Best German Weapon of WWII

[lesofprimus]

Great discussion....

[plan_D]

Great excuse for the immense loss of T-34. There were more, so more could be killed. There were more so they had a numbers advantage, that is why they won.

And there was no vital difference between the T-34/85 and the T-34/85-I so both can be used in the comparison. In fact, it was only refinements in manufacture to make it cheaper and quicker to produce.

You have proved your lack of knowledge on armoured warfare there. The Kursk conflict was not a slaughter for the Germans, they lost but were certainly not slaughtered. The Soviets lost much much more than the Germans during Kursk. And there were still counter-offensives all the way up to the defence of Berlin. Read Panzer Leader by Heinz Guderian, then come back and say that the flanking attacks had been done with.
More and more in the end of the war the Germans were using 'Flexy Defence' which used two lines of defence. A frontal one in full view of the Soviets that would fall back leaving only skeleton crew when the Russian artillery started. And the rear main defence which was fully equipped, and if tanks available, had blocks on each side of the attack. The line would 'give way' and these two blocks would close in around the attacker.

The Soviets actually had some very sophisticated battle plans, in Deep Battle and Deep Operation. And were starting to come in, in 1943. There's another thing you'd do with reading up on.

No, the Panther and T-34/85 were both medium tanks. Therefore both in the same weight catergory and a fair comparison. A comparison between IS-2 and Panther would be unfair but even then the Panther has a solid fighting chance against the IS-2 as it could destroy it at 600 - 800m and with better optics had a better chance of striking the target.

The Panther could destroy the T-34/85 at 2000m, actually. Which gives it a much longer period to be shooting at the T-34 until the T-34 is capable of striking the Panther.

If you're going to bring in lack of infantry, why don't we just throw in aircraft numbers, artillery and supporting tank hunter battalions into this? Where do you want it? Poland 1944? And your constant mention of the IS-2 brings me to mention the Tiger which was plainly a better tank than the IS-2 in one on one combat, and it had been in service 2 years more.

The IS-2 wasn't renamed after Stalins death. IS means Ioseph Stalin for Joseph Stalin. It's the same thing, ask any Russian.

In 1943 - 44 0.4% of Soviet armour was knocked out by 75mm cannons at 1600-1800 metres. And you're sat there thinking 0.4% is nothing, but it is to take into account the numbers of Soviet tanks lost and how many there were. And to say the regular tank combat takes place at 400 - 600 metres when the penertration of the Panthers KwK is optimum. Even then there's 3.6 percent lost at 1200-1400, 7 percent lost at 800-1000 metres. This just proves that a lot of Soviet armour was being destroyed by Panthers (and other 75mm armed German tanks, Pz. IV) before the Soviet tanks were even in range!

And the total production ratio for ALL tank production was 3:1 in Soviets favour. And for destruction 4.4:1 in Germanys favour...7:1 in 1941, and 6:1 in 1942.

Funny how 69% of T-34 losses in the First Belorussian Front, Oder-Berlin, 1945 were lost to 75mm cannons...

The T-34/85s frontal equalled to 90mm with 50mm slanted at 60 degrees...and then we've got the Panther at 80mm slanted at 55 degrees, do the math and it's quite obvious the Panther is much-much stronger at the front. And then the sides are 50mm at 30 degrees, with the T-34 equalling 60mm flat...

All T-34 variants are as follows, T-34 Model 1940, T-34 Model 1941, T-34 Model 1942, T-34/76E, T-34/76F, T-34/85, T-34/85-I. So, stop going on about the Model 1944 T-34/85 because it wasn't a big improvement on the previous /85.

And by mentioning that infantry should be involved you've negated the HE round argument...but even then, the HE capability on the Panther was more than enough to dispose of Russian anti-tank crews and infantry.

[evangilder]

I agree, Les. I think I have learned more about tanks on this thread than anywhere else. Though my tank knowledge was pretty lean before this. Thanks guys!

Originally Posted by plan_D

And there was no vital difference between the T-34/85 and the T-34/85-I so both can be used in the comparison. In fact, it was only refinements in manufacture to make it cheaper and quicker to produce.

