank guns can achieve penetrations only
on vulnerable locations under very special favorable condi-
tions at very close ranges under 50 meters. Our Panzers are
already knocked out at a range of several hundred meters.
Many times our Panzers were split open or the complete
commander's cupola of the Pz.Kpfw.lll and IV flew off from
one frontal hit. This is proof that the armor is insufficient, the
mounting for the commander's cupola on our Panzers is de-
ficient, and the accuracy and penetration ability of the Rus-
sian 7.62 cm tank guns are high.

page 206
The Panzer crews know they can already be knocked out at long range by enemy (Soviet) tanks

page 231
In correctly recognising his technical superiority in weapons the T34 already opens fire on German Panzers at ranges from 1200 to 1800 meters

page 233

Russian tank forces are good. The level of training also good
page 233
The rumors that Russian armor quality has become poorer are emphaticaly denied.
page 243
firing at long range they cause considerable losses to the German Panzers


The fantastic combat moral of the Russian tank crews has led to having to destroy stationary tanks that have already been hit five or six times.........the Russian crews remained fighting in their tanks so long as their weapons still could be fired


Sights of Soviet Tanks

I have yet to see a thread/site that has reliable data that shows Soviet Optics were not up to the job.

[Soren]

For one who hasn't seen either sides optics in real life you seem to bring forth a good case m_Kenny, but gaving seen the optics in person I can tell you that the Soviet ones are of very poor quality. Hence why you see it mentioned so many times in books on the subject, and hence why other countries who obtained Soviets tanks emmidiately changed the optics.

Also maybe you should take a look at the German Waprüf tests for an assessment on the Soviet optics. No praise is given, I can tell you that.

The quotes you present don't prove any form of acccuracy of the guns or quality of the optics, it simply states some incidents where Russian tank opened fire at 1,000 meters or more, which was very common btw. What was uncommon was for the Soviet tanks to hit anything at that range, hence Salvermoser's astonishment when the a Soviet tank for once hit with its first round.

Btw, Std. German practice was to open fire at distances much greater than 2km away. Nashorn crews reported IS-2 tanks were knocked at distances as great as 4.6km.

[plan_D]

Those quotes seem to be from 1941 - 1942 when the Panzers in reference are 3.7cm KwK36 and maybe 5.0 KwK38 Pz.Kpfw IIIs and short-barrelled 7.5cm Pz.Kpfw Ds. It's no surprise that the Pz.IIIs, especially those without the L/60, had to close to 50 metres to gain a favourable condition to destroy a T-34. They didn't have to close to 50 metres to strike the tank; but it's clear it would have been ineffective.

It's also no surprise that a German tank crew would state that the T-34s were destroying them at "long range" when they felt they had to close to distances well below the usual combat ranges that we know from 1943 onwards (400 - 600m). If you think about a crew having to close to 100m to destroy its opponent, if the opponent can kill them at 300m - then it's three times the distance and a long way!

Those highlighted points, m_kenny, seem to be the reason that Tigers, Panthers and better weapons were available to the Wehrmacht a year or two after.

Let's not forget that the T-34 was the best tank in the world for some time after it's creation - but in 1941, there weren't that many. In Panzer Leader - Heinz Guderian states his shock during the initial invasion at meeting three T-34s in a village, which had to be dispatched at close range with 5.0cm AT weapons. In 1941, meeting a T-34 must have been like an American meeting a Tiger in 1944.

[m kenny]

Originally Posted by Soren

Also maybe you should take a look at the German Waprüf tests for an assessment on the Soviet optics. No praise is given, I can tell you that.

Would love to. Despite many years around the forums I have never seen anything substantive about how effective Soviet optics were. Many claims are made but no hard information. The query is not how they compared toGerman models but rather if they were good enough to get hits at 1000 mtrs. ect.
In short did they do the job rather than did they win a design award.
The UK technical study of a T34 (completed in 1943) noted that though the way the optics were assembled was pretty basic and low tech it appeared to work.

[river]

Hi,

My favourite is the PzKpfw IV, especially the F2 variant.

