German AFV Pictures. (1 Viewer)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Here I fully disagree.

Edit:
Panther in 1943 was around $150000, reducing to around $120000

RM but not $, very far from that!
 
Last edited:
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
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.
 
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.

Therer are a number of sources youcould have a look at, a reasonable (and small cost) is John Forzcyks Panther vs T-34 1943. He quotes that the panther cost RM129K (exclusive of turret and communications), and extrapolates that this would equate to 51000 USD. On average a panther required 55000 man hours to build.

By comparison, during its peak production year of 1944, a T-34 cost R135K or roughly 13000USD. I do not know if that cost includes everything. It required a little over 3000 man hours to build a T-34.

However these comparisons need to be treated with a ghreat deal of caution.

The concept of 'cheap' or 'expensive' has no meaning in a command economy. The reason being that the pricing mechanism is controlled by the government. If Moscow (or Berlin) wanted a weapon to cost x amount of roubles (or RM) it would cost x amount. Command decisions were made at the top and did not take into consideration free market concepts like return on investment, opportunity cost etc etc

This makes it problematic to directly compare weapon systems by looking at the official prices. In general trying to compare the costs of weapon systems built in different countries under a command economy is very hard and prone to errors. Even using other indicators such as man-hours and input of raw materials can be misleading. Just the same, it is clear that a panther tank was far more expensive, whichever way you want to cut it, than a t-34. thats reflected in therespective production runs.

Just to give an example the 'cheap' T-34 had an aluminum engine. The Germans with more industrial assets than the SU and significantly higher aluminum production reached the conclusion that they could not provide their own tanks with an aluminum engine. It was simply too costly for them. This shows the different capabilities and priorities that countries have.

A better way is to compare prices of products in the same economy. This shows that the T-34 was much cheaper than the KV-1 and IS-2 tanks.

Also production costs and man-hours went down during the war. In 1941 8.000 man hours were needed to produce one T-34, this was reduced to 3.700 in 1943. Price in rubles went from 430.000 in 1940 to 136.000 in 1944.

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 assume you are referring to the Soviet tanks of these descriptions. T-34 indeed started the war as a "heavy tank", but it was actually designed to fulfil both roles of breakthrough and heavy support tank. It had the range, mobility firepower and protection (compromises all of them) to undertake the functions of "main Battle tanks" in the context of their time. Tigers were found unable to do that. Panthers and Mk IVs could do the job as well.


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
.

Thats your opinion and you are entitled to it. However, in adversity, much is revealed. In their dire hour of crisis, why didnt the Germans choose to produce Tigers and phase out Panthers? Answer is because the panther was far more cost effective. Its production costs were falling (Forzcyk says that in 1942 the average manhours to build each Tiger was well over 300000). What the german high command decision shows, and this IS significant, is that the panther was their best bet at survival......

RM but not $, very far from that!


Facts are, neither of us can achieve a meanigful comparable figure of the cost, because of the regime that tis tank was built for. we do know that the quoted figures for 1944 (RM129K) does not include armament. We also know that the average build time was 55000 man hours. we also know that Germany had an inherently bigger economy than the USSR. Whilst the Germans suffered under multiple threats and bombing, the USSR suffered by the loss of fully 35% of their industrial base due to enemy occupation. There is strong circumatantial evidence that the cost per unit for a panther may well have been 8-10 times that of a T-34.

There are a number of reasons that might explain this. The Germans could not resist making constant detail changes that greatly affected production. one example I can think of is the 50 or so Panthers that were fitted with IR night Fighting gear. That must have absolutely disrupted at least one production line. Bombing would also have affected efficiency. The bombing of the MAN plant in August basically halved production for 5 months. The small size of the factories, the crisis in the german transport system, the inherent coruption of the system, the insistence on using newly developed technologies, would all undoubetdly affect and force up the unit cost.
 
Last edited:
The US T29, T32, T34 series were like "stretched" M-26s. Used the same road wheels but with 7 or 8 instead of 6. Probably wider, I am not looking at a book at the moment. Used the 12cylinder version of the Ford V-8, at least to start.

It can get confusing as the US ordnance dept used the "T" designation for prototypes/development vehicles and for a while would use the same number/designation for different items just like the "M" numbers (M2 carbine, M2 machine gun, M2 tank), you could have T2 light tank, T 2 heavy tank, T 2 armored car, etc. They finally wised up and used one number for one item.

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.
 
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.
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.
 
Both sides need a little common sense. The T-34 used 10 road wheels per side (duals) The Panther used 16 per side. 3 more suspension sets per side. The Panther used a much more complicated transmission/steering gear set up. 7 synchromesh Forward gears compared to 4 or 5 unsynchromesh and the steering had crossshafts that would route power from the inboard (slower) track to the out board (faster) track I believe, could be wrong on that but in any case each gear in the transmission gave a different turning radius. T-34 used clutch and break like a Bren carrier. De-clutch inner track and use brake to slew the vehicle.

The difference between the tanks was much more than JUST 10 tons of steel a few telescopes and a radio.

Larger parts may also require more time to machine, like the turret ring.
 
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 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.
 
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.