In 1943 - 44 0.4% of Soviet armour was knocked out by 75mm cannons at 1600-1800 metres. And you're sat there thinking 0.4% is nothing, but it is to take into account the numbers of Soviet tanks lost and how many there were. And to say the regular tank combat takes place at 400 - 600 metres when the penertration of the Panthers KwK is optimum. Even then there's 3.6 percent lost at 1200-1400, 7 percent lost at 800-1000 metres. This just proves that a lot of Soviet armour was being destroyed by Panthers (and other 75mm armed German tanks, Pz. IV) before the Soviet tanks were even in range!

And the total production ratio for ALL tank production was 3:1 in Soviets favour. And for destruction 4.4:1 in Germanys favour...7:1 in 1941, and 6:1 in 1942.

Funny how 69% of T-34 losses in the First Belorussian Front, Oder-Berlin, 1945 were lost to 75mm cannons...

The T-34/85s frontal equalled to 90mm with 50mm slanted at 60 degrees...and then we've got the Panther at 80mm slanted at 55 degrees, do the math and it's quite obvious the Panther is much-much stronger at the front. And then the sides are 50mm at 30 degrees, with the T-34 equalling 60mm flat...

All T-34 variants are as follows, T-34 Model 1940, T-34 Model 1941, T-34 Model 1942, T-34/76E, T-34/76F, T-34/85, T-34/85-I. So, stop going on about the Model 1944 T-34/85 because it wasn't a big improvement on the previous /85.

And by mentioning that infantry should be involved you've negated the HE round argument...but even then, the HE capability on the Panther was more than enough to dispose of Russian anti-tank crews and infantry.

The 1943 T-34/85 had many faults over the 1944 model. First off, the gun was improved in the 1944 model as were the sights. Secondly, and much more significantly, the quality of production was very much improved. 1943 models were known to have gaps in the armor at the corners of as much as 3 inches, filled with putty to keep out the cold. This was not the case in the 1944 models.

Most of the tanks taken out by 75mm cannon that you refer to were taken out by field pieces, not tank mounted cannon. The great majority of tank on tank kills were scored at ranges under 1000 meters, as even your own figures indicate. Within this range either tank could kill the other.

Originally Posted by plan_D

No, the Panther and T-34/85 were both medium tanks. Therefore both in the same weight catergory and a fair comparison. A comparison between IS-2 and Panther would be unfair but even then the Panther has a solid fighting chance against the IS-2 as it could destroy it at 600 - 800m and with better optics had a better chance of striking the target.

How do you figure?

Panther Ausf. G: 100,310 lbs
IS-2: 101,000 lbs
T-34/85 (1944): 70,000 lbs

How do you claim they were "in the same weight catagory and a fair comparison"? The Panther weighs 30,000 lbs more, a 42% advantage over the T-34/85. The IS-2 on the other hand, has a wooping 0.6% weight advantage over the Panther - virtually meaningless.

Clearly the Panther is in the "heavy" class, and it is fair to compare it to the IS-2 not the T-34.

=S=

Lunatic

[lesofprimus]

Fair??? Hhhmmmmm... Dont remember anything about fair when regarding classifications.... Its usually about a units role rather than how much they weigh....

[plan_D]

The T-34/85-I had a lengthened barrel and improved construction for cheaper and quicker production. The failures in Russian armour were present right up until the end of the war, even in the IS-2. If you're so determined to have me compare the T-34/85-I with the Panther Ausf G, fine. The Panther still beats it hands down.

This all started when you said the T-34/85 could match the Panther. I think you've come to realise your mistake and are trying to say the comparison is unfair, frankly war is unfair.

I don't believe I stated that the majority would have been destroyed by tank mounted 75mm cannon but I can assure you at least 30% would have been by tanks. That's either the Pz. IV or Panther.
And yes, it's a well known fact that the average combat ranges for armour conflict is 400 - 600m. This does not mean you write off the fact that the Panther is shooting, with a good chance of hitting, at 2000m at still be able to destroy the T-34. Where the T-34 has to reach 600 - 700m to be completely effective.