My choice for best would be the Panther.

river

[Civettone]

river there's no F2 variant... It is a G but was called F2 in a manual or something.

sorry to be nitpicking dude

Kris

[river]

Hi,

You're not nit-picking. But nor are you correct.

There was an F2 variant and it was different from the G model.

The initial F model (Chassis numbers 82001 to 82614) were built from April 1941 to March 1942 - a total of 462 were produced, and 25 were converted to F2 models.

The F2 (chassis numbers 82370 to 82650) were built from March to July 1942 - a total of 175 were produced, including the aforementioned 25 conversions from the initial F model.

The initial F model could not combat the Russian KV-1 and T-34 AFV and an order was issued to mount the KwK40 L/43 gun on the F model. This caused a month's loss of production in March 1942, and the F series was completed with the L/43 and was designated Aus F2.

Differences between the F and F2 was largely, but not completely, due to the larger gun. Ammunition storage was modified to house the larger shells, and the gunners and commanders seats were changed to allow for more room. The elevation mechanism was modified and an auxilliary hand traverse was installed. Because of the long barrel, a coil-spring counter balance was installed for the L/43. The hull rear armour went from 20mm @ 9degrees slope on the F to 20mm with 0 degrees slope on the F2.

The G model (chassis numbers 82651 to 84400) were produced from May 1942 to June 1943 - a total of1,687 being produced. Actually, 1,750 were made, but only 1,687 were built as G models, as 10 chassis were used for the Hummel (Bumble Bee) and 53 chassis were used for the Brummbar (Grizzly bear).

From late March 1943 the KwK40 L/48 was installed, instead of the L/43 - with a total of 1,275 G models (out of 1,687) having the L/43. G models with extra armour, bolted or welded on, began on 20th June 1942.

The G model had vision ports eliminated in the turret sides and in the loader's side of the turret front. The hull rear was 20mm @ 9 degrees slope. In the summer of 1942 changes included a new style of muzzle brake, as well as installing a system that allowed the transfer of coolant from to another MkIV to aid cold weather starting. Smoke discharges were installed on the turret side instead of on the hull. In January 1943 the drivers episcope (KFF2) was eliminated. Schurzen were added in 1943. The very late G models got a new type of drive sprocket and the radio antenna was moved to the left hull rear, making it almost impossible to distinguish a late G model to an early H model.

Model F2
weight - 23 tons
length - 5.62 metres
width - 2.84 metres
height - 2.68 metres
range - 200km

Model G
weight - 23.5 tons
length - 6.62 metres
width - 2.88 metres
height - 2.68 metres
range - 210km

So, the F2 is a distinct variant of the MkIV. Sure, it may be very close to the G version, but it was different enough to warrant the F2 designation, and I have yet to read any text that says there was no F2, and they were all G models.

river

[Civettone]

First of all, how come the G model is 1 meter longer? Is that a typo??

Anyway, fFrom Christian Ankerstjerne's site panzerworld.net

The Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf.F2 and Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf.G were not seperate vehicles, but merely different designations for the same vehicle. The Ausf.F2 designation appeared in two manuals before the designation was changed to Ausf.G, and thus the designation made it into post-war litterature as being a seperate vehicle.

Kris

[river]

Hi,

It could be longer if they were taking in the length of the later G model with the L/48?

As quite a few things relating to WW2 equipment, some texts say one thing and others say another.

river

[Civettone]

G model would have been roughly 5 x 75mm longer, so 37,5 cm.

Listen, the F2 was renamed into G, and there was NO difference between them. Later G's were obviously altered but there is NO difference between the F2 and G.
One can say there was a F2 at a certain point but as they were renamed G one can only talk about the IV G.

Kris

[Messy1]

How does a A34 comet compare?

[Juha]

Hello Messy
A34 Comet
Plusses
Excellent gun (almost as good in A/T work as the Panthers 7,5cm KwK 42) with APCBC ammo, with shorter ranges with APDS even better than 7,5cm KwK 42 with APCR shot.
Fast
Very good power weight ratio
Reliable
Reasonable good armour protection

Minusses
old-fasioned boxlike hull
narrow tracks

Juha

[Messy1]

Good info Juha!