That was the original brief, but it was somewhat lost in the delivery. DB offering was more akin to that concept (the VK3001). Hitler rejected that in May 1942 in favour of the MAN submission (the VK3002). It was an altogether more compelex design, albeit also a more superior fighting vehicle as well. But Germany almost unknowlingly had embarked for the quality over quantity stream, which condemned her forces for the remainder of the war to being heavily outnumbered. I believe that was a major factor in ensuring their defeat. Rommel certainly thought so. By following the pathway of building terchnically exceelent, but exeedingly expensive and hard to produce designs, the germans failed to take into account the industrial limits they were working under by the latter part of 1942.
 
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.

Yes, Pre WW II everybody's Heavy tanks were "Breakthrough" Tanks. Designed to open a hole in defenses like WW I or what they thought updated WW I defenses would be. The provision of all around fire by numbers of machine guns shows this.

Part of the faulty soviet doctrine was the lack of radios, While the T-34 had room and provisions for a radio something like 1 in 10 of the early ones actually had a radio. This would play havoc with a coordinated attack even with a well trained force (non-purged). The Russians also benefited from the war starting when they had a 500hp 28 ton and a 500/600hp 43 ton tank in production. Good as the MK IV was a 265/300hp 16-20 ton tank was never going to be able to be upgraded to match.

It's use for recon was not only because it was cheap but because the light tanks were often relative failures. The T-60 series were slower than a T-34, shorter ranged and had higher ground pressure, in some cases they had to be towed by T-34s. The T-70 was a bit better but kept in production only because the factory/s didn't have the machinery to handle heavier vehicles. They were displaced by the SU-76 on the production line.

The Soviets went through at least 4 and possibly 5 different 76mm tank guns from the early 30s through the end of WW II. There was a 16.5 cal length gun used on the early T-28 and T-35 tanks. Low velocity and replaced by 20.5 and 23.7 caliber guns before the 30.5 and 41.6 caliber length guns show up on the T-34s and KVs. Heavier German tanks forced the soviets to go to the 85mm and larger guns because the 76mm gun was no longer effective as an anti-tank gun. Fortunately for the Russians, their tanks were big enough to handle the larger weapons (although the KV needed a bit of help.)
 
Fine discussion, people :)

The Soviets have had enough of excellent gun designs, and their tanks were indeed big enough to receive them. The 57mm, different 76mm cannons (developed around AAA shell, never produced in numbers), 85mm, 100 107mm, 122mm... Guess the good performance of the 1941 guns (76 mm) gave them a feeling of false security, only to be alarmed with emergence of stronger German armor in 1942/43.
Some other things: the T-34 featured sponsoons, that enabled the decently sized gun/turret to be mounted in a modestly sized tank. KV was wide enough to mount anything from 76mm gun up to 152mm howitzer in it's turret.
Another thing common to the Soviet tanks we the 'external mantlet', that kept the turret ring size low for the gun size. M4 also have had this. Unlike the most of the British tanks, where the internal mantlet was one of things preventing the Comet to receive 17pdr, or Cromwell to receive the 77mm.
It's beyond me why the Germans did not mounted Tiger's cannon on the Panther, 50% increased HE shell to deal with non-AFV targets, like AT other guns (100000+ of the ZiS-3 were produced alone, in 3 years), infantry, pillboxes etc. AT performance was in the ballpark vs. 7,5L70.

added: the Panther also used 'external mantlet' mounting, enabling for a powerful cannon in a modestly-sized turret
 
Last edited:
Panzer Kampfwagen VI (Tiger)
Tiger-1-in-Tunisia-595x381.jpg



Panzer Kampfwagen III
Panzer-IV-in-Tunisia-595x396.jpg



Towed 88mm Flak Gun
88mm-and-half-track-595x394.jpg
 
Last edited:
A knocked-out German PzKpfw III tank, with the body of one of its crew lying on the hull, February 1943.
knocked-out-Pz-III-595x589.jpg



Captured German SdKfz 7 artillery tractor in the Western desert, 22 February 1943.
German-half-track-595x590.jpg
 
A photograph showing the southwest end of the train station along with motorcycles, halftrack, Kubelwagen, and a captured U.S. halftack in German service. In the background are the sheds and boxcar visible in other photographs.
Sidi-Nsir-German-troops-595x396.jpg



Another view of the British wounded and German soldiers at the northeast end of the station. A Kubelwagen ambulance has arrived and one stretcher has been loaded. The name of the station, Sidi Nsir, is visible on the station sign.
Sidi-Nsir-station.jpg



A PzKpfw. III Ausf. N belonging to sPzAbt. 501 parked at the southwest end of the Sidi Nsir station.
Sidi-Nsir-panzer-595x394.jpg



A German halftrack tows an antitank gun through a gap in the British wire. The halftrack has just passed through the intersection and is moving toward the Sidi Nsir station. The road to the left goes to Tebourba while the road to Beja is barely visible in the background behind the halftrack.
Sidi-Nsir-halftrack-595x395.jpg



German light flak setup in the road intersection. On the left, behind the 20-mm flak, is the road to Tebourba. The road and railroad to Beja is visible in the background with traffic moving in both directions.
Sidi-Nsir-light-flak-595x412.jpg
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back