Classification of the Panther was medium. Classification of the T-34/85 was medium. They are both medium tanks in classification, no matter their weight. If overall weight being higher gives it an advantage and we can't compare them because of it no one can compare the King Tiger to anything because it out-weighed every tank in World War 2.

Originally Posted by plan_D

The T-34/85-I had a lengthened barrel and improved construction for cheaper and quicker production. The failures in Russian armour were present right up until the end of the war, even in the IS-2. If you're so determined to have me compare the T-34/85-I with the Panther Ausf G, fine. The Panther still beats it hands down.

This all started when you said the T-34/85 could match the Panther. I think you've come to realise your mistake and are trying to say the comparison is unfair, frankly war is unfair.

I don't believe I stated that the majority would have been destroyed by tank mounted 75mm cannon but I can assure you at least 30% would have been by tanks. That's either the Pz. IV or Panther.
And yes, it's a well known fact that the average combat ranges for armour conflict is 400 - 600m. This does not mean you write off the fact that the Panther is shooting, with a good chance of hitting, at 2000m at still be able to destroy the T-34. Where the T-34 has to reach 600 - 700m to be completely effective.

Classification of the Panther was medium. Classification of the T-34/85 was medium. They are both medium tanks in classification, no matter their weight. If overall weight being higher gives it an advantage and we can't compare them because of it no one can compare the King Tiger to anything because it out-weighed every tank in World War 2.

That is nomenclature. The Russians used a different definition of "Medium Tank" than did the Germans, so using each side's internal classification to classify these tanks as being "the same class" is totally bogus. You have to use the same standard of measure for anything you compare.

You are missing the point. I still think the T-34 was the better "tank". It was cheaper and easier to build so there were a lot more of them. It was more manuverable, could climb a steeper grade, was better in mud and snow, very much better range, and could cross bridges the Panther could not. It was not superior in the "tank destroyer" role, but so what, it was a "tank" not a "tank destroyer". A tanks purpose is to support infantry and exploit breakthroughs, and the T-34 did this better than the Panther.

As for the King Tiger, it was just another one of Germany's "super weapons" that helped the Allies win the war. Relatively useless in real combat conditions, but very expensive to develop and build. Nice cash in the pockets of the right Nazi's, which was its real reason for existance.

=S=

Lunatic

[plan_D]

If we cannot compare these two tanks for their weights, then the Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf H was comparable to the T-34. It was better than the T-34/76 marks and was an even match for the T-34/85.

The Panther was better than the T-34 at the tank role. The point of a tank is to make enact the breakthrough, it is not to support the infantry at all. The infantry supports the tank, that is the idea of a Panzer (Armoured) Division everything is in support of the tank for if the tank supports others it loses the mobility. The German High Command thought like you in 1939, with Pz. IV Ausf A designed to take on emplacements and Pz. III designed to take on tanks. They realised a tank must be able to deal with everything.
A tank must be able to deal with infantry, tanks and enemy emplacements. The Panther was better at dealing with enemy tanks and emplacements and more than good enough to deal with infantry. It could cross almost all bridges with ease, and was better at fording rivers than T-34s. The Panther was able to traverse rough terrain, mud or snow.

It wasn't really that complicated, all that stopped its production reaching higher numbers was the diversion of resources to other tanks.

Yes, we all know the King Tiger was a waste. Although it was the most powerful tank in combat, of World War 2.

It is situational. When defending, the tanks are there to support the infantry. When on offense, it is the other way around. Tanks that outran their infantry support were usually dead tanks on either side. It's too easy for infantry to destroy tanks that don't have infantry support. The early Blitzkrieg tactics that worked so well on unprepared enemies in 1939-41 stopped working so well in 1942 and beyond.

The Panzer IV was not a match for the T-34, even the T-34/76. It lacks sloped armor and it is outweighted by 25%. The armor was much weaker, it was slow by comparison, and it had less range. And being gasoline powered, it was more vulnerable. It turned a tighter circle but was inferior in every other mobility aspect, and had a higher ground pressure rating (it would get stuck in the mud or snow more easily). It had a superior gun (F2 model and beyond), but in every other respect the T-34 was clearly better.

