davebender
1st Lieutenant
What is your source for these prices?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The best tank overall for the germans was the panther, but it was still limited in its ability to be produced. The best all round tank of the war was the T-34. Doesnt mean that in battle that the panther did not usually beat it. However, a T-34 has been estimated to have cost somewhere between $10000 and $30000 to produce, the Panther in 1943 was around $150000, reducing to around $120000 as production glitches were overcome and the design somewhat simplified. Its dangerous to do this, and i am not trying to be super accurate here, but which would you prefer....1 Panther or 8 T-34s. its that simple.
Everybody produced heavy tanks 9or at leasty tanks heavier than their standard "breakthrough" tanks) , and everybody ditched them in the finish for lighter, more mobile less specialised types. The Soviets used their IS tanks to develop the IS10 series. These soldiered on into the 50s, ending up as dug in pillboxes along the chinese border. The British produced their Comets and developed these eventually into Centurion Tanks, and ditched the "tortoise" prototypes as impractical. The M-47 was a development of the M-46 Patton II tank, itself a development of the Pershing heavy Tank. Pershing was never really a "Heavy tank though", more an underpowered large medium. The Americans basically tried to solve that by mating a larger engine to a new designed turret. But as I said, Pershings/Patton IIs were never heavy Tank. A pershing had an all up combat weight of 92000 lb, compared to the tigers 153000 lbs.
Its significant I think what the Germans were planning to do in their 1945 rationalization program. The "type" Panzer Div was reduced to an establishment of just 54 tanks, with cycle borne Infantry components. It was planned to finally phase out the MkIVs, with the sole type for the TDs being Panther IIs. Speer (with thye agreement of Guderian) planned to phase out of production both the Tigers, and to maintain production of Jagdpanzers, centred around the Panther hull. im not sure about what was to happen with STUG III production.
Panther in 1943 was around $150000, reducing to around $120000
Not really that ideal because it wasn't as silent as a 231 or 234 but it had better cross-country abilities than the 222.The inexpensive Sd.Kfz.250/9 was probably the most important German recon vehicle during the second half of WWII. IMO it was ideal for that role
I have my doubts of this numbers, very heavy doubts.
From all logic and technical knowledge I have, I don't think that it is possible to get more then two T34-85 for one Panther and that's quite optimistic, if I look at the engine and the alloys of the T34-85. I have no prove or primary source for this, but if I look of the technical requirements of the T34-85 and Sherman compare to the Panther, I don't think that the Panther is that heavily over engineered, espicialy from the alloy's and the engine. To me it looks more then 2 x T34-85 or 2 x Sherman for one Panther and then I would always choose the Panther, because it is built to come back and not do die in it's first fight.
You forget the T29, T32, T34 series has heavy tank project. They USA had very heavy issues with this beasts, which were solved at the Tiger I from ther germans, from a technical viewpoint.
.I totaly disagree!
This has only to do with the shortcommings of material, alloys, manpower and soldiers, but not with which was optimal.
It was decided through the circumstances at 1944/45 and the overall shortcommings, that has nothing to do, what would the Wehrmacht choose if they had the free choice, so to me and my opinion it is totaly not significant
RM but not $, very far from that!
I should hope so since it doesn't pass the common sense test.panther required 55,000 man hours to build.
3,000 man hours to build a T-34.
However these comparisons need to be treated with a ghreat deal of caution.
The Russian T-34 did not start out as a "heavy tank", that was the KV's job and the KV preceded the T-34 into production. The Russians had three "classes" of tank that overlapped at times (late 30s1940/41) the lights---T-37/37/38-T40s, T60s, T70s. The "maneuver" tanks the BT series, and the heavies, T-32 and T-35 multi turret tanks and the T-100 and SMK prototypes. The T-26 series was sort of a light slow maneuver tank and the the T-28 was sort of a light-heavy or heavy maneuver tank. 2/3 the weigh t of the T-35 with the same engine. The T-34 was to replace the BT series AND the T-28. From their experience in the Spanish Civil war the Russians wanted armor protection from at least 37mm AT guns and 75mm HE shells. The KVs were the heavy break though tanks.
Post war heavy tanks were NOT break through tanks. They were often intended to sit in back of the mediums in over-watch positions and act as long range snipers to take out targets that the mediums (battle tanks) could not deal with. This was when the British were using the 20pdr and the US the same 90mm gun they used in WW II. With the coming of the 105mm L7 gun (and ADPS to the US) the need for the 120mm armed heavy tanks evaporated.
I should hope so since it doesn't pass the common sense test.
Panther tank was designed for low cost mass production and probably required no more man hours then a T-34. Any price difference would be due to cost of 10 tons more steel plus superior optics and communications equipment.
I acknowledge and accept that the T-34 was designed as the breakthrough tank , however the fact that it was also designed to be able to withstand 37mm fire (and in fact was really resistant to 50mm ATG fire as well) gave it characteristics of also being a "heavy" or assault tank. That plus the provision of the 76mm main armament.
The KV tanks were indeed intended to be the "Heavy" component of the Soviet prewar tank park. However the KV was not intended to be "Heavy" in the sense that we now apply the term (ie as a fire support vehicle) . That was essentially a concept pioneered by the Germans, borne out of the development of the Heavy Tiger Tanks. KV Tanks were never meant to "hang back" in the fire support role. They and the t-34 had exactly the same main armament (and range finding and radio gear)....if they were a true Heavy (as in support) tank, they would have been fitted with an 85mm gun, had more advanced optics fitted, and be provided with better comms compared to the breakthrough vehicles, from the start. Instead, their role was really as "assault leaders", to undertake the main frontal assault whilst the lighter, more agile mediums and lights enveloped and flanked the enmy formations. Soviet doctrine however was shown to be faulty, and their formations simply not up to the task at the time of the initial assault (and indeed, Soviet Tank Formations remained very inexperienced for at least 18months after the initial invasion).
However it did not take the Soviets too long to realize that the T-34 could undertake both roles.....it was sufficiently well armed and armoured to provide fire support, but it was also agile enough to take on the the breakthrough role. And it was even cheap enough to undertake the recon role normally assigned to light tanks as well.
Quite rapidly, the Germans responded to the T-34, by building heavier tanks and ordinance able to defeat the T-34. The Soviets did not respond in kind. Their later war tank development was essentially improvements of the existing tank park.....systems like the T-34/85, KV-85 and IS-2 were all developments of the same existing designs. The Soviets were smart enough to know that in a war like the EF, in the end, its was numbers that counted more than technical excellence.
Your Panzer IV is a III
So did the Bundesarchiv as they had it wrong as well. Noticed by Wikipedia users when Bundesarchiv uploaded several thousand images to Wikimedia Commons.corrected