=S=

Lunatic

[plan_D]

On the defence armour is used as a counter-strike unit. The infantry hold like a shield, the tank strikes like a sword. The idea of armour leaving its infantry behind was a problem solved with the formation of mobile armoured divisions with everything, from support units, to artillery, to infantry running on the internal combustion engine and keeping up with the armours advance.
The Germans blitzkrieg tactics were used well throughout the war. The basic idea of conflict with armour was still used up until the final days. The whole concept of a fully intergrated armour division was the idea of Guderian.

I think you'll find that the Panzer IV was a perfect match for the T-34. It was reliable, more durable than the T-34, fast, manuverable had a more powerful cannon and in fact, combat records show it's superiority.
The cannon is one of the most important things on a tank. The fact that the armour on the Pz. IV was weak does not make it a poor tank. It could destroy the T-34 before the T-34 was in range to destroy it. The same principal applies to most of the German JagdPanzers, not until the JagdPanther were their tank destroyers heavily armoured. Take the Hornisse for example, weak armour (10mm at 37 degrees) but an extremely powerful long range cannon which knocked out the enemy armour before they could hit it. The same applies to the Pz. IV against the T-34, the Pz. IV was more likely to hit and destroy the T-34 before the T-34 could strike back.

Off road speed on the Panzer IV was half that of the T-34. Range was just over half that of the T-34.

German counterattacks were generally not successful after Stalingrad. They were consistantly driven back on all fronts.

The great great majority of tank vs. tank kills on all sides occured at less than 1000 meters. The longer range was an advantage on defense, not much use on offense.

=S=

Lunatic

[plan_D]

I never said it was faster than the T-34. Nor did I say it matched the range. It was an even match for the T-34 in combat.

Are you talking grand scale counter-attacks or local counter-attacks like those witnessed at the hands of the XLVIII Panzer Corps 1943-1944. And, of course, the Kharkov counter-offensive in 1943 which set the stage for Kursk a few weeks later.

A range advantage counts on both offensive and defensive in armoured warfare. That is why self-propelled guns were designed above from infantry support, they gave direct LONG-RANGE artillery support against enemy emplacements and tanks. The same applies for the tank itself, if you can destroy the enemy before they can hit you be it defence or offence, you've got an advantage.

[lesofprimus]

And seeing how in the latter stages of the ETO with the Germans being on the defensive, long range capabilities are all the more so important, dont u think RG????

Originally Posted by plan_D

I never said it was faster than the T-34. Nor did I say it matched the range. It was an even match for the T-34 in combat.

Are you talking grand scale counter-attacks or local counter-attacks like those witnessed at the hands of the XLVIII Panzer Corps 1943-1944. And, of course, the Kharkov counter-offensive in 1943 which set the stage for Kursk a few weeks later.

A range advantage counts on both offensive and defensive in armoured warfare. That is why self-propelled guns were designed above from infantry support, they gave direct LONG-RANGE artillery support against enemy emplacements and tanks. The same applies for the tank itself, if you can destroy the enemy before they can hit you be it defence or offence, you've got an advantage.

On offense you are not likely to spot the enemy before being spotted, except in rair circumstances (an open plain or desert). Until the defender moves or opens fire, the attacker is not likely to be firing at long range. Even when combat commences, the odds are the defenders are going to try hard to make sure there are no available firing vantage points that exceed their range.

Artillery is generally an indirect fire weapon right?

=S=

Lunatic

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

And seeing how in the latter stages of the ETO with the Germans being on the defensive, long range capabilities are all the more so important, dont u think RG????

Actually, the German's did best against the Allied tanks early on after the D-Day invasion, when they were able to hide in the hedgrows and await Shermans approaching down roads and pick them off. The Panzer IV was actually prefered by tank crews over the Panther or Tiger for this combat, as its low profile allowed it to hide better. This was where the German's killed off loads of Shermans and the early (pre wet-stowage) Sherman got the "ronson" reputation.

Once the Allies broke out of the hedgerow combat, the Sherman's did much better, being able to use their mobility advantages. Also improved Shermans with wet-stowage ammo compartments, thicker armor, add on armor, and the 76mm HV gun improved Allied results.

=S=

Lunatic